Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 16

message: I've been investigating a POV conflict and I've seen some debate over the inclusion of material sourced to think tanks and media watchdogs. Usually these kinds of sources have a bias to the left or right. Examples: Media Matters (left-leaning watchdog), FAIR (left-leaning watchdog), AEI (right-leaning think tank), Brookings Institution (left-leaning think tank), John Stossel (right-leaning reporter, who frequently presents "watchdog-like" commentary).
Are these reliable sources? These entities seem to be somewhere in the middle ground between unreliable blogs and the mainstream media. We accept mainstream media as a source, we generally reject blogs, but these sources are neither - so what do we do about them? I scanned through the RS policy and I didn't find anything specific (though I may have missed it). Any thoughts? ATren 14:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that they can be used for verification purposes but should be used with other sources that would help establish the importance of what is being included.  I believe the problem comes when you, let's say, "soapbox the source."  In other words, we should not portray these inclusions as "the truth" or use them for POV pushing purposes.  MrMurph101 01:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen web sites such as these excluded on their face for being blogs by advocacy editors.  Since their content is presented in reverse time order, they fit the definition of a blog (gotcha!).  The policy could be improved by further qualifying what makes a web site with content presented in reverse time order reliable and what makes it not reliable. patsw 12:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Think tanks" and "Media watchdogs" 

message: I'd like to propose the following additions to the guideline:
*Modern sources are on average more reliable then old ones
*The older the source, the more likely it is to have problems with neutrality
*Sources written under non-democratic regimes often have a political agenda and are on average less reliable then sources written under democratic regimes
What do you think?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no guarantee that sources written under democratic regimes don't have a political agenda.  Plus, no country had a true democratic system before the XX century, when women got the vote.  So, I would change that to "sources written under regimes where the government controlled or censored most publications".  Other than that, it sounds like a reasonable, common sense proposal for a guideline. Balcer 18:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if in a country most of publications censored by private owners, the sources are more reliable? --Dojarca 00:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, although it couldn't hurt to stress that totalitarian regimes sources are very unreliable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally inappropriately sweeping statement. What matters most is the scholarly integrity of the source's author. Some highest quality academic work came out from the authors who worked in the USSR. At the same time, some total bullshit came out at the same time as well. We should judge the authors individually. We should judge the sources individually, not construct some universal excuse to disregard them. Finally, it matters a lot for such judgment whether the article merely references pure facts or passes judgments from the sources and different standards apply. Sourced facts have higher validity than sourced judgments. It does not mean that certain sources are not prone to factual errors (even the modern EB is) or to the falsification. But sweeping generalizations such as the ones by Piotrus are unhealthy and unhelpful. Good faith editing, reasonable judgment based on source's quality, avoidance of double standards like greater scrutiny to the info not to one's liking and a more persmissive attitude otherwise. These all are important keys to resolve such disputes rather than throwing buckets of black paint in the wide areas of sources. --Irpen 21:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Balcer comments below, nobody is proposing to ban all Soviet sources. But it is a fact that if we were to pick at random five academic works on history, published in modern USA, Soviet Union, imperial Britain and Nazi Germany, they would not be equally good - with USA being the most reliable, and Nazis - least (which does not mean that there are no poor modern USA academic work, or good ones created under Nazis - but those will be exception to the rule). Bottom line is that if one can chose to read a modern Western academic work, or 50-year old Soviet publication, one should not think they (on average) present equal reliability. The RS is based on generalizations and the above one is a reasonable one; that said I have long argued that we should have a more specific sections on reliability by time/period/author and publisher.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed additions to the guideline

message: Credibility. Reliable sources should acturately reflect what is being discussed.  When discussing the current state of affairs in a topic, the sources cited should reflect current accepted knowledge and views of the topic. When discussing historical views, the references should represent a modern understanding of the context and importance of those views. Some sources are obsolete in relation to modern information. The most recent sources may not be desirable, with some exceptions such as textbooks, as they have not yet allowed time for rebuttals and review. Some topics, such as discredited theories, have reduced coverage over time and editors should use the best available references. Generally, original sources provide the most accurate reference for what those documents state and may be useful for illustrating historical views, but analysis and interpretation of those sources should be rely on modern third-party references. (updated 22:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any comments? Vassyana 20:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Two comments... both relating to your first sentence.  The first is simple: The reliability of a source often depends on what you are talking about.  I agree that a source being used as a citation for a statement about current accepted knowledge and views should represent that knowledge and those views... but the way you phrase it, it makes it sound like this is the only kind of reliable source. But if you are discussing old views or the evolution of views, then a source that expresses what you are discussing is reliable. It depends on what you are talking about.  The second is the requirement that the source includes information and opinions about historical views... a source can be reliable (and even current) without discussing old views. Blueboar 21:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback. It was an error of poor phrasing on my part. I have revised the language accordingly. Does the revision clarify the point sufficiently? Vassyana 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps if you were to say: "Reliable sources should acturately reflect what is being discussed.  When discussing the current state of affairs in a topic, the sources cited should reflect current accepted knowledge and views of the topic." Blueboar 14:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestion has been incorporated. Vassyana 22:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment: This approach makes sense in articles on science and similar topics, in articles on religion, philosophy, and other topics there are significant potential WP:NPOV problems which the language needs to take into account. We've already had significant problems with anti-religious editors claiming that well-regarded religious sources are not reliable for information on their own religion on grounds that religious belief is not "modern" and religious believers are not reliable. We need to use language which does not add ammunition to POV claims. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't see how it's any less important in the humanities. It's quite important to provide an accurate presentation. For example, the works of Bauer only gained prominence in English-speaking academics during the 1970s. A very vigorous debate has lead to a rejection of his extreme position, but affirmation of his central claims, among the general body of academics. If we're going to discuss orthodoxy and heterodoxy in early Christianity, in a way that presents the claims as established fact and/or consensus opinion, we will generally have to cite sources from the 1980s and on to reflect the current state of scholarship. Philosophy has similar cases, such as any article representing the current state of the philosophy of emotion would necessarily have to refer to Ronald de Sousa. It doesn't matter if religious belief is modern, only that we represent the modern view unless we're specifically discussing historical views of that religion. Additionally, this policy says nothing about religious people not being reliable. If that were the case, quite a broad amount of scholarship would be unreliable, and that's just ridiculous. Vassyana 00:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised credibility

