Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 5

message: (sorry for 8 other "ref"'s showing  up in the list below, only the -currently- No. 9 relates to the #Convenience Links, definition section --Francis Schonken 16:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Dr Zak, you restored the link to the odd template, which says "please verify the credibility of this source." What would that involve exactly? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Misread and misparsed the template text of  as "a reliable source" (sort of a synonym for ) and reverted myself. Thanks for pointing that out. "Verifying the credibility of a source" involves checking if any statement conforms to the scientific consensus like you find in a recent, authoritative review or monograph. (We need those words somewhere in the guideline.) Dr Zak 20:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That said,  looks still useful to mark a dubious source in the "References" section Dr Zak 21:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: SlimVirgin -  is a template you can use to mark a specific source as being of questionable reliability, in the hope that another editor will check its reliability, and if necessary, replace it with a better source or remove the information. Thus it made sense to put it in the "See also" section of WP:RS. But whatever. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, ABF. In that case, it might be better called "check credibility" or better still "check reliability." SlimVirgin (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Verify credibility]] 

message: Feel free to modify the following to bring it closer to consensus.
* A convenience link is a reproduction of an informational  source and is not the original source.  It is an online reproduction of the actual source, which may be offline or require a subscription.  The original source being difficult to access, it may be helpful to provide a convenience link so that the reader may view the information easily.  Since convenience links are generally of lower reliability than the original source, the citation should be sure to make it clear that the convenience link is not a source. For example
 Also see a website reproduction of this article from Holysmoke.org, an anti-scientology website (retrieved on 2006-07-10).
should be used instead of
If the convenience link is of particularly low quality, it may be helpful to include a unbiased note of that in the citation, such as "from a personal website", or "from a partisan website", etc. This will encourage the reader to take the convenience link with a grain of salt. Questions to ask when determining the quality of the convenience link include: does the convenince link go beyond copyright laws, does the convenience link attribute the information to the original author, is the convenience link an accurate reproduction, have signatures and dates been reproduced on the convenince webpage, are authorizations of reproductions within the original, reproduced on the convenince link so that an earlier author in the chain is recognized, is the publisher reputable, and other questions of authenticity.
I have created a section about how an editor should create a convenience link at WP:CITE.  I used the above example which recognizes the original source of information, and presents an online convenient reproduction.  The reasoning was, while we might define the term here, WP:CITE is the guideline of how to Cite, so I put the whole thing there. Terryeo 23:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If an editor puts the above example into the reliable sources guideline, the editor is asserting that the version of the story at http://www.holysmoke.org accurately reproduces the version printed in the Boston Herald. If the editor is not prepared to make that assertion, the editor should pick a different example. Gerry Ashton 02:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The parent policy, WP:V requires, ... have already been published by reliable and reputable sources.  A reproduction of a piece of information which satisfies WP:V, would satisfy WP:V if we were certain it were a reproduction.  But a summary, analysis, or other material relating to an actual source would not satisfy WP:V because it would not have previously been published by a reliable and reputable source.  Granted that a convenience link is not the original source.  Nonetheless, WP:V's requirement can not be ignored.  I believe any Summary, any analysis, any other material must itself have been  published, per WP:V, in order for it to be cited by any Wikipedia article.  In addition,  I feel Wikipedia must necessarily hold to that standard, rather than water that standard down Terryeo 05:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  In addition, there are questions of, does the convenince link go beyond copyright laws, does the convenience link attribute the information to the original author, is the convenience link an accurate reproduction,  have signatures and dates been reproduced on the convenince webpage,  are authorizations of reproductions whithin the original, reproduced on the convenince link so that an earlier author in the chain is recognized and other questions of authenticity.  These are the sorts of things readers look toward in order to satisfy themselves they are getting accurate information. Terryeo 05:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Gerry Ashton - I tried to reword it a bit so that we were making it clear that we were not claiming that the convenience link was of high quality, but instead being honest about its failings, and not relying on it when editing. I feel that showing an example of dealing with a low-quality convenience link is probably helpful, since it is a delicate situation that many editors will probably have to handle. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me spell out the scenario I'm concerned about. Editor A compares offline source P to web page W, and decides they match, so provides a convenience link in article B. Later, Editor C modifies guideline G, including the same sources P and W. Since this is a different place on Wikipedia, Editor C is making a new claim that P and W match. Before making such a claim, Editor C should obtain the paper P and personally compare it to the web page W; Editor C should not rely on Editor A's assertion that they match. Gerry Ashton 17:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  A convenience link is a reproduction and not the original source.  It is an important distinction.  It says a piece of information be compared to the original source, but is not itself the original source.  In the situation with NASA and with many sites, they will say that is is perfectly all right to reproduce their work, but to give them credit for having originally produced it.  Of course, any encyclopedia would want to attribute the original source while reproducing a portion of the original source.  For us, such attribution adds reputability.  We want to indicate the original source and we want to indicate reproduction of the source, it adds to our stature to do so. Terryeo 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I disagree with Schonken that reliability is the primary question which WP:RS confronts.  This guideline, I believe, confronts all of the first half of WP:V's statement, .. have already been published by reliable and reputable sources.  The phrase already been published is critical in an era where a personal website may be viewed by anyone on the planet, or indeed, even from space.  A personal website can claim a webpage's content has been previously published, but present their own personal opinion in such a way that their opinion seems to be a part of the previously published piece of information.  Actually determining whether the information on a webpage has been previously published is not a trivial task.  And both reliable and reputable sources are equally important. Terryeo 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Could we remove the (In some cases, it may also be a summary, analysis, or other material relating to the actual source, but this is more controversial.)?  We do not want unpublished information related to the actual source, presented alongside published information do we?  If we did that then readers would themselves have to sort out what is good, published information from a personal website owner's opinion, analysis and so on.  And that is the task us editors have been charged with ! Terryeo 16:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if the purpose of the link is to give a reader without the actual source an idea of what they're missing, not to actually have a source to write material based on, I feel such links do serve that purpose better than nothing. And then there's book-searching tools, which are sort of like partial reproductions (full really, except you can't see the whole thing), but are controversial for other reasons. I'm sorry if this isn't a very comprehensive response, I'm sort of busy with non-Wikipedia things this evening. But this is an important issue that will probably be difficult to reach a consensus on, so I'll try to write you a better response later. (For now, though, being controversial, we may as well say its controversial.) — Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate that we want to have an open ball park in which editors can edit, without too many constraints.  WP:V tells us the edges of the ball park we edit within.  An information must have been previously published by a reliable and reputable source to be present in an article.  Traditionally that meant books and newspapers.  The internet makes publishing much faster, easier and cheaper.  WP:RS should spell out clearly how WP:V applies to specific situations.  A convenience link in an article can enhance an article, but if the reader won't have confidence in the link, the reader will develop a lack of confidence in Wikipedia.  A convenince link should not include information which is outside the threshold of inclusion.  A summary or an analysis or an  interpretation of previously published information which is not itself published is below WP:V's threshold and can not be included on a convenince linked page.   Terryeo 15:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested addition to [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_definitions|Some definitions]] 

message: :If an editor puts the above example into the reliable sources guideline, the editor is asserting that the version of the story at http://www.holysmoke.org accurately reproduces the version printed in the Boston Herald. If the editor is not prepared to make that assertion, the editor should pick a different example. Gerry Ashton 02:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The parent policy, WP:V requires, ... have already been published by reliable and reputable sources.  A reproduction of a piece of information which satisfies WP:V, would satisfy WP:V if we were certain it were a reproduction.  But a summary, analysis, or other material relating to an actual source would not satisfy WP:V because it would not have previously been published by a reliable and reputable source.  Granted that a convenience link is not the original source.  Nonetheless, WP:V's requirement can not be ignored.  I believe any Summary, any analysis, any other material must itself have been  published, per WP:V, in order for it to be cited by any Wikipedia article.  In addition,  I feel Wikipedia must necessarily hold to that standard, rather than water that standard down Terryeo 05:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In addition, there are questions of, does the convenince link go beyond copyright laws, does the convenience link attribute the information to the original author, is the convenience link an accurate reproduction,  have signatures and dates been reproduced on the convenince webpage,  are authorizations of reproductions whithin the original, reproduced on the convenince link so that an earlier author in the chain is recognized and other questions of authenticity.  