Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 11

message: When the U.S. Constitution was first created they voted to approve a long detailed version with lots of nuances and caveats. Then a small group was appointed to go through and 'clean it up' a bit. Their mandate was to not change any of the meanings, but to shorten it. However, without all the details and nuances and caveats people inevitably take different interpretations of the text than they would if all that further explanation were still in there. Which is why, officially, the original text still holds and people still go back and quote it as the actual intent of the Constitution (e.g. the standards for impeachment of the President are given as "high crimes and misdemeanors", but in the original it was, "high crimes and misdemeanors against the state").
Given all of the above consternation about variations in wording from the 'merge' I'd suggest we do something similar here. The intent of this page was to merge the content of the 'Verifiability' and 'No original research' policies without changing their meaning at all. Thus, I'd suggest that we lock down those two policies and let this one go live with the understanding that 'interpretations' of the text need to square with the original policies that this one was intended to NOT change. Going forward there may be consensus to amend / alter this policy in ways that contradict the older two, but at present it should not be taken to mean anything different than the two policies it was derived from. They are still the 'original and officially approved text' which was established by community consensus. This page is then the 'working copy' which is intended to provide the same meaning as those more detailed texts in a 'cleaned up' and unified form. Make sense? --CBD 16:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that makes a lot of sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That would make any changes to this policy difficult, as they would have to be phrased as, well, amendments.  This is exactly the kind of problem that the proposal to merge was intended to solve.  So, no, I don't think keeping the old versions as an aid for interpretation helps.  JulesH 16:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes to the policy would require consensus... just as they always do. Barring a consensus to change the intent/meaning of the old policies they would still be held to apply. It needn't be done as amendments. I'm just suggesting that rather than wrestling over whether the phrasing of this page projects exactly the same nuances as the two originals (it doesn't and never could) we accept it as 'good enough' with the understanding that those nuances are all still in effect and citable from the old policies until/unless there is an actual consensus to change them. --CBD 18:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Policy should always be changeable based on sufficient consensus.  You could keep WP:Verify and WP:NOR as guidelines subordinate to WP:ATT, assuming WP:ATT does in fact replace them, and later demote them to historical when they get out-of-date.  This would probably make the transition more smooth than simply redirecting them in a week.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like that approach.  Rossami (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with any retention of the old policies (as Guidelines or anything), because to my mind it would defeat the point of ATT. V + NOR = ATT is a reduction of two pages to one. Good. Keeping the two former as supplements only means increasing "link-creep"--I have to go here, then here, then here, to understand. At present our policies are stable but still not as easy as they could be. One does have to click on links too much: from V to RS back to V and V over to NOR and back to V, etc. WP:ATT, IMO, was to solve this, and this merge (while certainly not solving it completely) was the first step. Marskell 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion on precedence 

message: Hello, on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Self-published_sources:_Can_we_simplify_this.3F, I suggested changing the criteria for inclusion of self-published sources to something simpler, and, in my opinion, more to the point.  Anyways, since WP:V and WP:ATT discuss this and say what WP:RS currently says on the subject, and policy overrides guideline, your input on this would be wecome.  Thanks!
—  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 18:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to change criteria for inclusion of self-published sources on [[WP:RS]] 

message: The WP:RS guideline is a seperate issue and no comments about it make any difference as to the acceptance of the wording of ATT replacing the wording of V and NOR with the understanding that it is only wording being changed and not actual policy or implementations of policy being changed. In short arguments about RS are not arguments about ATT. WAS 4.250 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Invoking an understanding does not affect that changing the wording does change the policy for anyone who hasn't read it before. -Amarkov moo! 05:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. If they have not read it before it can not be a change from what they read before. You are simply trying to be clever and failing at it. WAS 4.250 07:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RS guideline

message: This is readable, concise, well-organized, and easy to understand.  Kudos to everyone that was involved.  Now let's see if we can keep this from becoming a complete mess within a few months... --Spangineerws (háblame) 05:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great work 

message: For every stereotype it is not hard to find a source attesting to it.
It is often not easy to find a source refuting it.01001 04:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do remember the sources have to be reliable. We're not just talking something someone posts on h(is|er) blog, we're talking fact-checked, editorially-controlled publications or scholarly peer-reviewed journals. And we certainly can use statistical information. So if a sociologist does careful research and publishes a peer-reviewed paper stating that a given stereotype really is correct 73% of the time, we use that. On the other hand, if they find it's totally bogus, we use that. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it does. The reliability of sources will to some extent counteract that; but if we were doing Wikipedia in 1911, we'd wind up with the 1911 Britannica, more or less. But the solution is not to make Wikipedia a crystal ball, to forecast the science of the blessed, bias-free future; it's to go out and write the reliable sources that debunk stereotypes.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Policy Reinforces Stereotypes 