message: The following statement was recently added to this guideline:
*"A reliable source should be written purposefully to inform about the subject they are being cited for. When a reference is written specifically for the topic, the editorial focus (and therefore the "fact checking" and resulting "accuracy") is on that topic, helping to ensure the reliability of the information. Passing references, asides and similar statements should not be used."
I don't see much discussion here at the talk page to and certainly not a consensus to warrant such a major change in content inclusion.  I think this is dangerous. The rext was boldy added and now twice reverted.  --Kevin Murray 00:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal was raised multiple times and advertised on the village pump. People were generally either supportive of the "relevance" criteria, or expressed concern it was such common sense that it might be a bit creepy. One person raised a mild concern, but the kind of example they raised was perfectly within the bounds of the proposed language. So no, it was not boldly added, but rather added after more than one discussion and advertisement on the village pump, resulting in broad agreement with the principle and no direct opposition to it. No one raised actual opposition to the principle until Wikidemo unilaterally reverted the criteria when it was added. Why did you choose to revert it? How is it a dangerous principle? Vassyana 01:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This duplicates or continues a discussion above.  Citations to statements that are not the subject of the source article are reliable and absolutely can and should be used here.  It's an established and correct practice used in most of our articles.  I'm not unilateral on this.  The discussion on this talk page is perfunctory and clearly not consensus - I ignored it for a few days like I ignore a number of stray ideas in their gestation stages, hoping it would go away.  There is no mention here of a parallel discussion on Village Pump (where is it?) so that is not pertinent for a claim of consensus.  And it's just plain wrong.  You need more than that to overturn an accepted sourcing practice. I don't see a good reason yet for such a prohibition but if you want to talk about it, go ahead and talk.  Wikidemo 02:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I have a hard time swallowing that a practice that isn't permissable for most high school students is reliable sourcing. Also, you ignored it for well more than a few days. In fact, you ignored it, or just failed to take note, for two weeks, while it was raised twice on this page. There was no "parallel discussion" just advertisement of the discussion here. I've waded through a bunch of featured articles and I have yet to find one that relies on passing mentions for a citation. If it's a proper practice within reliable sources, surely at least some featured articles must use it. Can you find a few to show your point? Also, your assertion appears to deny the fact that standards (and consensus) can change. Additionally, if you could, I would like a few examples of important facts that cannot be cited except through passing mentions to support your claim that it would be ruinous to Wikipedia. The examples you used above were quite lacking in that regard. Vassyana 02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's it?  Okay, clearly not consensus.  The August 31 proposal died on the vine and when you reposted the same proposal on Sept. 8 it didn't get any more traction.  Consensus can change but as I said, consensus to invalidate a massive number of solid articles does not change quickly.  Instead of trying to argue process with me or telling me I don't know what a high school student should know, why don't you actually say why you think this is a good idea?  Issues like featured articles and "important" facts are beside the point.  These are sources and they're good.  I've already argued and demonstrated why it is not a good idea (see examples in "Removed from project page" section above) - there are literally, more than a million examples.  Point me to a random list of articles and I'm sure I could find plenty of others.  Wikidemo 03:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "silence is the ultimate measure of consensus". However, there wasn't silence, but rather a clear agreement that the principle is correct. If the exact language used is flawed, that's one thing. But you're arguing against a principle that more than couple of the commenting editors thought was so obvious that including it as criteria might be instruction creep. It's a good idea, because it's standard good citation practice (in the real world). It's a good idea, because passing mentions do not receive the editorial scrutiny the main focus of a reference receives. It's a good idea, because it's plain common sense. You haven't demonstrated anything. On the contrary, your examples were very poor. Featured articles are the accepted measure of good practice on Wikipedia, so they're far from beside the point. On the contrary, they're our measuring stick. I already pointed you to a list of articles ... featured articles. So please, find those "plenty" of examples. Vassyana 03:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: On a constructive note, would it be helpful or reassuring to you, if I filed for an RfC to solicit a broader audience and more comments? Vassyana 03:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find consensus for your proposal in this page you're being very creative indeed.  People who consider a controversial proposal too obvious to include are not endorsing it, and if they don't see why people are opposing it they're missing something.  My examples are sterling.  Nobody in their right mind would say I would need to remove that source from those articles.  It demonstrate that the proposal breaks down in the face of real sources in real articles.  Wikipedia does not ban everything that isn't fit for a featured article, that's not any kind of standard.  But a featured article too should use the best available source, not the one that happens to be on a given topic.  If you want to discuss further be my guest.  Indeed, if you're really proposing something as radical as excluding San Francisco Chroncile local news stories as sources about local people, yes, you would need a very thorough discussion to get anywhere with that.  Wikidemo 03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sterling? It's poor sourcing that's not acceptable in the real world. Regardless, we're just going back and forth here, and that's not productive. *ponders* Would you agree that "relevance" is indicative of the best kind of sourcing, if not as a defining quality of reliable sources? For example, instead of saying "A reliable source should be written purposefully to inform about the subject they are being cited for." stating "The most reliable sources are written purposefully to inform about the subject they are being cited for." And instead of saying "Passing references, asides and similar statements should not be used." stating "Passing references, asides and similar statements should not be used when more relevant sources are available." Do you think something along those lines would be more indicate of common accepted practice? Vassyana 03:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: On the question of assessing the reliability of an article, I would agree to something like: "Relevance.  Consider the relation between the source and the proposition for which it is cited.  Authors knowledgeable in the field, publications with editorial strength in the field, and sources that devote substantial attention to the subject of a citation make stronger sources.  An affirmative statement is a more reliable source than a passing reference, aside, example, quotation, hearsay, speculation, etc."  The secondary question of choosing the best source affects all criteria for reliability, not just relevance.  We could add a comment near the top that applies to all: When multiple sources are available to verify the same article content (and even more importantly, when sources conflict), choose the most reliable.  When two are equivalent choose the most accessible.  Add more reliable sources to existing articles for propositions, but only delete the less reliable source if it is no longer necessary to confirm the proposition or adds perspective. Wikidemo 06:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that sources need to be substantially on the topic in order to establish that the topic is notable. I also agree that sources substantially on topic are to be preferred. But outside of the notability context, I don't see why material that's otherwise reliable can't be used, and I wouldn't support a blanket prohibition. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since WP:NOT#PAPER, I really don't see much damage from having too many sources for an article, as long as all are reliable, and hence not much benefit from culling them. Such a policy could have negative consequences from a WP:NPOV point of view if editors use it to cull sources and POVs they disagree with. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that reliable sources sometimes make hasty generalizations or unreliable claims, and these sometimes get written into Wikipedia articles. Jacob Haller 21:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance 

