Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 13

message: This section made the following ruling:
:Such links are unique in how reliability is applied. It is important to ensure that the copy being linked is a true copy of the original, without any comments, amendations, edits or changes. When the "convenience link" is hosted by a site that is considered reliable on its own, this is relatively easy to assume. However, when such a link is hosted on a less reliable site, the linked version should be checked for accuracy against the original, or not linked at all if such verification is not possible.
This is reasonable. If it is consensus among editors, it belongs at Wikipedia:Convenience links; if it is not, why is this page decreeing it? In either case, why does it belong here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I remember, before we added this we were fielding a lot of questions about how the reliabe sources guideline applied to convinience links... since we added it, very few questions have been raised... so I would assume it has consensus.  The crux of the questions were whether convenience links in general had to fit the criteria for reliable sources or not.  Some people stated that we did not need to worry about the reliability of the hosting site... since what was being cited was the original document and not the site.  However, it was pointed out that some POV sites have been known to edit or amend what is said in the original (Omitting or adding a paragraph that changed the document to reflect their POV for example).  What resulted was a compromise... The idea is that as long as we have checked that the copy hosted at the convenience link is accurate to the original, we can call the copy reliable even if the hosting site would not normally be considered so.  If it turns out to be different than the original in some way, then it is not reliable.  Blueboar 19:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Covenience links

message: We need someplace, and this page may not be the best choice, to record decisions on questions like the one I originally came here to ask: Is the OED a reliable source for the etymology of antimony? (See Talk:Antimony; there is an editor who denies it.) 
These don't belong in policy; should we have a FAQ? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would depend which OED. If it's the online thing, then no. The complete OED might be a reliable source, but dictionaries are best avoided as source in the view of many editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the Second Edition (1989). But we need some place to compile these decisions, so we don't have to trust to memory.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not so simple

message: I see Jossi has just removed it, but this was about to be my next example:
??? SlimVirgin (talk)
:Made no sense to me, so I deleted it. We should strive for guidelines that use language that can be easily understood. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual drastic decision; the intent is clear beneath the goobledygook; not all of it desirable.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the intent is clear, please clarify it, because it really does not make sense to me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Your version is just as bad. It doesn't mean anything in practise. Does it mean this: "According to the Guardian, Israeli troops advanced inside Lebanon, but we all know the Guardian is pro-Palestinian so you better check this against other source"? No, clearly it doesn't mean that. So what does it mean? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For this example, "Syrian press sources say that Israeli jets attacked civilians in Beirut.  Other sources disagree [both Israeli and neutral], saying... The Syrian press is censored and in part owned by the Syrian government, and is widely held to be unrealiable[reliable source, which says it is widely held.]" Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we could only add that if another reliable source had said it in relation to the topic being discussed. So then we're not evaluating the source; other sources are evaluating it. I'm getting the impression that you're very confused about NOR and V, and the relationship between them. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing again

message: Is About.com considered to be a reliable source?  The entries are written by individuals, but I don't know what standard of accuracy or verifiability is imposed on them by the website.  --Vbd (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say not, for the exact reasons you state ... some of the links they provide may be reliable (it depends on the link) so it could be considered a useful tertiary source, but not a reliable source in itself. Blueboar 17:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABOUT.COM 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Citing consensus.  Thank you.--Pharos 02:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal on citing "consensus" 

message: To my suggestion above?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of comments = consensus? 

message: I would like to propose an explicit addition.  I think this probably meets the spirit of reliable sources, no original research, verifiability, and neutral POV.
Specifically, in articles about a controversy, if a party to the controversy is used as a source in describing or characterizing an argument used by an opposing party to the controversy, the fact that the source is a party to the controversy should be disclosed in the article, and not left as an exercise to the diligent reader to determine.   
Hypothetical Example 1:  Pop versus Soda Controversy  The pop versus soda controversy pits Christian fundamentalists from the Midwest who prefer the term pop over the term soda, against scientists and linguists from around the world who state that the correct term is soda pop or just soda... Scientists are against the family, as evidenced against their disdain for the term 'pop', which is also a homonym for father. [1]
[1]See www.talkpop.com/ScientistsAreAntiFamily.htm
Clearly, this would be better written as:  
Hypothetical Example 2:  Pop versus Soda Controversy  The pop versus soda controversy pits Christian fundamentalists from the Midwest who prefer the term pop over the term soda, against scientists and linguists from around the world who state that the correct term is soda pop or just soda.....According to Pop-advocates, scientists and linguists are against the family, as evidenced, they say, by their disdain for the term 'pop', which is also a homonym for father. [2]
[2]See www.talkpop.com/ScientistsAreAntiFamily.htm
However, in this second example, I think this is original research, requiring an NPOV RS not a party to the controversy to make the observation that pop-advocates believe scientists are anti-family.
The best approach would be 
Hypothetical Example 3:  Pop versus Soda Controversy  The pop versus soda controversy pits Christian fundamentalists from the Midwest who prefer the term pop over the term soda, against scientists and linguists from around the world who state that the correct term is soda pop or just soda.....According to Pop-advocates, scientists and linguists are against the family, as evidenced, they say, by their disdain for the term 'pop', which is also a homonym for father. [3]
[3]See AP article news.yahoo.com/SomeArticle.htm, citing www.talkpop.com/ScientistsAreAntiFamily.htm
If others agree, I will try to reword this into a more consise but explicit statement.  Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.62.0.252 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree with your reasoning (framing the statement as a statement of opinion as opposed to a statement of fact)... but this is already covered in WP:NPOV and does not need to be repeated in this guideline. Blueboar 14:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles about a controversy 

message: Is there a template for tagging a citation that is not a neutral, reliable source?  I don't mean  - that just asks for a citation - I'm looking for something that would say "neutral source needed" or something like that.  Than ks for any help! Tvoz |talk 18:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ? -- Avi 18:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  perhaps -- Avi 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could also try   Blueboar 18:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both!  Excellent options. Tvoz |talk 04:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  template for non-neutral source? 

