Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 10

message: I'd like comment (and possible updates to this article as a result) on a strange case occurring on the Shah Rukh Khan article. In order to support the claim that Khan is of Pashtun origin (when other reliable sources state his Pathan roots), users have claimed that the term 'Pathan' is a way of referring to 'Pashtuns' and are attempting to use information on AfghanLand that supports this claim. As far as I can see this site only supports the view that 'Pathan' is a term referring to Pashtuns, and is not in itself a reliable source to reference Khan's supposed Pashtun origins. Am I correct in my understanding of WP:RS?
I was unable to find information on this article that can cater to this situation, so I would appreciate it if these circumstances can be discussed and the article updated if necessary. Regards, Ekantik 05:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange Third-Party Case

message: There are some fields of study where the best, current information is available online in moderated forums.  A moderated forum is very much like a published journal because expert moderators review the material and challenge or correct any factual errors they identify.  I see no reason why we should ascribe special power to paper over electrons.  I've boldly edited this page to explain this.  Feel free to revert if you think I've been too bold.  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 19:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed there. A moderated forum under the meaning you're using is far different from the standard forum where I can post whatever I please. -Amarkov blahedits 20:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Forums as reliable sources

message: An example where the line gets blurry is tax-protester material.  There are fringe books and websites that argue the position that Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was never ratified.  The position has been litigated and rejected so many times that the Supreme Court has recognized it as frivolous -- such an obvious waste of everyone's time that bringing it up can get you fined.  When it comes to intepretation of the law, that's about as unreliable as a source can be.  Yet, the popular influence of those positions is manifest.  While there are articles on those self-published works and the specific fringe theories, an article about income tax or the 16th Amendment would be incomplete without mentioning the arguments and their refutations.  The refutations do not include a full description of the arguments, so references to the primary source material seemed warranted.  If you will, we interpret the rule as including sections about the self-published works within larger articles, where understanding the self-published work is necessary to an understanding of the topic.
In the case of a BLP, if Smith has accused Jones of incest in his self-published book, and the libel trial was a significant event, then the fact of the accusation is reliably reported, and it may be appropriate to cite the primary source.  Or not, depending on a lot of factors.  Robert A.West (Talk) 02:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Source W alleged the erroneous/fraudulent/libellous claim X, but this was rebutted by critics such as Y, and legally refuted in court case Z." For any such statement, I would expect to see a citation for source W alleging X, despite the fact that it would be (as just indicated) an unreliable source on the issue of the truth or falsehood of X, as long as it was reliable on the issue of W having alleged X. This would apply to any discussion of notable fakes, frauds, liars, misrepresentations, etc., e.g. the careers of Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair, or Clifford Irving's Hitler Diary hoax. There are online mythbusters who conscientiously cite (where possible) and then debunk fakery, such as Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler, Barbara Mikkelson at Snopes.com, David Brock and crew at Media Matters, and the Annenberg Foundation's Fact Check. These are not "encyclopedic" sites, but they do exemplify how and when to cite unreliable sources. – SAJordan talkcontribs 06:19, 29 Nov 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tax protester example