message: this is in regards to the death of a three week old named Life Africa who was born into the MOVE organization in 1976. this child was killed during a physical conflict between the organization and the philadelphia police department. whether or not the death was due to police can be debated. however, groupthink is not letting me post the death on the MOVE page. MOVE lived outside the system so the baby was never registered. however, many police and neighbors were invited into their home to view the body. I CAN'T FIND A CREDIBLE SOURCE BECAUSE MASS MEDIA DID'NT COVER THE EVENT. the baby was killed, that is fact. we all know that dissident anarchist groups who get in gun fights with the system are going to be marginalized. special interests own most of the press and the public ones have long forgotten about this event. i am upset that the truth is being cut-off because this group is victimized by repression and underrepresentation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.113.175 (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MOVE is extensively covered, mainly for the 1985 police bombing.  You would think someone has written books about the organization and mentioned this.  Most anything there is won't be online because it's so old, so I would look in university libraries, etc.  You might be right that no mainstream press has covered it.  Wikipedia may not be the first place to uncover conspiracies of silence even if they're true, it's just not out front on that.  If the story is true, a faster way to justice is to see that it gets written about, investigated, or covered by someone in the press or a book.  Alternately, if the controversy about Life Africa dn whether the child actually existed is significant enough, it might be possible to mention here that there is an allegation or controversy even if there's not enough to prove who is right.  I know that doesn't help much, but maybe it clarifies things.  Wikidemo 17:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunatly this happens.  But WP:V makes it clear... If there are no reliable sources, we can't have an article on it.  Furthermore, with so few reliable sources, an article on the topic would probalby run a serious risk of violating WP:NOR. - anything written would end up being "your" version of events and interpretation of them.  I understand that you want to get the "truth" out about what happened in 1976... but Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. Wikipedia is a tertiary source... meaning that it reports and summarizes what others say on a topic. What I would suggest is that you continue to research the event, and write a book or academic paper about it.  Then, other Wikipedians who care about the issue can cite you. Good luck.Blueboar 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  life africa 

message: Can I cite a paper presented at a scientific conference? The papers have to be submitted to the conference in advance, which is a form of peer review, although weaker than publishing in a scientific journal.--TDKehoe 18:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends. In what context are they being presented? Is it simply "Hey I have this idea, so I'm putting it out there" or are these papers being presented being viewed as authoritative or notable in the field?--Crossmr 05:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Depends on the conference. If it's a decent conference, then if they're not notable in the field, they don't get presented at the conference. --Kim Bruning 19:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Depends more than that.  The American Geophysical Union's Fall Meeting is the largest earth science conference, but there is essentially no filtering.  Anyone who pays a fee can have their abstract included in the published conference proceedings (which leads to the occasional quackpottery).  In general, cranks don't get speaking presentations (only about 1/3 to 1/4 of abstracts are given speaking time), but all the abstracts are nominally considered to have been "presented" and published at the conference.  So a lot depends on the rules of the individual conference to say whether there is any meaningful review.  169.229.142.213 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are papers presented at scientific conferences reliable? 

message: I don't know if anyone on Wikipedia has been using the Library of Congress's Veteran's History Project, if anyone is it should really be supplemented by further secondary sources anyway. But I had to point out, in case anyone was unaware, that the accuracy of that project has been brought into question. See: MSNBC story and the Library of Congress blog for more information. IvoShandor 23:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is also true of many things 'history' related as well. Some historical authors have obvious 'mistakes' in their historical texts, often disproven by subsequent authors or additional 'primary source' material (like the data in the old Soviet archives) in the same subject area. When presented with it, the original author refuses to discuss or otherwise correct the information for whatever reason (being polite here), and some people still insist on using factually flawed text to support their claims or POV. This is nothing new, it just helps highlight that the more and varied the sources, the more likely you will achieve NPOV and V, but even that is not always guaranteed. wbfergus  Talk 11:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veterans history 