message: It appears that there is no agreement among contributors as to the precise definition of "original research", nor on the propriety of including "demonstrably false, but attributable" information.  I suspect that the present disagreements are likely to continue, unless some steps are taken to clarify the situation.
Accordingly, I would move the following motions:
*That Wikipedia's Attribution Policy be amended to include an explicit statement as to the situations (if any) where demonstrably false information can be deemed worthy of inclusion on an article page.
*That Wikipedia's Attribution Policy be amended to include an explicit statement as to whether or not an editor may engage in independent fact-checking, with the intent of removing or challenging a dubious or suspect statement.
I fear that the current wording (which permits the inclusion of false information, but does not openly acknowledge this fact) will result in the worst of all possible situations, and allow unscrupulous editors to convey and disseminate false information under the auspices of a poorly-explained technical provision.
If our encyclopedia allows the inclusion of demonstrably false statements, we should at least be honest enough to acknowledge this fact in a clear and open manner.  CJCurrie 23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the point about true vs. attributable is easily confused. The point is that it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. But the way it is presented, it makes it sound that it's OK to make a case you know to be false. I have been thinking that we need to say the it's OK to do OR, it's just not OK to include it in articles. So you can do OR on the reliability of sources, and you can talk about it on the talk page, but you can't say a source is unreliable in an article based on your research. You can say that source A says that source B is unreliable, and present verifiable evidence from source A if you found that in your research, as long as you are not making your own synthesis, and just using the reliable source. Dhaluza 01:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My own take is that there is no 'true' or 'false' statements at WP. We have attributable or non-attributable statements -- the attributable ones stay, while the others go. The concept that Wikipedians are somehow empowered or expected to determine the ultimate truth is plain wrong, and contradictory to our mission here. Crum375 02:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how do we justify excluding fringe theories and extreme minority viewpoints, if not for an underlying assumption that those viewpoints are less reliable or credible? DCB4W 02:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And my position is that this is a reductio ad absurdum view of attributability.  We may not be empowered to determine "ultimate truth", but this doesn't mean we can't remove demonstrably false statements.  CJCurrie 02:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Determining the truth would be OR, and not allowable. But there should be some responsibility for vetting the sources presented. It's not enough that a source meets WP:RS guidelines, an editor needs to present them in good faith. I think we should make it clear that an editor is vouching for the sources they use. Dhaluza 02:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If 'demonstrably false' means that our attributable sources are in conflict, then I agree. For example imagine a case where source A says that source B says C, and we can plainly see that B says D, where D clearly differs from C. In such clear cut cases, where the reader may simply be confused if we ignore the discrepancy, and where we have no third party source describing it, we may do it in a very neutral manner, with minimal verbiage, IMO. For example we could say: "A says that B says C,[1] but B appears to say D.[2]". Even in this case we don't say that A is wrong, only that the sources appear to be in conflict. Crum375 02:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternately, we could just remove the reference entirely.  CJCurrie 02:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly RS can be wrong--newspapers print corrections all the time. The original incorrect material is attributable, but demonstrably false. Material can also be out of date, or based on incomplete information available at the time that has since been expanded. Dhaluza 02:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think so. In that case we won't be acting as faithful summarizers of attributable statements, but as censors of what we consider to be conflicting statements. Obviously if sources are weak  in the first place and they conflict this way, it would be one more reason not to include them, but once the published sources are deemed otherwise reliable and verifiable, then I believe we have a duty to report the facts, and deal with any discrepancies that may arise. Crum375 02:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I continue to disagree.  We're not obligated to publish any information that we know to be false.  CJCurrie 02:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do disagree. I don't think there is such a concept as 'false' here. There are good and bad sources, and we report the good ones. If several good ones are in conflict, we need to deal with it. Ignoring the issue by censoring good sources is no solution, and is contrary to our mission. Crum375 02:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So how do you determine what's a good or bad source, if not by critically evaluating it? We needn't establish that the material in the articles is all true, but shouldn't it be at least plausible, or the viewpoint of a significant and respected group? Doesn't "purveyor of plainly incorrect information" fall somewhere in the core of any definition of "bad source?" DCB4W 23:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, I don't think we have a concept of 'false' information. See my comment above. Crum375 02:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, again, that this has reached the point of reductio ad absurdum.  CJCurrie 03:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. Your concept of an encyclopedia is different from ours. An encyclopedia is not the Book of Truth - it is simply a summary of reliably published information. Thus even 'demonstrably false' information, to use your words, would be included. By publishing it in WP we are not making it 'true' - we only recognize that is was published by a reliable source, without rendering our own opinion about it. I don't see any absurdity in that. Crum375 03:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It becomes absurd when false information is presented as an unqualified statement of fact.  (And I've seen this happen.)  CJCurrie 03:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it does sound like you have a different concept of encyclopedia than I do. An encyclopedia is a general reference work, and like all reference works is practically useless if its information is incorrect. I really don't see WP or any other encyclopedia as a literature summary. Our content policies are the way they are as a means, rather than as an end; we focus on source-based research because, by and large, it's one of the best ways (and sometimes the best way) to present full and fair coverage of the subject, not because we think literature reviews are fun. DCB4W 01:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Mackan's summary seems to make a fair bit of sense. That said, there is at least one circumstance where we can definitely do this- cases where a source later issued a correction. If a newspaer says something  today, and corrects it tommorow, that's an easy call. JoshuaZ 23:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A comment and a suggestion

message: To answer the question Can information be both verifiable and demonstrably false?, it doesn't matter, per Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. None of the views should be ... asserted as being the truth.  Since falseness is a value of truth, its value is of no meaning to Wikipedia editors.  Hope that clears the issue up.  Cheers, 84.92.54.229 16:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You left out the part of the sentence that commands that all significant points of view are to be presented and nothing given undue weight. So when demonstrably false information represents a significant point of view, you're right. When it's plain error and/or nobody else in the literature takes it seriously, it's insignificant and can be deleted. You're right, we cleared up the issue. Cheers. DCB4W 23:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Drinks all round then. Hiding Talk  23:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundancy with NPOV