message: During my time here, I've come into conflict with editors using historical fiction as sources. See here: Talk:Scottish pork taboo and Talk:Black Irish#Black Scots. It seems a no-brainer to me that one should never, ever use works as fiction as historical sources. Even if it sounds convicing, or it was written during the time. Authors are under no obligation to include accurate facts in their stories, and there is no clear dividing line between the fact and the fiction. I suggest that this article be updated to include a sentence making this explicitly clear.--Nydas(Talk) 11:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of this can be aleviated by proper labeling in the article.  You should never state something from a work of fiction as fact.  But you can state it as being the author's conjecture that is presented in a work of fiction. Blueboar 16:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, when a publisher includes a nonfiction essay in the same volume as a work of fiction by the same author, the nonfiction status is clear, and the author a qualified researcher, there should be no objection to citing the factual or critical material.  Robert A.West (Talk) 17:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of the Scottish pork taboo, it has been suggested that a footnote in the Fortunes of Nigel is a reasonable source. Opinions? Obviously this is more complex that I had first thought. However, I still feel that there must be stronger sources for this taboo, if it actually existed.--Nydas(Talk) 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir Walter was a wonderful writer, but an indifferent historian.  This is, after all, the man who gave us the howler bar sinister. I wouldn't rely on him for particulars, although he would be a valid example of notability of that (or any other) practice.  Robert A.West (Talk) 20:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The notes to Fortunes of Nigel are definitely non-fiction; and many of Sir Walter's notes cite primary sources; but the warning is well-taken: as a historian, he is both careless and dated. Therefore insisting on a modern historian is probably reasonable. (But this is no worse than the dozens of articles which give Herodotus or Plutarch or Livy without any trace of secondary sources; so it may be best to settle for "Sir Walter Scott says..." which will warn the prudent.)   Septentrionalis 22:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction as historical fact 

message: tbh we could do with a sense of proportion here, the section being discussed is about Tertiary Sources, not Encyclopedias in general.  We could quite easily get rid of most of that text and actually add to the informational value of the paragraph.
I'll suggest looking at the additions I made to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/rewrite page yesterday regarding sources as a model, it gets rid of a lot of the verbose cruft in the sources section.ALR 13:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sense of Proportion

message: Regarding the following websites; faithfreedom.org, answering-islam.org, and jihadwatch.org,
in the reliable sources article, it says the following about extremist websites: 
:"Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities. Even then they should be used with caution."
Since it says they should be used only in articles about the person and their activities, can they be consitered reliable for articles about critics perspectives on Islam?--Sefringle 23:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These may be used in that case, but with caution, if only to present these orgs POV, citations are properly attributed to them, and never used as assertions of fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the opinions of these organizations relevant to pages that are not about the websites themselves, considering the extremism that is obvious in their opinions? BhaiSaab talk 22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The reader should know where a potentially controversial source is coming from on the political spectrum when a source is presented: liberal, conservative, Communist, Fascist, etc., in my opinion. Let the reader make up his or her mind over who is right and who is wrong in a controversy.
--FidesetRatio 05:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extremist websites

message: Shouldn't this article say more about how to handle media bias in general -- newspapers, documentaries, etc? It cautions against citing the popular press in science, but I was a bit disappointed that there's not much more guidance about it in general terms. — jammycakes 18:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When lay journalists report about science, they frequently either misunderstand the findings, or twist the findings to fit their POV. That's my experience from having worked inside the newspaper field.--FidesetRatio 05:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also the issue of "columnists" vs "journalists" as sources. While the first is a subset, they are generally not held to as high editorial standards, even less so in an online environment IMO. --Insider201283 06:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media bias 