message: I've made a small, but, I think, important, clarification of the wording of the first sentence of the subject section. 
The clarification is based on the fact that both the policy on verifiability and this guideline are referring to sources as citations of articles or books, rather than the individuals themselves, (who might be writing Wikipedia articles). As the policy states:  
:"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."
So the source is the citation of a reliable published work. Clearer, I hope. Sunray 05:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikidemo pointed out in a subsequent edit that the "wording was still subject to multiple meanings." His edit and the following one by Kevin Murray have considerably strengthened that section. Thanks to both for bringing clarity to the problem. Sunray 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the thanks.  I wanted to make clear that we're using the word "source" to refer to a specific work, as opposed to a publication (e.g. a newspaper), or an author.  This page addresses all three issues, but for clarity of wording we need to let the reader know which one we mean.  I fixed the lead paragraph but the following few paragraphs are still ambiguous.  You'll find that if we use the terms consistently they're redundant and can be shortened by about half without sacrificing any meaning.  I'd do that, but I'm making another change to the page (see below) and want to take one thing at a time rather than overwhelm anyone with too many page edits.Wikidemo 12:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RS#What is a reliable source?|What is a reliable source?]] 

message: Highlighting a few proposals.  
*Headings - for purposes of clarity divided "aspects of reliability" into two sections, "in general" and "specific contexts".  That way, if anyone wants to add or move anything in the article, it's clear whether they're talking about all reliability issues or just specific points.  Implemented on project page as a proposal.
*Headings 2 - if the above is okay, I'd like to a new section out of "specific contexts", "reliability of specific types of sources".  Exceptional claims, BLP, and claims of consensus would remain in "contexts", and scholarship, OR, self-published, and extreme would be in the new section for specific types.  "Examples" would be renamed "other examples" and moved to "specific contexts."  This involves no rewording of the prose, just the headings.  Not implemented, just proposing; would involve reordering the section
*Nutshell.  Propose moving the lead sentence from the project page to a nutshell: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." It would be more prominent and instructive there and instantly identify to casual readers what this is about.  No rewording, just nutshelling.  Not implemented, just proposing.
*Footnote.  Propose moving our page's brief explanatory footnote into the body of the page where it appears.  No point having a whole footnote section for a single 16-word footnote.
Pls feel free to comment, revert, improve, etc. as per above.  If I don't hear for a few days and/or get feedback sounding like consensus, I'll implement these to the extent people have agreed.  Thx, Wikidemo 22:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Above implemented as proposed after no objections raised.  Wikidemo 02:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further small cleanup steps

message: A few more small proposals.  I won't implement any until people have had a few days to comment.  Note that none of these proposals involve any change to the prose.  It's all formatting, headers, and linking.
*Headings.  Group "What is a reliable source?" and "Why use reliable sources?" as sub-sections within a new master section, "Background".  Flip order so that "why us" comes before "what is".
*De-listify "Exceptional claims".  Put it in one prose paragraph, for sake of clarity of the page's overall format.
*See also.  Change format of first WP:BLP citation in the very first sentence to state full policy name, as we do with WP:V and WP:NOR.  Take all of the "further reading" templated references from the two above subsections and put it in a single template at the top of the new "Headings" section.  For consistency and clarity, change the "Wikipedia's neutrality policy" hyperlink to clearly refer to WP:NPOV, and change similar references throughout to state the name of the policy or guideline at issue.  Within "aspects of reliability" move several of the "see" and "see also" sections to fall at the end of the paragraph rather than as a separate indented paragraph.
-- Wikidemo 02:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not see these as necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More small steps

message: Has anyone gone through the "see also" section and the "external links" section here?  At a minimum we should collect all the policies and guidelines referred to throughout the article and list them under "see also."  Either that, or take them out on the theory that they're already mentioned in the body of this page.  Right now it lists some but not all, which is confusing.Wikidemo 02:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A discussion point

message: :Please see this for a brief synopsis of what is being discussed and why. To see everything in it's proper context, then much reading will be required, including going through the Archives for the page. In short, we are not attempting to weaken the policy, but to make clearer by moving WP:PSTS somewhere more appropriate, and linking to it's new location (wherever that is). The types of sources and their definitions are not really part of a policy that discusses "No Original Research", much like your house insurance policy's definition of "Acts of God" don't really pertain to your insurance policy. It's just included for further clarity, but the actual definition has nothing to do with your policy, just its final interpretation of what is covered (or not). This is not something that some are trying to impose overnight, much discussion still needs to be done, but the sooner others participate and help, the quicker the additional work can progress. wbfergus  Talk 13:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOR discussions that may have an effect with the interaction of this guideline 

message: I've dealt with two cases now of "reliable" sources (in one case, the subject of the article!) making statements which a normal person's evaluation of the evidence would determine to be incorrect. In both cases the preferred secondary source contradicted a primary source as well as circumstantial evidence. (As it happens, both cases involved WP:BLP.) I'm concerned about this because the current drift in WP:NOR discussion is tending to privilege secondary sources absolutely. Conversely, the current version of this policy doesn't treat errors in our sources at all. The synthesis I've seen of these two  "policies" is that we are obligated to repeat errors in our sources even when it can be demonstrated that they are incorrect.
This is an obviously stupid (not to mention unencyclopedic) position to find ourselves in. It is obvious that we shouldn't be repeating our sources' errors, and yet people are applying our current policies to essentially deny that those errors even exist. We have an absolute obligation, when we find a mistake in a source, to abjure use of the mistaken material; this is a metaprinciple behind both this policy and WP:V. Therefore we need to address this in this policy and possibly also in WP:NOR. Mangoe 14:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You just made the same point over at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Errors in "reliable sources" to which I responded basically that of course we should not repeat obvious errors, but Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.  There is no meta-principle that we should ignore Wikipedia's founding principles in search of a higher truth.  If a secondary source makes an error of fact or quotation we should not quote it and degrade our assessment of its reliability.  If a secondary source makes what you believe to be an error of analysis, you can't dispute it based on your own analysis; rather, if there are multiple notable schools of thought you may cite the various ones for what they have to say.  Wikidemo 15:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors 