message: I gather that WP:ATT is now considered Policy... a merging of WP:V and WP:NOR.  I have no problem with this, but I do have a concern with how this is being done.  At the moment all three Policies are up and running... and this is going to lead to confusion and argument.  The three policies do not completely agree with each other (or to put it more exactly, they agree with each other in surface substance, but they differ in greatly in tone and emphysis).  This is especially noticable in the area of reliability of sources(especially Self-published sources - a frequent area of controversy) are dealt with.  Look at them side by side: WP:V#Sources, WP:NOR#Sources, WP:ATT#Reliable_sources.  
As a frequent contributer at WP:RS... a guideline that is supposed to help explain this particular aspect of Policy... I am seeing this conflict of tone writ large.  Many of the questions we are asked involve parsing Policy statements and intent.  Those of us at WP:RS agree that we need to conform what is said there to what is stated in Policy, but right now there is confusion as to which policy we should conform to.
I would therefore request that, if WP:ATT is indeed confirmed as Policy, we redirect WP:V and WP:NOR to this page.  If not, please move WP:ATT back to "proposed" status until the community can reach consensus.  I don't care which, but we need clarity and not confusion.  I have posted this request at the Village Pump Policy Page as well.  Thank you. Blueboar 15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with rediring WP:V and WP:NOR here. The previous pages should probably be moved to subpages of this page, for historical interest reasons (and linked at the top fo this talk page). At the moment someone coming across an old link to WP:V or WP:NOR is going to be confused when they see the  tag and think 'maybe that's not policy, then'; and when people use the redirects they're likely to be referring to the policies, rather than the pages that they're on. --ais523 18:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eventually, that's a good idea.  I'd avoid any page moves for the time being, until it's firmly settled that WP:ATT is the official documentation of our policy.  --EngineerScotty 18:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if we don't move them, then after rediring they'll be buried in the history behind the redirects. One possibility would be to use the same approach as on WP:SIGN and create a disambiguated redirect using transclusion. --ais523 18:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eventually, they should be moved.  I wouldn't replace them with a redir without a move; I'm saying leave them as is for now.  Perhaps, have the shortcuts WP:NOR and WP:V point to this policy--an easy change to make and revert.  OTOH, there are lots of places in Wikipedia-space that refer to them by their full names and not their shortcuts--I wouldn't go through and redirect all of those until it's firmly settled that this policy is now official.  (A job for a bot, BTW).  It's been nearly an hour, and I haven't seen any objections to my trial balloon.  --EngineerScotty 18:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which trial balloon? And 24 hours is minimal to make any argument from silence; we're not all in the same time zone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagging WP:NOR and WP:V as historical.  They currently have big red X's on the top of them.  Certainly, you're right that 24 hours--preferably the weekend because it's Friday where I sit and Saturday now in much of the world--is required before any massive changes (like page moves or fixing up refs to the old policies to point to the new).  I was offering the advice above that further action to "disconnect" V and NOR is premature at this point. --EngineerScotty 20:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If this is now Policy... 

message: We are discussing the case of a book that has been published by, Mighty River Press, a company that has only published one book. Can this be considered a reliable source for a biography of a living person?. The book is "Voice for Peace" by Andrea Cagan used for the article Prem Rawat. See Talk:Prem_Rawat#Attribution. Andries 20:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An RFC has been filed on this matter. See Talk:Prem_Rawat#RFC_Summary. Note that the book is called "Peace is Possible: The life and message of Prem Rawat" (not "Voice for Peace"), and s available at Amazon.com: ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Book published by a company that has published only one book

message: Reading through policy I'm very confused now: we have to attribute all information that we include in Wikipedia per WP:A.. but if adding that information "improves" Wikipedia, we apparantly don't have to, due to WP:IAR.  What constitutes an improvement here?  The document WP:A itself suggests that it exists in order to verify that information is correct, and the importance of this implies that Wikipedia would be "improved" if it held more correct information; this is supported by the discussion above - that objectively false information incidentally published by a reliable source should not be retained.  But if this principle is applied it means that an objectively true fact that is not published could be included in any article, since increasing the amount of truth on WP is an improvement and thus WP:IAR trumps all else - but directly contradicts the opening paragraph of WP:A.  How is this resolved? Hyphz 04:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Improving"? 