message: The article says "More recently, primary sources have been put online, such as the complete run of the London Times, the New York Times and other major newspapers."  I thought newspapers were secondary sources--the articles are written by newspaper reporters based on original documents and interviews which are primary sources.  They go through an editorial and fact checking process which increases their reliability, and the newspaper publisher weighs their relevance before deciding to use up paper and ink on them.  So I think the quoted sentence should be edited to clarify this issue.  Thanks. 67.117.130.181 15:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some information in newspapers may be more  primary or secondary than other information. Actual breaking news, in which events and statements are reported, and investigative reporting, in which the journalist is doing original research, are rather primary. There is fact-checking and editing, but it may only be hastily done within a day, or not at all, and journalists may be premiering new information that may ultimately be proved wrong on further analysis, and most newspapers articles seek to present the he-said she-said sides of the issue and what happened very rawly. Other articles may contain, for example, summaries of current events that may extend back years and be based on a review of the collective primary sources on the subject, which would be more secondary. —Centrx→talk • 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Primary" and "secondary" are very elusive terms, for the reasons given above. It is simplistic to regard sources themselves as reliable for their information or not. We can say whether a source is reliably published—as you say, most newspapers meet the criterion—but the information within must then be scrutinised for its reliability. The terms "primary" and "secondary" don't necessarily come into that; but if you want to look at it that way, you could say that a scholarly book review in the newspaper is a reliable secondary source, whereas a self-penned article of the type "My secret fling with Sven Goran Eriksson" might be regarded as a dodgy primary one. qp10qp 16:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We ought also remember, and I apologize for beating this hobby horse again, but it's vital to writing a functional sourcing guideline, that primary and secondary sources are not ontological categories. "My secret fling" is a dodgy primary source for Sven Goran Eriksson, but a rock-solid one for an article on the author or the article itself. The scholarly book review is a secondary source, unless we're writing about the scholar writing the review, in which case it's a primary source. There is no source whatsoever that is always one or the other, which is why the categories provide little guidance on sources and mostly guidance on original research. Phil Sandifer 17:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It depends on how they are used.  Works are not inherently "primary" or "secondary" any more than they are inherently "sources".  When an editor choses to use a work as a source they can treat it as a primary source or a secondary source.  The best choice of which way to use a work depends a number of factors.  There is no quick answer to say "use newspaper as X sources".  It is not that simple.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our primary/secondary definition works well in 99% of the cases. That's quite adequate for a general Wiki rule. (Perfection seekers?--those folks don't lurk at Wiki)  Historians long ago solved the newspaper problems and list them under primary sources. A newspaper, I suggest, is "primary" when the reporter is at the scene taking notes. Ads, editorials, obits and letters to editor are also primary. Most feature articles ("Old Days in Old Town") probably are secondary. Rjensen 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It really depends on the subject.  I cannot agree that 99% of works which "summarize[s] one or more primary or secondary sources" should be used as secondary sources in Wikipedia.  But I think we essentially agree that newspapers are generally used as primary sources but also contain higher qualitty articles which can be used as secondary sources.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the useful discussion above. There are some editors that keep placing newspaper accounts as secondary sources, as a way to assert that these accounts are at the same level of credibility of a scholarly book published on the subject. I would appreciate a paragraph in the guideline that summarizes the views expressed above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  are newspapers primary or secondary? 

message: Now that the re-write has been imported, perhaps we should Archive discussions that deal specifcly with the old version.  Just a suggestion. Blueboar 16:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aw, c'mon, this page is only 357 kilobytes.  I thought maybe we could go for the record...  ;-)  -- Visviva 16:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to Archive? 

message: Recently I asked at Citing sources regarding citations for the article Roguelike but reieved no response. As the article is about a genre of games which is developed by the open source community, to what extent are blogs, personal sites, and newsgroups, able to be cited? For example: the best source for a definition of a roguelike would probably be item 1.2 from this FAQ.
Garrie 00:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that an official website of the open source effort? If so, you can use it as a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that your question has at least two possible answers how can you possibly give an answer which might be useful?ALR 00:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing a FAQ 

message: In its current incarnation the guideline seems geared towards scientific and similar subjects where extensive peer review exists and where there is less controversy. In religion, humanities, and general social subjects, either the peer review concept doesn't exist, or it doesn't (thankfully) conceal the existence of great differences of opinion among commentators. The guideline seems to provide little value for those subjects. Yet their ought to be some relevant guidance to offer. Furthermore, it is not clear that the weight that the article attributes to academic sources is always warranted. For example, in Catholicism, a statement by the Pope on doctrine really ought to get more weight than a statement by e.g. academic critics of Catholic traditionalism. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This guideline uses "reliable" to mean "reliably published" and doesn't address weight and balance in articles. The best guidance on that is at Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View. qp10qp 05:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines for non-scientific subjects 