message: Could someone please explain where autobiographies fall?  Some are not self-published in the sense that an academic publishing house published the book but they are self-published in the sense that someone wrote about themselves.  Would such cases still be considered a self-published source that would require third-party sources to substantiate a claim?  Or are they reliable third-party published sources?
Also, is a company considered a questionable source?  Is it inappropriate to state that Company X states Y and provide a reference from their website when other resources have contradicting information?  (This was kind of answered in the previous question but I wanted to check if it applies to self-published company material.)
–panda 13:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. The caveats are all explained there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "self-published" info: autobiographies and company statements 

message: Information was recently removed from the Willow Rosenberg article by User:Webwarlock, with the edit summary "rv Blogs do not count as sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability. If it get's published in the Journal of Human Sexuality then you have a case".  The information was sourced to Slayage, an online journal about Buffy/Angel studies. I asked User:Bignole if he believed that Slayage was a reliable source.  He pointed out that, while it seems the site is basically students posting their analysis on the show, their postings do undergo several reviews before being published (as seen here).  Therefore, not anything can be published, it is checked and approved beforehand.  I'd like to start a discussion on whether people believe Slayage is a reliable source to use in the Buffyverse pages.  Is it simply a blog, or no different from any other reliable online journals?  The discussion is occurring here.  Thanks.  Paul730 23:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slayage: reliable source? 

message: "shaka" sign
    this is a newer version of the popular "hang loose"
i was the actual one that started this slang in hawaii in 1986 on hookipa beach
with a local surfer who like the group shaka gong (spelling?)
he used to stop by and I nicked name my friend shaka and used the hang loose sign with him when he would leave
i never knew about the ancient warrier piece of any of this
how can I make editing to correct this grave oversight?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill mudd (talk • contribs) 18:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A reliable, published third-party source that says you coined it would be appropriate, otherwise its your word only, which isn't good enough for an encyclopedia. IvoShandor 17:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "shaka" sign 

message: This section invites abuse. In Criticisms of socialism I cited a widely-accepted libertarian socialist text on libertarian socialist views of these criticisms, and another editor removed it as an "extremist source."
* The article is about criticisms of socialism
** Ergo, those criticizing and those being criticized are directly relevant to the subject. (In this case, they are both).
* There are many different types of socialism (only counting those considered socialist by socialists).
** Many critics target condemn features which one type has and other types don't have. Not covering the different types creates a misleading picture. Covering the different types requires covering the different types, regardless of whether the editor thinks they are extremist or not. Jacob Haller 18:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Extremist sources" 

message: Hi, is this not a copyvio ? 
on commons I would be sure but I don't know what is the exact policy on wp:en.
Regards, Alithien 08:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: The references to "third party" sources were just removed with a comment that this attribute has no meaning outside of BLP.  However, I think the meaning of "third party" is very clear.  A third-party source is material created by a party that is not the subject of the article.  We deliberately considered that unreliable for all articles and not just BLP, right?  If so, the change is inappropriate.  
I'm reverting pending discussion.  Also, I'm going to try to edit some of the text here to clear up the confusion.  I think the editor is thinking of a "source" as a publisher or publication, as opposed to a piece of material.  Wikidemo 12:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some time ago we made a language clarification in the first paragraph of "what is a reliable source" that by "source" we mean a work used to obtain / verify material in an article, as opposed to the author of that work or the publication in which it appears or its publisher.  When we call the work's author or the work's publication a "source" as well, that is just shorthand.  The shorthand is causing confusion   I've tried to tease out the distinction between works, authors, and publications here, a somewhat overdue project.  There is no attempt to change the meaning of the guideline, but rather to use the terminology consistently in order to avoid confusion.  Wikidemo 12:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your clarification on Third-Party... however, the word "source" is used in this guideline to mean more than just the piece of material... it also is used to discribe the person creating the work (see the line about the mathematics professor, for example) and, to a lesser extent the location of the work (on an extremist website, or in a peer reviewed journal for examples).  All three meanings can affect the reliability of a source.  I have added an intro paragraph to try to explain this... but I am sure the wording could be better phrased. Blueboar 12:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't have any fundamental problems with the revisions as they stand now relating to "third party", if the meaning is understood as described by Wikidemo above. Previous to the revisions, however, there were links from "third party" to the "PSTS" model of WP:NOR, which is highly controversial and under intense revision right now. There is a constituency out there that wants to ban or restrict the use of primary sources in Wikipedia, but this article shouldn't get into that. It should be clear that when we say "reliable, third party source", we are not meaning "reliable secondary source". COGDEN 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the links for the reason you mentioned.  The text said "third party sources", which means to me a piece that was not written by the subject of the article.  Yet it linked to the PSTS section, which isn't directly related to that.  I don't have any strong opinion on the substance of the guideline in this regard, I'm just trying to make sure it's clear.  There seemed to be a conflict between what the policy says, and what it happens to link to, and I figured that the actual words of the policy are more likely to be what people intended than the links.  Wikidemo 22:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: yes--and third party implies a controversy, which is not always the case with RS questions-- I think "independent" is better all around. DGG (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea.  Note that it does imply a slight change - "third party" means anyone but the subject of the article or their alter-ego (e.g. their company, the company's CEO, etc).  "Independent" implies anyone without a conflict of interest, a slightly stronger exclusion.  Let's mull over that for a few days and if nobody makes a strong reasonable ojbection, consider it a consensus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 13:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a week, and things have been quiet as a mouse on this thread. Should we change the language, or should we solicit extra input on the village pump and wait a few more days? Vassyana 19:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Independent" is a reasonably good descriptor. I can't think of anything better. I don't think there's any need to go to village pump, since this doesn't actually change anything substantive, and shouldn't be controversial. COGDEN 20:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third-party sources 