message: While I think this example about the dangers of primary source use is a good one, I wonder if it does not assume some knowledge of the Christian Bible and would be more difficult for those of other cultures and religions to grasp: 
"The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted."
I think it would be good to think of a more culture-neutral example.  I will put my thinking cap on, but maybe someone else has a good idea more quickly!! --Slp1 14:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the English language wikipedia and there is no more famous book in the English language. Further among those we need to understand this the most (those who need an example), the bible is far and away the most universal cultural literary item. There is no more universal literary example source than the bible if your audience is english speaking. Further, the example is graphic and sticks with you - easily memorable. WAS 4.250 15:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If your audience is those who speak English as their first language, I would agree with WAS, but not if your audience includes those who speak English as a second language. --Gerry Ashton 18:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even for those of us who speak English as a first language, not everyone is going to understand the reference (I certainly didn't when I first read it... I had to go and look up the Bible passages to understand what it was talking about).  To me, an example should be something that anyone can understand regardless of their knowledge or background, and without having to research the reference. Blueboar 18:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One could add links to the verses, like "The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew , Mark ) for his followers". But is the actual verse even that important? Assume it said "Thou shalt literally pluck out thine eyes, this is my unambiguous and irrevocable decree unto thee." Would it make any difference in terms of how I'm allowed to use it? --Merzul 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't see how it would matter what the actual verse said; the meaning is fairly clear just by reading the sentence in the policy page. You could replace it with nonsense names and a non-existent book and it would probably still make sense. Also, I don't see what more universal example you could find that still uses a source like a book. You could find something in Shakespeare, but even then the example might not work because Shakespeare's plays do not pretend to be anything other than fictional works. —Centrx→talk • 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think linking the verses to Wikisource is probably the best way to handle this. Jayjg (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus and the eye   

message: As I contemplate the impending debate over whether to get rid of WP:RS (replacing it with a combination of this policy and it's FAQ), I find I am of mixed opinions.  I think that there is a need for a guideline that specifically discusses the issues of reliability and sourcing... but I also understand the potential for conflict and confusion that having such a guideline could pose.  As it stands now WP:RS has achieved a pseudo-policy status... it calls itself a guideline but many people treat it as if it were policy. I think that accounts for some of the resistance to the idea of replacing it.  But I also think this is one of the prime reasons for replacing it... we should not have two authoritive statements on the same topic.
I have also been thinking about the most common question that has been asked at the talk page of WP:RS over the years ... that question is "Can I use citation x in an article about y?"... ninety percent of the time, the answer is "Yes, depending on how you use it.  It can be used as a citation for the opinion of the author, but not as a citation of fact."  In other words, the underlying issue for the question is actually HOW to use the source, not IF the source can be used. Often questions such as this really involve issues of NPOV rather than ATT (or V and NOR as it was then).  I see a need for continued advice for these kinds of questions... and hence a need for some sort of guideline on choosing and using sources.
The trick, as I see it, is to provide a guidance page that will not involve the potential for conflict.  Thus, I come to the realization that we actually should get rid of WP:RS... and create WP:S (Wikiepdia:Sourcing ... as a working title).  Leave the core issues and definitions of reliability to ATT, and instead create a significantly broader, but less authoritive guideline that offers true guidance about all the different aspects of sourcing statements: the different ways one can use a source; the different ways to source a statement; what kinds of sources should be used to cite which kinds of statements; when and how one can use POV sources; etc.  As I see it, such a guideline would have repeat what is stated in Policy to some extent, but it would do so from a "guidance" standpoint and avoid language that hints at "rule making" ... it would refer the editor back to Policy frequently.  In some ways it would help explain the intent of the policy pages, and avoid contraditing them.
I suppose such a page could be included as a FAQ attached to a policy page ... but since my concept would also tie in NPOV, FRINGE, and some other policies and guidelines, I do see it working better at a guideline level.  I would have to draw up an essay to really demonstrate what I am talking about... but I wanted to discuss it here a bit, and find out if others think this is even a possible suggestion.  Comments? Blueboar 20:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems good to me.  A guideline along the lines of "assessing sources" or something like that.  Phrasing that made it very clear it's subsidiary to this policy.  I think the major problem with RS was that it wasn't always clear that it was subsidiary to V; it's title was a phrase that was used in WP:V, which kind-of led to the conclusion that when WP:V mentioned a reliable source, it must mean something that is acceptable according to what was described at reliable source.  Break this problem, stop it from attempting to repeat the definition of reliable sources, and we'll have a much stronger, more useful guideline at the end of it, I think. JulesH 18:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An attempt at reworking WP:RS along these lines was made several months ago. Sadly, it was not successful. Beit Or 18:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking WP:RS in a new direction? 

message: The subheadings (nutshells) of PS and SS are quite useful. I see no reason for their deletion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources section 

message: One needs to define what a primary source is before stating how to use it. Further it is not an edit but the content of the page that the policy applies to (at least that is what the nutshell says at the top "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source"). --Philip Baird Shearer 21:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Philip. The idea is that we have a short sentence preceding the longer explanation. And the issue at hand is about an edit and by extension, to "content." Each edit needs to be attributed, if challenged. Also note that you have already reverted twice, and as an experienced editor, you should know better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The section below also has it, Philip, so you're making things lopsided. We start with the key thing, "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge," which is the point of the section, and then we move into the longer explanation. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Philipp. As an experienced editor, you should know that it is always better to revert once, and then discuss to find common ground with fellow editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Philip, any material that's challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, not only whole sentences. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with Philip's line of reasoning about edits having proper attribution; if a fact in an article is properly attributed, and an edit neither introduces a new fact nor disturbs the existing attribution, then the new edit is properly attributed too. However, I have noticed that new edits tend to be held to a higher standard than material already in the article. I suppose this is just a matter of practicality; it's easier to see if a new edit is properly attributed than to rewrite a poorly sourced article. I don't know that we should try to address this situation in the policy. --Gerry Ashton 19:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary source