message: Partisan and extremist sites may not be reliable sources; however, they are important as providers of points of view that help to complete the picture of what people think about notable phenomena. Therefore, biased sites such as Stormfront.org are important in discussing topics such as anti-Semitism, seeing as it is, essentially, a site of anti-Semites. Likewise, sites such as saveamtrak.org may have valuable arguments in favor of Amtrak, even though not all of those arguments might be true or accurate or researched. It is in judging the merits of those arguments that reliable sources would come in handy, and of course there may be the case that non-reliable sources are the ONLY providers of some information, in which case one should look for as many points of view as possible to try to flesh out what people CLAIM they know (and it should be reported thusly). In conclusion, the arguments of non-reliable sources are potentially useful even though they aren't reliable.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 18:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see it now. "Scientists generally hold that the earth is not a flat plane, yet there are certain partisan groups that, while not reliable, provide useful information in evaluating this often-controversial question." BYT 18:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could agree that Stormfront.org should not be quoted in non-Jewish view of Judaism or Criticism of Judaism, but maybe in Extremist criticism of Judaism. --Striver 19:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Often-controversial" is a weasel-word in the above context, and besides, it would be simple enough to say that "Scientists generally hold that the earth is spherical, although some partisans disagree. The Earth has been shown to be round by various means." Stormfront.org could be quoted in anti-Semitism articles as examples of anti-Semitism, and in pointing out biases some people hold against Jews. It's my impression that anti-Semites are out to criticize Jews, generally speaking, rather than the religion of Judaism itself.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 19:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously, common sense should be used to evaluate sources. I don't think the word change is necessary as arguing is an activity. Arrow740 10:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we had common sense, our policies could be very short.  If the fringe theory or extremist position is important enough to merit a section in a longer article, then it would be wooden to say, "That's a section, not an article, so we can't cite the group's own literature to describe its own position."  The real question is whether the fringe theory deserves enough space to properly handle primary source material.  In an article on Earth science, flat-earth theorists probably merit at most a sentence and a link to the main article.  In contrast, the tax-protester theory of non-ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has wide popular influence, so a section is devoted to it (and its refutation) even though no respectable legal scholar believes a word of it.  In which articles does Stormfront merit that much coverage?  That's the real question. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Arguments, Accusations, Etc. of Partisan and Extremist Websites Should Be Discussed In Wikipedia Articles Not Directly concerning those Sites if Necessary

message: There's a discussion at Talk:Taylor Allderdice High School#RFC over whether a school newspaper is a reliable source and how information sourced from it should be represented, if at all?  Thoughts welcome to build a consensus. Hiding Talk 16:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A school newspaper could be used as a source about that school newspaper, or the school itself, if properly attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I ask that you follow the link provided and read through the debate and comment there?  It would help build a diversity of views and a consensus.  Hiding Talk 16:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: School newspapers, like other newspapers, may either be quite good or not. Certainly, at the university level, the Yale Daily News or Columbia Spectator are far better newspapers than a typical small-city paper. And an high school paper may well give the best coverage available for a small town. My own high school paper (lo, these many years ago) consistently won Columbia-Scholastic Press Association awards, and was certainly a better paper than the two local papers at the time in our town of 45,000, one of which was basically a "shopper" and the other of which was closely associated with a political machine. - Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations) under topic 4: Placing the 'bar of notability.' This may be of interest to those discussing standards for reliability, with ongoing debate about the {{WP:ORG]] proposed guideline Assertion of notability: The following cannot be used to assert notability: 2)Student run papers since it hinges largely on whether student-run independent college newspaper can ever be considered reliable and independent sources to establish the notability of gruops on campus. Edison 21:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  School newspaper: info sourced given undue weight? 

message: DM Ashura includes his tracks for Flash Flash Revolution; FFR was deleted for no reliable sources. Does that mean that it's also unreliable in DM Ashura, or does it become reliable somehow? --SPUI (T - C) 12:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If A is deleted for no reliable sources, can self-published sources from A be used for C?