message: I posted the following to WT:BLP:
My attention was drawn to this by a change made to WP:RS in order to bring language there more into line with language here. The language here seems to me to be illogical, though. Are controversial statements necessarily unverifiable? Are derogatory statements necessarily unverifiable? I think not. -- Boracay Bill 23:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I have my Wikipedia history right, the change to BLP happened a month or two ago, where we loosened up the rules a bit regarding self-published sources.  Keep in mind that we already have WP:RS, WP:V, etc. that assesses how reliable a source is and tells us not to use some of them.  So the BLP statement is just an extra prohibition on top of that.  It seemed strange to automatically exclude self-published sources, as opposed to any other sources, from BLP if the material was neutral.  BLP is supposed to be about taking extra steps to avoid committing libel, and perhaps to avoid hurting people or turning into a partisan fighting grounds over current events.  Further restricting the range of sources allowed in BLP cases where the material presented is neutral didn't seem to serve any purpose.  What's left is a narrower proposition on the specific kind of self-published material that's considered problematic.  Hence the list of three types - controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable.  It's supposed to be an either/or.  I agree with you that the word "otherwise" is out of place though.  Perhaps a slightly sloppy wording in an attempt to make it sound like we have a non-exclusive "or".  But we should address that in BLP, not here.  This is supposed to be merely a quotation of the policy there.  Wikidemo 01:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was a compromise made by a committee. :-). I'd be all for improving the phrasing if we can keep the meaning... and I guess should discuss that there. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable statements" 

message: Could someone clear up the threshold for a reliable source related to paranormal topics not studied by science or ignored by science at the moment. There is presently a discussion at EVP about the authenticity of Dr. Fontana, a pyschologist who has also studied EVP, as a source for history related material about that subject. One editor insists that Dr. Fontana is not a historian or a professor of science history and thereby can't be used by RS standards. My review of the policy is that since Dr. Fontana has studied the phenomena for years, his book on the topic would be a reliable source if it is well research; for material in the article. Maybe some outside input would help from those who are presently engaged with this policy talk page. We seem at an impasse as to what the proper interpretation of RS should be. --Northmeister 14:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is quite simple. You can attribute the views of that author to him, providing his views are published by a reputable publishing house, and his views are significant enough to be described. One does not have to be a professor to be cited in Wikipedia articles, in fact, some professors would not be citable if their views are not significant or notable to be cited. It all depends on the context in which a source is used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The man is a psychologist and is being used as a source for a topic of scientific history unrelated to psychology. The sentence currently says "Concerted research on technical means of communication grew rapidly in the latter part of the 20th century (Fontana, p. 366)." (then it's cited again via inline citation for some reason). Should we say "According to David Fontana concerted research on technical means of communication grew rapidly in the latter part of the 20th century."? Wikidudeman (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would work. You can always think of the reader: Does that viewpoint improves the understanding of the subject? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jossi for your advice. I would find that acceptable as well. --Northmeister 15:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this actually above that particular sentence--how can it possibly be controversial? DGG (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One issue that wikipedia should address is whether to consider academia, esp. the social sciences as non-NPOV given the overwhelmingly left representation of faculty in the social science community, and the not-so-secret political agendas of many which are worked into scholarly publications. Check into the "Sokal affair" of the mid-90s, wherein a scientist submitted pure nonsense about the laws of physics being meaningless patriarchal constructs, filled his paper with leftist ideology without the slightest evidence for any of it and was able to get it published in a "reputable" peer-reviewed social science journal. He did it to prove what was going on, and that peer-review in the field no longer served to maintain scholarly, neutral (non-political bias) inquiry. This is only one example. Once these publications are published, they are treated as though they were "fact" and their authors as credible experts. Disagreement is suppressed, and therefore is rarely published in academic journals regardless of the amount of evidence offered. In short, if published articles/references with a political bias are cited, the wikipedia article should be labeled as non-NPOV, and/or other sources with differing opinions should be cited to offer alternate views.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.173.82.81 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of Reliable Sources 

message: I read the following: "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature..."
By anti-religious do you mean opposed to one religion, all religions or both. For example would a source that is vehemently anti-Jewish, but pro-Christian, be considered "anti-religious"?Bless sins 04:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would venture to guess any statement by extremist groups or persons that uses any religious references, whether pro or anti. I mean, it doesn't matter in what context or what subject- extremist is extremist. I'd automatically prefer another source anyways. Monsieurdl 11:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer the question... yes, a vehimently Anti-Jewish, but Pro-Christian extremist group would count... probably as both an extremist religious group (the pro-Christian side of their extremism) and as an extremist anti-religious group (the Anti-Jewish side of their extremism).  As Monsieurdl says, Extremist is Extremist.  The intent is to be inclusive of all extremist groups, of what ever nature. Blueboar 16:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anti-religious" 

message: I'm sure this has been discussed but I can't find it:  What is the general attitude toward foreign-language sources for uncontroversial facts?  For example, the vast majority of sources for Klaas-Jan Huntelaar are in Dutch, but they don't appear to be for claims that are likely to be disputed.  However, they don't really meet the "verifiability" requirement because English-language readers cannot verify.  --Bloodzombie 14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is commented on in the WP:Verifiability policy. English language references are preferred but foreign language sources are not disallowed. I think that there is a presumption that if the claims were contentious it should be feasible to get hold of someone familiar with the language to assist in verification. Verification is not instant, and it is perfectly reasonable to quote sources that are not readily available on line, which also causes issues of verification. Spenny 14:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makes sense.  Thank you. --Bloodzombie 14:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What about the application of foreign-language sources for the establishment of notability?  This issue has been raised in several AfDs where few English-language sources exist (and has also been raised on the WP:N talk page).  --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 05:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language of sources 