message: The word source has three meanings... it can mean the person that said or wrote something.  It can mean what that person said or wrote. And it can mean where the material is found (the book, journal, webpage etc.)  We can call them the WHO, WHAT and WHERE of source material. All three of these meanings have both interrelated and distinct aspects when it comes to reliability.  Should we clarify this more?  Blueboar 23:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That could be very useful information at WP:ATT/FAQ, Blueboar. The idea is to keep this policy page short, concise, and easy to grasp, and have all the examples, details, explanations, etc. at the FAQ ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good. — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, we would have as much information as possible about the source: who said what where and when in what context and what other sources verify this as a good source and why those sources are to be believed and furthermore why the reader should trust what wikipedia claims about these sources anyway and while we're at it a few telephone numbers of experts who will verify the whole thing. But we'll take what we can motivate from our friendly helpful contributors. WAS 4.250 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WAS's comment reminds me of a difference between Wikipedia and the kinds of papers that style manuals and university professors focus on, which I'll call academic papers for short. The authors of academic papers are usually experts, or at least aspiring experts, and will ordinarily be read by other experts. Vandals and disingenuous POV-pushers are not a problem to the degree they are on Wikipedia. So no formal system has been established to indicate in a paper how the reliability of the source was evaluated. If wikis become even more important in the future, perhaps a formal method of indicating how sources were evaluated will evolve. --Gerry Ashton 19:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question on what we mean by Source? 

message: I suggest to include in the Attribution policy the following: "A reliable source must have a clearly identifiable author (a person or an organization) and date of production". I personally had a lot of trouble with sources that are not even dated and whose authorship is questionable (in the context of violation of WP:BLP rules, court proceedings, etc.). It is the best simply do not use that kind of "sources". So, what do you think? Biophys 16:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A problem I see with that is that if a reliable publisher publishes a document, for example a collection of papers, we need not care about who originally wrote each paper and when. I agree that it would be most useful to have more information, but I am not sure that we would automatically reject that entire document (assuming it has a publication date of the entire collection). Also, in a related vein, I am aware of many historical documents that have no date nor known author, but have been extensively republished. I would argue that they are acceptable as primary sources, presumably then analyzed by secondary sources. Crum375 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am talking about is an Internet site so obscure that authors ("revolutionaries") did not even bother to indicate the date of their "publication". This is basically a propaganda site (some say "hate site"); so I objected a direct citation of their nonsense in Wikipedia. Do you have any suggestions for such case? Biophys 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the section on questionable sources at Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources, as well as WP:ATT/FAQ#Reliability_of_specific_sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Then the existing rules probably cover my case. This is clearly a "questionable source" that can be used in articles about those sources as long as it is not contentious (but it is); it does not involve claims about third parties (but it does), and there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it (there are doubts). Biophys 16:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I certainly agree with you about the sources you are talking about. Biophys 20:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So would a campus newspaper with an identified independent editorial board and stories by identified reporters be considered a reliable source as much as a newspaper in a town of a comparable size, with respect to coverage of things on the campus compared to coverage of things in the town? Edison 21:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minimal requirements for reliable sources

message: I'm curious as they are often heavily cited back by a variety of broadcast, paper and digital media on various topics and stories. Based on that I'm inclined to say yes. It's a notable online news source these days. Can someone clarify for me? thanks. I was refered here from WP:RS - Denny 18:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would highly doubt it.  Most of their stories seem amalgamated from other news sources, which have variable reliability in themselves.  Their standards seem to be more "what we think" and "what's interesting" than reliability.  --notJackhorkheimer  (talk / contribs)  19:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: While I have cited Boing Boing as a source before, I'd say the situations in which it would be appropriate are fairly limited.  The cite in question was on blog history, a field in which I consider Doctorow could reasonably be considered an expert, and in which anything approximating a reliable source is often difficult to come by.  It's worth noting that I was, at the time, relying on the "blog published by a well-known journalist" exception, which has now been removed. JulesH 17:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is [http://www.boingboing.net Boing Boing.net] RS as a secondary source? 

message: "Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist"
Changed to:
"Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged by relevant authorities as fringe or extremist" (thought of changing "authorities" to "experts" but "authorities" seems to fit better)
I just thought this clarification was necessary to prevent "mob rule" standards from creeping in.  Tell me if you disagree with this re-wording.  --notJackhorkheimer  (talk / contribs)  19:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Authorities" could easily be interpreted to mean "government authorities". I don't know about you, but I believe in limited government. I believe government authorities should not make official judgements about whether a publication is "fringe or extremist" unless doing so is strictly necessary in order for the authorities to carry out their official duties. So, if the authorities behave as I would want them to, there will be many fringe and extremist publications that are not commented upon by authorities. --Gerry Ashton 20:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the wording was "relevant authorities", worded such to try to exclude the connotation of simple bureaucrats; but maybe "relevant experts" or "authorities in their field", meaning someone with authoritative knowledge or credentials, would be better.  --notJackhorkheimer  (talk / contribs)  21:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If someone wants to be a dick, he/she will either argue about what is widely acknowleged, or about who is an expert, which ever will advance a favorite point of view. --Gerry Ashton 03:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording tweak 