message: I cannot find how online distribution services -- prnewswire, businesswire, findarticles, for example -- are viewed and used as sources. I have been treating them as tertiary sources and when I find an article that uses them as a source, I try to find the primary or secondary source -- publication, company website, etc. -- to include instead. Can anyone direct me? Flowanda 19:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online distribution services and directories as sources 

message: Per discussions here, and here, I would like to add a note along the lines that major newspapers are considered reliable unless a particular article is contradicted by other more reliable (academic) sources or the author is known to be unreliable on that subject. Perhaps also a note that in case of controversial articles it is recommended to note in text that particular info is referenced to an article may be a good idea?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly per these discussions such addition is highly unwarranted, unless specifically stated that mainstream news sources (such as major newspapers) are acceptable on the subjects of the current or recent events which is their primary field of coverage anyway. --Irpen 04:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Irpen, you are the only person raising this objection; nobody else who commented in relevant threads thinks it's appopriate. Newspapers and magazines often have background articles about not-current events that are somehow connected to current events (ex. anniversairies, new research, etc.) and are perfectly reliable sources for this unless they are contradicting more reliable (academic) research - which reliable newspapers with editorial oversight are very unlikely to do.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Let "one" make decision whose claims are false for themselves, this is why I linked the previous disussions in my opening post.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it amusing that user Piotrus who claims that all Russian sources are unreliable at the article Institute of National Remembrance talk page, and delights by his POV, suddenly forgets such links as this.Vlad fedorov 06:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, just because Polish legislation provides for obligatory lustration of all journalists we should discard all Polish sources then, applying Piotrus logic? Vlad fedorov 06:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on newspapers needed 

message: Since quite a few disputes seem to occur over whether something constitutes a reliable source or not, would it perhaps be useful to have some sort of committee appointed just to arbitrate such disputes? It could circumvent a lot of unnecessary angst between users with opposing views.
The committee could be appointed from admins who have an excellent reputation for edit quality and impartiality. Any comments? Gatoclass 06:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly a good idea.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. I aspire to resolve all my disputes over "unreliable" sources in Boris Stomakhin article with Biophys. Vlad fedorov 07:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not ^demon[omg plz] 11:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No.  This is the job of the editing community for a specific article/topic area, because only those editors are likely to have the specific interest and expertise to understand the specific sourcing issues.  For those rare cases in which the parties are utterly unable resolve their disputes like adult human beings, we have Arbcom.  -- Visviva 11:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for a committee... there are several avenues one can take to resolve questions and debates over the reliability of a source:  You can ask about it here, you can post an RfC or Third Party request, you can request a mediator, etc. Blueboar 12:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right only in theory. Real life is very different. In the case of Boris Stomakhin article mentioned above, I did asked for advice at this talk page, and the source was clearly decided to be inappropriate. That did not help (Vlad Fedorov continued inserting the source). Vlad asked for a Cabal mediation, but the mediator did not tell if the source is reliable or not. Just to explain: the "source" (extremist web site) say: "Kill, kill, kill!" (citizens of Russian Federation) and I am against of using that kind of "sources" in WP articles. Yes, we need such committee.Biophys 15:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note to clarify what is really happening. This website with "Kill!Kill!Kill!" statements is a site of Boris Stomakhin organization - RKO. And "KillKillKill" is a statement made by Boris Stomakhin. Biophys wants to exclude these words of Boris Stomakhin who was sentenced for extremist activities, in order to present Boris Stomakhin as an innocent dissident who was prosecuted by bloody KGB regime and stuff. Biophys wages propaganda campaign here in Wikipedia by inserting allegations,myths and legends in the articles on GRU, SVR, FSB, KGB, Human rights in Russia, Boris Stomakhin, and other. That's why Biophys falsely claims that "the source was clearly decided to be inappropriate", he omits that it was only him, who decided it. Vlad fedorov 16:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear that this issue is already clarified under the current policy esp the section on "Exceptional claims" which states that "Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media." should be "supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people." Pending coverage from other sources the claim should not be made and the source should not be used. A compromise could be "some sources claim" with the ref attached and it made clear that it is not a fact and clearyl establishing the possible POV so as to avoid the impression of weasel words. NeoFreak 16:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No. If a policy isn't clear it needs to be amended. There are already plenty of different routes a editor can take for dispute resolution and dictating policy by committee is contrary to the tried and true concept of consensus formed policy. Not to mention cabal creep ;) NeoFreak 14:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Content RFC's are useless, I've tried them. No-one responds to them. "Third party" intervention is not binding and unable to resolve such disputes either. Perhaps you are right though NeoFreak that the policy needs to be made clearer. That would certainly be a start. Gatoclass 14:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found WP:3O to be a great tool. If the editor in the minority refuses to accept a neutrally achevied consensus, is reverting all others and has refused mediation then it is reasonable to assume that administrator intervention or arbitration is required to avoid further disruption. NeoFreak 16:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A reliable source committee?