message: Seems I’ve found a hot bed of contention here in Talk of Reliable Sources, and I’m glad I did; it seems I’m not the only one.  On to my take on it:
Consider the sciences of biology and ecology for a moment.  Analyses in these fields, and in medicine also, are often expressed as “seems to be“, “seems likely”, “may be” “possibly” and such as that.  This is done for good reason.  The subject is life, at least in part, and life is dynamic, ever-changing.  And for contrast consider ... Oh, the melting point of iron.  The melting point of iron, to my knowledge, does not change.
An academic pursuit of absolute definition, as “reliable” can suggest, in some things seems fine but in other not practical.  I don’t know how to otherwise express this; sometimes, as in the life sciences, absolute definition is not practical. 
It seems to me we have a choice of adopt two sets of criteria or trying to subject every subject, observation and article to one. The difference between the two seems not to be of different items in the sets but more one of emphasis of such items. The observations and methods of observation differ in different fields of study; reliable then should have different meanings.  I see no alternative to this other than ceasing to class and even think of biology, ecology and medicine as sciences. listenin 02:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be addressing the degree of absoluteness of claims in those fields, which has little to nothing to do with reliability. A heavily qualified but broadly known theory about brain function has no distinction in and of itself from the laws of thermodynamics. The ideas themselves are not reliable or unreliable. The publications that contain those claims are reliable or unreliable. For example, if both were contained in reputable textbooks published by Oxford University Press, both would be equally reliable. Vassyana 21:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biology, Ecology and Medicine 

message: Consider this excerpt from Publishers Say Fact-Checking Is Too Costly, By Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal, January 30, 2006:
:Indeed, many members of the publishing industry have rallied around Ms. [Nan] Talese and Random House, saying that they would have published "A Million Little Pieces" as well and could have been duped just as easily. Unlike journalists, publishers have never seen it as their purview to verify that the information in nonfiction books is true. Editors and publishers say the profit-margins in publishing don't allow for hiring fact-checkers. Instead, they rely on authors to be honest, and on their legal staffs to avoid libels suits. "An author brings a manuscript saying it represents the truth, and that relationship is one of trust," says Ms. Talese.
There is an expectation by many editors that books, especially academic press books, are peer-reviewed and fact-checked, like respected professional journals are supposed to be, but it appears that there has been a distinct collapse of such standards due largely to rising costs. For these reasons I propose to qualify the statements in the main article about this. Jon Roland 19:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would behoove you to more completely read the article. It notes that a number of measures are being considered to help reduce such problems. Additionally, the article states this type of problem is not universal to non-fiction, but rather especially problematic in memoirs because of a lack of the "adversarial" editorial process that is common in other non-fiction fields. I sincerely hope that Wikipedia is not that reliant on memoirs. If it was, that's a failing of editorial judgment and common sense, not a failing of the rules. Guidelines provide just that ... guidelines. We're expected to use our reason on a case-by-case basis, because even the most comprehensive policy cannot possibly cover every exception and circumstance. Vassyana 21:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read the entire article, but "measures are being considered" is not an answer to the point that editors should not presume a book from a "respectable" publisher such as an academic press is always to be considered more reliable than one from a less "respectable" publisher, such as a newspaper. What is happening is that the editors of major newspapers are often doing a better job of fact-checking, at least their lead articles, than academic publishers are for their books. But none of these issue some kind of warning label "fact-checked by ..." or "not fact-checked". It is also becoming more common for scholars in obscure fields to use low-volume, on-demand publishers for writings too long for a journal and not popular enough for a book publisher who has to sell enough copies to earn back its investment. Editors need to put more weight on the reputation of authors than of publishers. Jon Roland 23:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow the logic. diff.  In the first sentence, Jon Roland talks of 'an academic press'.  Of this I imagine Oxford University Press, etc..  Then in the third sentence Jon Roland talks of 'on-demand publishers' Edwin Mellen Press There are questions about reliability of Mellen.  Sorry there is a big difference between on-demand publishers and the academic press.  -- SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Paper doesn't have the magical ability to turn truthiness into truth. Printed works can be just as unreliable as personal blogs. - Jehochman  Talk 22:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they can, but academic publishers set higher standards as to the sort of material they will consider for publication in the first place, so as a general rule I think they can still be considered more reliable than run-of-the-mill commercial publishers. Gatoclass (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify Gatoclass's statement, I think we need to look at the process rather than the material.  Academic publishers do have higher standards because they have prepublication peer review and there is an extensive tradition of publishing book reviews of other professors' works in many academic fields.  Many journals have half the pages filled with substantive research and the other half filled with book reviews of recently published books.  So there is a constant filtering process going on.  Either garbage doesn't get published, or if it does get published, it is quickly attacked in print by four or five other professors looking to build their own careers by climbing over the corpses of their peers.  The academic world is very ruthless (everyone is trying to (1) get tenure and then (2) get famous).  Of course, there are silly exceptions in certain very specialized fields that lead to scandals like the Sokal Hoax, but that involved a journal with no peer review.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are book publishers reliable sources anymore? 