message: Not too surprised that the change was reverted, so I guess I'll try to get consensus before changing it again.  I guess I see how using the word "authorities" may be problematic.  But I do think a change to "Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged by relevant experts as fringe or extremist" is necessary, and here's why:
I would hope that the statement would be interpreted by the average Wikipedian similar to as the rewording suggests.  However, leaving out that caveat can lead to misapplication of the line.
If something is simply "widely thought as fringe or extremist", that may be interpreted to mean "according to the standards of the general public".  However there are some cases where the general opinion of relevant experts as to what's fringe may clash with the ideas of the public.
For example, many ideas found in, for example, quantum mechanics would be thought of as "fringe" by the general public.  However, experts in quantum mechanics would support them wholeheartedly as being shown by science.
I hope this shows why I think the change is necessary.  Comments?  Any reason why this should be left as-is?  --notJackhorkheimer  (talk / contribs)  03:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone wants to be a dick, he/she will either argue about what is widely acknowleged, or about who is an expert, which ever will advance a favorite point of view. --Gerry Ashton 03:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted...

message: I have a problem with the wording "promotional in nature" being juxtaposed with "extremist or fringe".  These two in my opinion, are quite distinct.  Here is extremist "Jesus was Chinese", here is promotional "Jesus died for your sins".  One is wacko, the other is mainstream although POV.  We shouldn't be putting these together in one paragraph as if they need follow the same guidance.  I'm not quite clear on what was intended but I'm sure that "Bunnies should never be harmed" (*promoting* safe handling of bunnies) is tantamount to "bunnies are reptiles in disguise" (extremist view of bunnies). I'd like to hear some thoughts on how we could *clarify* the language on the page. Wjhonson 19:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sense meant was "commercial promotion" instead of advocating a specific viewpoint--even experts are likely to be "promotional" if you're thinking of it in terms of "promoting a specific view".  --notJackhorkheimer  (talk / contribs)  19:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anyone object to me changing "promotional in nature" to "for the primary purpose of commercial promotion"? I think that would satisfy my ear. Wjhonson 20:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it.  If someone has a specific objection, could you please discuss it here and propose another language that makes the intent clear.  Thanks. Wjhonson 21:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Promotional in Nature"

message: To what extent are "see also" sections covered by this policy? When I add them to articles I've written, I certainly don't work from any sort of source - I just add links to pages whose topics aren't discussed in the article which I think are related or complimentary - and I find it unlikely anyone else does, either. If this is original research, upward of ninety percent of our see also sections have OR in them. So are they, along with images, considered exceptions to some degree? Picaroon 21:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "See also" section is for references to other Wikipedia articles. I don't see how using "See also" to provide references to other Wikipedia articles is original research. --Gerry Ashton 21:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sere also sections are wonderful devices to link to relevant articles that are not necessarily been linked to in the article text. Just be aware of some subterfuges used by POV warriors, such as adding links to articles to assert a negative viewpoint. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If adding a link to a "see also" section constitutes advancing an argument of some kind, it may be OR.  In most cases, it isn't, and doesn't need a source.  No fact, argument, or anything else that requires attribution is provided by such a link.  The same would apply to external links, further reading sections, and so on. JulesH 09:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also sections 

message: The article Zombietime is at least 1/2 non-sourced and self-sourced OR. It's largely written by someone who is such a devotee of Zombietime that he picked Zombiefan as his username. I listed it on RfC/Politics but all it got was a tag. I dare not edit there lest I get falsely charged (again) with 'Wikistalking' a specific editor active on that page. This article is in serious need of attention, and I'm betting that one or more of you guys or gals will be up to the task! Thanks - FaAfA 08:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more specific with your concerns?  A quick glance through it hasn't shown me any major problems other than stylistic, although I'll admit to not having read the sources (with 45 of them, it would take a while -- I suppose I could concentrate on the 18 either self-published or primary sources I spot in that list, but even that would take some time).  The issue doesn't seem to have been discussed on the articles talk, either. JulesH 09:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of the 45 refs used to source the article, I see no more than 10 that aren't self-published or blogs. Text like "Zombie's meticulous investigation" and "Zombie's painstaking" are not NPOV either. At the moment, it's not an article, it's a self-sourced hagiography. - FaAfA 09:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I see the NPOV issues, certainly, and I've had a go at removing some of those.  I also mistook some of the third-party blogs cited for reliable sources, I see on closer examination. JulesH 10:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can one of you ATT RS V NOR NPOV  gurus lend a hand?

message: Does either of these two guidelines contain any content not also present here? If so, why? Their purpose appears to be redundant with ATT. >Radiant< 12:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CITE is mostly about how one should cite sources. It builds upon this policy, which only requires to cite sources, but doesn't say how to do that. WP:RS is indeed mostly redundant, at least in its current state. Beit Or 13:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, are there any objections to redirecting RS here in the way that was done for V and NOR? >Radiant< 14:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I wish we could do that, Radiant. Problem is that there are editors that are very attached to RS.... The idea we have discussed is to redirect RS to the WP:ATT/FAQ, once we have the FAQ in a state that could be upgraded to guideline status. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of those editors who has been very attached to RS... I agree with what Jossi says.  Given that much of RS has now been incorporated into this page, it is (now) a bit redundant, and those aspects that are not could easily be worked into the guideline that would grow out of the FAQ.  I have ideas on the style and direction that such a guideline would take (see some of my rantings above), and I am sure that others have ideas as well (see, for example, Jossi's excellent idea for discussing what is reliable and how to assess such sources - below).  In other words, I agree that RS should eventually be redirected... but I would strongly advise that this process be done slowly, with LOTS of notice to the general community, etc.  RS is a favorite of many editors... as such there will be resistance to merging it.  That resistance should deminish once people get used to this policy page... but it will not happen overnight. Blueboar 20:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Notice posted on RS talk and on the village pump. I'll give it some time, of course. >Radiant< 08:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:CITE]] 