message: Please see Talk:Saipansucks.com#Forums_and_blogs for the exception. C.m.jones 04:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet - Another Exception

message: I'm engaged in a debate with another Wikipedian regarding use of a primary source. It's a letter written some 20 years ago alleging research fraud. It gives no evidence, just says that the person writing the letter was told by others that the fraud existed. Hundreds of articles have been published on the topic, including articles in top medical journals in the last 15 years. A quote from this letter is being used in Wikipedia to discredit this body of research. There is no corroborating claim of fraud, nor has any evidence ever been given. Nor has any study ever been challenged as being fraudulent.
I need some help understanding the guideline on primary sources. In particular, I don't understand the constraint given in this sentence: "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic." If someone says something in a letter, is that considered the kind of authoritative evidence that Wikipedia requires? Or must it be somehow corroborated? Thanks!TimidGuy 20:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you simply want to establish that someone said something in a letter, then the letter is a good source for that fact, although it might or might not be relevant, depending who wrote the letter, whether the letter has been quoted in this connection, etc.  If you want to establish the truth of the fact itself, the fact that someone said it in a letter doesn't do it.  Does that address your question? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Yes, the person who added it to the article is using it as a fact to say that the research is fraudulent. I assume then from what you say that the guideline about primary sources being used to make a descriptive point is, in this case, to establish that the person said it, but that its claim need be corroborated by a secondary source if the letter is to be used as evidence of research fraud. Is that right?TimidGuy 22:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds right to me, but I'd like to see what others think as well. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The example given is exactly what you can't use. As described, its use is to illustrate a contentious point. Applying our policies it is original research using an unreliable source. Fred Bauder 23:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Collaboration, in the journalistic sense, by a second primary source would not cure the problem. What is needed is third party publication with some measure of peer review. If all that was involved was just a noncontroversial fact, its use might be OK, but alleged fraud is controversial by nature. Fred Bauder 23:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly the Roark letter is a primary source. Fred Bauder 23:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much. These comments are very helpful. The instance is here and the debate regarding use of primary sources is here . I'm going to start a new thread on the Talk page in which I explain the guideline on primary sources as I understand it, using your feedback as support for the explanation. Hope that's OK.TimidGuy 12:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no problem citing the JAMA article. No amount of laundering will make the Roark letter acceptable for the purpose of reporting fraudulent research, see Wikipedia:Fact laundering. Fred Bauder 21:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about primary sources 

message: Hello, I'd like to know where the section on YouTube as an unreliable source went? Wouldn't it be better to keep this on the project page so that they can be easily referred to? Or has it been moved somewhere else, I've looked at WP:V and WP:CITE. 
I ask because I intended to modify that section to include information about Google Videos, and how they cannot be used as reliable sources for the same reasons why YouTube videos can't. Ekantik talk 05:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the question. Also, what would a video of a person giving a personal testimony be considered with regard sourcing of that persons opinion? It's obviously a primary source for that's person opinion, but it requires no interpretation. It would also I assume be considered indisputably reliable, video editing magic aside. Video type material doesn't seem well covered in WP:RS? --Insider201283 05:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All primary sources require some measure of interpetation. We can use them only when we can keep that to a very low level. The first order of interpretation, which DanielM discusses, is whther or not the video accurately depicts what happened. Another level of interpretation is about why it happened. In Insider201283's example of personal testimony, we'd need to interpret why the person is giving their opinion, and under what circumstances (are they being paid? are they under oath? is it a performance? etc). Further, all primary sources must be interpeted for relevance. Is the "Mike Jones" in the video the same person that our article is about? These are some core reasons why random videos uploaded by anonymous users must be treated with prejudice. -Will Beback · † · 19:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: YouTube 3

message: I've been noticing a bit of a pattern: some people, when talking about "sources", include interviews as such (particularly in the context of AfDs and the primary notability criterion).  However, anything that the subject talks about in an interview would be considered primary source material, and the non-interview intro blurb would be considered non primary source.
But how long would this blurb have to be to be considered a "nontrivial mention"?  ColourBurst 06:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interviews as primary sources