message: I have boldly deleted the section on convenience links because I don't think they're commonly used.  In fact I had never even heard of them until I got to this page.  The Wikipedia:Convenience links essay page was almost completely moribund until a slight flurry of activity in the past couple weeks.  Looking at that page it seems counter to the way nearly everybody categorizes hyperlinks as either wikilinks, citation links, or external links.  Convenience links seem to be a flavor of external links, but perhaps ones that would not quite fit the WP:EL limitation that we only link to material that would not be suitable for inclusion in articles.  I don't think we should encourage a style fork by expanding the number of kinds of links r the number of different sections on the bottom of the page. Also, encouraging these links might tend to turn articles into link lists, which we try to avoid.Wikidemo (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had people whine about a link to a 404 page because it was not a convenience link to a source.  Sometimes the links are for historical purposes, as they might be useful for (perhaps later) accessing the information.  So sometimes they're inconvenience links because you can't tell they are 404 until you click on them.  SEWilco (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Convenience links are links to content available on a site that would not otherwise qualify as a reliable source. These may be copies of court judgments hosted on POV activists' sites, copies of out-of-print books hosted with the consent of the copyright holder, etc. There have been recurrent arguments over the years about linking to sites that would not be deemed reputable for anything but the hosted third-party information -- here is one that I was involved in just a short while ago. Convenience links, I am sure, are used in many places; often, people do not buy a book or journal, but quote from excerpts they have seen on a website (unfortunately). Hence I think the section is very much needed. I would also like the section to make clear that if various sites are available, the most reputable one should be used. For example, if a historical document concerning slavery is available on several sites, among them a white supremacist's website as well as the website of a university's History Department, then our guidelines should state clearly that the site used for the convenience link should be the one that is most in line with NPOV and RS. Otherwise you get Wikipedia linking to all sorts of extremist sites just because they host a document considered useful in a particular context; that should not happen, if there is a more balanced site available that offers the same content. I'll reinstate the section for now. Jayen466 00:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, by definition, a subset of "external links", in which case WP:EL is the appropriate guideline page, not this essay, and WP:RS has nothing to say about them at all.  The notion of "convenience links" as distinct from "external links" seems to have died down and I don't think it's something we should revive.  Wikidemo (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I think you may have a point. This sort of thing usually is a citation/reference issue, and the para might well be better housed there. Let's first see though if there are any objections. -- Jayen466 01:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with moving it. It more clearly relates to the form of citation than to the reliability per se. Marskell (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Convenience links have there own reliability issues however.  A transcription of an original document (say the US constitution) may be a reliable source but hosted on a site that is not reliable.  If we are citing the document, the reliability of the hosting site becomes a secondary issue.  Alternatively, a site that meets our reliability criteria may host a version of the document that is not a "true and accurate copy" of the original (it may contain additional editorial commentary or only provide selected parts of the original), thus making it unreliable.  Shouldn't these issues be discussed in our guideline? Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until very recently, we had a link to an essay at the top of this section which discusses these aspects in more detail. -- Jayen466 16:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convenience links? 

message: Hello all, there is some discussion over at Talk:Giovanni_di_Stefano about sources, their reliability, and application. I thought I'd bring this here, where editors familiar with the policy and practice may be able to shed some light and help us move forward over there.
There is a new practice emerging - which may ultimately require mention in this policy. Summarised by Fred as "Don't link to sources which imply information we lack a good source for" - in other words an otherwise reliable source which implies an unsourced statement cannot be considered reliable (my analysis).
To illustrate - use of this source has led to page and talk page deletion - it has been considered not suitable in the strongest possible terms. 
Discussion of this matter has intense legal ramifications, and all editors would be wise to read the talk page fully before commenting. The importance of this matter to our sourcing policy stands, in my opinion. Privatemusings (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Fred is suggesting a new policy or practice. I suspect he's just urging caution in this particular case, given that the situation is complex and we're dealing with a BLP. If even the Guardian and the British legal establishment are finding the situation confusing, Wikipedian need to be extra careful. Also, for future reference, WP:V is the policy on sources. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Caution and sensitivity are both very very important in this case, but I suppose what I am questioning is how far can they be stretched to impose editing practices on articles. A sourced statement regarding a conviction will tend to have real world implications - we can legitimately assume that many such statements will cause distress to their subjects. Hence my concern over this practice, whereby a source universally acknowledged as reliable become unreliable due to what it may imply. I struggle to see where the line could be drawn clearly in this approach. Privatemusings (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Specific cases on the application of WP:V#Sources need to be discussed in the article's talk page ant not on in here. We have policies, yes. But we have a process by which we apply policies to articles, and that includes sound editorial judgment and consesus of involved editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense - I do not wish to discuss this article issue specifically here. I would like to discuss "Don't link to sources which imply information we lack a good source for" in general terms, pertinently whether or not this should be included in WP:V post merge. Privatemusings (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would argue that the wording you suggest is too narrow for a policy page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deciding whether a particular source is a reliable source is a matter of sound editorial judgment. Someone such as Privatemusing, who does not have reliable judgment regarding this particular matter should not be editing the article or commenting on it. Or posting about it to wiken, or to policy pages. If voluntary recognition of his limitations is not forthcoming, an indefinite ban would be appropriate. He says over and over that he doesn't understand, and I agree. Fred Bauder (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new practice re:Sources? 

message: . Per a comment on the ANI board, I am informing you guys about this in case you may wish to comment. Thanks, Davnel03 21:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request For Comment opened at [[WP:PW]] regarding spoilers and sources 

message: following some comments on the VP [,] I have BOLDly moved the former supplement Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples to Wikipedia:Reliable source examples and given it the status of an essay. I think this preserves the material and puts it in the proper non-prescriptive perspective. If anyone wants to revert this, please discuss it on the talk page there first, because I think this a reasonable approach no matter what the decision is in general. DGG (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "proper non-prescriptive perspective". Used as a mantra it may well beat counting sheep. Avb 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Good move. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, fine. Jossi, what happened with the mailing list? Any off-site comments? Marskell (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only the same comment made by Aude above, plus another comment about the fact that "reliable sources" is a much easier concept to grasp for newbies. That is a red herring as we are not talking about dismissing the concept, rather, we are discussing the redirection of WP:RS to WP:V#Sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  supplement