message: Can anyone tell me if this site is reliable? Its self-published, but at the same time the writer appears notable . Any information on whether or not its been discussed as a source would be appreciated, or if anyone has seen this site used as a source here would be great too.--Crossmr 18:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First appearances suggest so.  An editor, independent of the authors of the articles, is credited, so whether it really is self-published is an interesting question.  It certainly tends to indicate higher reliability than an average web site. JulesH 19:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I saw a site that obtains its data from other sites in fairly indiscriminate way. I saw nothing indicating it is useful as a source for anything other than noncontraversial data about itself. WAS 4.250 20:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Where's it being suggested as a source? What information is sourced, and in what article? I mean, this isn't a reliable source on the sex life of Queen Elizabeth II, if that's what you are asking, but if you are asking something else, I couldn't possibly comment until I know what that something is. Hiding Talk  21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this site reliable? 

message: We need some wording either here or at ATT/FAQ to describe not only about what are not reliable sources, but about some guidelines on how to assess sources in the context of specifics aspects of an article. In a recent discussion at articles related to the historical Muhammad (see for example Battle_of_Khaybar) as well as other articles, I can see that there is still substantial confusion about sources. Some editors are speaking of using "scholarly sources" only, others say "Publisher X isn't considered an academic publisher" and attempt to dismiss a source for that reason, while others say "Publisher Y is too young to be considered a reliable publisher" while dismissing the fact that the author of the book in question is a well-known best-seller author, etc. Any ideas on how we can address and clarify these issues? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The value of  different sources is of course relative.  For many topics, such as the article you mentioned, there are many scholarly sources, including many from the highest quality publishers, and it is reasonable that they be given special weight.  Another relevant question there might be whether to emphasize the authority of Western academic sources or traditional Arabic scholarship.  I'm not sure whether or not there's a uniform ranking.  DGG 19:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We should link to reliable published sources on the subject of "Assessing sources". Whole books have been written on the subject. Any claims made about the validity of using a specific source to provide credibility for a specific claim are claims made about the real world and are not just claims about Wikipedia policy/guidelines. WAS 4.250 20:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Rule of thumb I have been toying with is "has someone else cited the author, and the topic I'm citing them on is within the area they've been cited on before?"  We certainly need something, but it is all somewhat subjective.  Reliable sources should be reliable enough to substantiate what you source I guess, but I know of one editor who has claimed that using a source to describe a work's achievement or impact is an exceptional claim and so requires an exceptional source.  Wording this stuff is a nightmare.  Sometimes it confuses the hell out of me.  I'd be happy if we could just write articles in a balanced way, sourcing what we have written, and discuss any problems with the balancing or the sourcing on article talk pages. Wasn't their at one stage a recognition that the reader would also be able to judge the sources? Hiding Talk  21:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Hiding, addressing this is like opening the proverbial can of worms... Still, some basic guidelines on how to assess sources in context for what are these being used for, could be helpful at ATT/FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should perhaps guide towards discussing, forming a consensus and dispute resolution more than anything else. ;)  Um, how to assess a source in context.  I'd say you have to look at where the source is published.  Does that publication typically publish on the field.  Ask the same of the author.  Then check for weighting, is the source likely a fringe view or not.  Then check for relevancy.  Have a look on google scholar, maybe, and see if anyone else has cited the author or the publication, that'd be useful.  Things like that? I mean, pretty much you've got to listen to the source, haven't you.  Start from a position of mistrust and build up reasons for trusting. Always compare the source to the bloke in the pub/bar.  Is it more reliable than that, that sort of thing, although that one seems a little subjective.  Isn't it all subjective though?  I mean, sure, most of us who have been around a while sort of instinctively know.  I mean, you don't cite Gombrich on Space Exploration, but that doesn't mean Gombrich is unreliable period. Unless Gombrich happens to have declared "space exploration to be the furthest imagining of modernist art".  Which kind of proves the point. Hiding Talk  14:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessing sources 

message: Is reliable for saying a film is a may december romance film? - Peregrine Fisher 23:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better if you discuss this issue in the specific article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this reliable for determining if a film is a may december romance 

message: In the Exceptional Claims section, does "the relevant academic community" refer to the smaller group of those who specifically study a topic, or the field as a whole?  For example, when talking about Parapsychology, is the relevant academic community parapsychologists or scientists in general?  For a controversial topic to be presented as having general acceptance, does it have to have general acceptance in the mainstream (such as mainstream science) or just general acceptance among experts in that specific field?  Specific examples are things like "Parapsychologists say X causes Y" versus just "X causes Y".  Is it appropriate with controversial subjects to write an article so that it reflects primarily the scientific consensus  of experts in that field (and not science overall)?  Do sources for controversial claims need to be general sources, or are publications in journals of parapsychology sufficient?  And with controversial topics, is it POV to say "X describes himself as a psychic" or even "X is a self-described/proported/alleged psychic" as opposed to "X is a psychic" (assuming there's no hard evidence demonstrating the person actually has psychic powers)?  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a real slippery slope here, that we need to stop part way down.  We wouldn't care about the consensus of biologists for an article on particle physics.  We would want physicists.  But going too far down the slope would lead to someone arguing for a true fringe theory that the relevant academic community is those who believe in it wholeheartedly, because they (no matter how few) are the only ones that study it at all.  I have no great ideas on how to firmly park on the middle of the slope.  GRBerry 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The relevant academic community" for a claim, not for an article. If a parapsychologist makes a claim about the physical world such as "auras" and "energy", then the relevant academic community includes Ph.D. physicists who are experts at measuring physical phenomenon. If fraud is alledged, experts magicians who know the tricks of the trade are relevant. WAS 4.250 19:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I hadn't thought about that.  In the case of this particular article, some seem to be arguing that the field itself should just be declared "scientific" and use that as grounds for the article to present primarily the views of those declaring themselves specialists in the field.  Talk:Parapsychology#Scientific field.  It absolutely makes sense to treat individual claims separately.  The related issue is [[WP:Undue weight, and whether the overall article should be neutral (particularly in terms of level of acceptance) by the standards of parapsychogy or by science overall and the generall public.     --Milo H Minderbinder 19:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The Notability of some of these subjects depends  as much or more  upon the public attention to them as the scientific attention. There is then typically no problem about finding admiring articles in newspapers, but for a relatively new or obscure one, it can be very difficult to find any science publication that explains the nonsense from a scientific point of view. To do a NPOV article, we need both. This is one place where reliable science websites are useful--and even reliable blogs--for many of the websites are turning themselves into blogs, and some of the blogs are edited, rather than left open to the public. DGG 22:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification: "the relevant academic community" 

message: I've archived anything that has no discussion from Feb 21, 2007.  This page is just too active to keep all these old discussions.  Please remember that many browsers and older computers just cannot effectively edit pages over 100K. Thanks!! Wjhonson 21:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived again

message: Is there precedent from Arbcoms as examples of what these policies are?  I know there is a page listing Arbcom decisions, but I am not sure where. Travb (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples from arbcoms

message: The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted.
:Why is this here? SchmuckyTheCat 08:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an example of the misuse of a primary source. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why that? Is Christ's eye-gouging something the average editor relates to? There are ten-thousand less obscure things the Bible cannot be used as a primary source for (like it's creation story??!) than whatever this eye-removal thing is.  Why use a Christian Bible example at all? Why use a specific example at all, no other section does.   I'm asking because in reading this new policy, it sticks out like a sore thumb. SchmuckyTheCat 09:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ is a good place for examples. WAS 4.250 09:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Christian Bible isn't a reliable source for anything since even it's text and translations are disputed.  As an important historical document the claims in the Christian Bible are referencable for what it says, but not authoritive. That should be obvious to anyone. This very specific and very obscure theological dispute has no use in a primary Wikipedia policy document. SchmuckyTheCat 09:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And the Bible is a reliable (but primary) source for, say, Rehoboam; it's the only one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bible says Jesus advocates eye removal? what.

message: How has this policy superseded WP:V, and WP:NOR?? I saw some notes left at "Village pump (policy)," all pointing to this page, and I saw a single thread in Archive 11 without any sort of strong consensus. So...how has a merge and/or depreciation been legitimized???--Chaco55 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the actual policy content hasn't changed (they even retained the '... redirects here' messages when copy-pasting). There is no need for a vote discussion-that-definitely-isn't-a-vote-but-looks-a-lot-like-one when all that is being done is housekeeping such as merging two policy pages into one. Cynical 18:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superseded?? 

message: Sometimes.  A primary source means, "here is a fact never before seen."  "A car overturned on Highway 29 last night" this sort of reporting makes the newspaper primary if the reporter was an eye-witness.  If the reporter is reporting *from* a public source like a police blotter, than that blotter is primary and the report is secondary.  So yes newspapers can sometimes be primary.  Mostly I'd say they are secondary.  It's isn't "newspaper" that needs to be removed, but rather the language may need to be rephrased better if the intent is not clear. Wjhonson 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason we might use an account of a traffic accident as an example of a primary source is that many editors have encountered such reports; since different people giving such accounts may be biased, and since each witness only saw the accident from one angle, this example illustrates some of the reasons primary sources should be used with care. The problem with this example is that most such accounts are not published, except the ones that appear in newspapers. If we just say "accounts" without "newspaper", we give the impression that unpublished accounts may be used in Wikipedia, and a careless reader might not notice such use is prohibited elsewhere. If we say "newspaper account" we create confusion, because in many cases, although one passage in a newspaper story may be a primary source, the article as a whole is likely to be a secondary source because the reporter gathered information from several sources, selected the most credible accounts, and created a cohesive summary. Perhaps we should find a different example; something that is usually a primary source, and usually published. --Gerry Ashton 18:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspapers are primary 

message: After agreement from the editors on RS, WP:RS and Wikipedia:Reliable sources both redirect here now. This means that editors wanting to link to the reliable sources section of this policy can use RS/reliable sources instead of V, which I think many will prefer. Any useful advice from the old RS and its examples page can be added to ATT/FAQ. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:RS