These are the sorts of things readers look toward in order to satisfy themselves they are getting accurate information. Terryeo 05:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Gerry Ashton - I tried to reword it a bit so that we were making it clear that we were not claiming that the convenience link was of high quality, but instead being honest about its failings, and not relying on it when editing. I feel that showing an example of dealing with a low-quality convenience link is probably helpful, since it is a delicate situation that many editors will probably have to handle. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me spell out the scenario I'm concerned about. Editor A compares offline source P to web page W, and decides they match, so provides a convenience link in article B. Later, Editor C modifies guideline G, including the same sources P and W. Since this is a different place on Wikipedia, Editor C is making a new claim that P and W match. Before making such a claim, Editor C should obtain the paper P and personally compare it to the web page W; Editor C should not rely on Editor A's assertion that they match. Gerry Ashton 17:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  A convenience link is a reproduction and not the original source.  It is an important distinction.  It says a piece of information be compared to the original source, but is not itself the original source.  In the situation with NASA and with many sites, they will say that is is perfectly all right to reproduce their work, but to give them credit for having originally produced it.  Of course, any encyclopedia would want to attribute the original source while reproducing a portion of the original source.  For us, such attribution adds reputability.  We want to indicate the original source and we want to indicate reproduction of the source, it adds to our stature to do so. Terryeo 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I disagree with Schonken that reliability is the primary question which WP:RS confronts.  This guideline, I believe, confronts all of the first half of WP:V's statement, .. have already been published by reliable and reputable sources.  The phrase already been published is critical in an era where a personal website may be viewed by anyone on the planet, or indeed, even from space.  A personal website can claim a webpage's content has been previously published, but present their own personal opinion in such a way that their opinion seems to be a part of the previously published piece of information.  Actually determining whether the information on a webpage has been previously published is not a trivial task.  And both reliable and reputable sources are equally important. Terryeo 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Could we remove the (In some cases, it may also be a summary, analysis, or other material relating to the actual source, but this is more controversial.)?  We do not want unpublished information related to the actual source, presented alongside published information do we?  If we did that then readers would themselves have to sort out what is good, published information from a personal website owner's opinion, analysis and so on.  And that is the task us editors have been charged with ! Terryeo 16:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if the purpose of the link is to give a reader without the actual source an idea of what they're missing, not to actually have a source to write material based on, I feel such links do serve that purpose better than nothing. And then there's book-searching tools, which are sort of like partial reproductions (full really, except you can't see the whole thing), but are controversial for other reasons. I'm sorry if this isn't a very comprehensive response, I'm sort of busy with non-Wikipedia things this evening. But this is an important issue that will probably be difficult to reach a consensus on, so I'll try to write you a better response later. (For now, though, being controversial, we may as well say its controversial.) — Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate that we want to have an open ball park in which editors can edit, without too many constraints.  WP:V tells us the edges of the ball park we edit within.  An information must have been previously published by a reliable and reputable source to be present in an article.  Traditionally that meant books and newspapers.  The internet makes publishing much faster, easier and cheaper.  WP:RS should spell out clearly how WP:V applies to specific situations.  A convenience link in an article can enhance an article, but if the reader won't have confidence in the link, the reader will develop a lack of confidence in Wikipedia.  A convenince link should not include information which is outside the threshold of inclusion.  A summary or an analysis or an  interpretation of previously published information which is not itself published is below WP:V's threshold and can not be included on a convenince linked page.   Terryeo 15:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Just a quick check, is http://wikimediafoundation.org/ a reliable source for information concerning members of the board? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if you mean who is on the board and who isn't. It's a bit less reliable as a sole source for personal information about the board members because it's PR-controlled. You wouldn't trust ExxonMobil to give a perfectly reliable account of its executives' personal background, either. --Davidstrauss 06:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is http://wikimediafoundation.org/ a RS? 

message: The first reason previously given is simply ridiculous.  Everything a researcher collects and publishes is going to be *new* otherwise they wouldn't publish it.  So this reason effectively eliminates the entire category from consideration.  There are many people who are professional and publish websites as their main vehicle for publication.  That is the brave, new world.  I'm sure that disregarding all such sites is not the intention of this section.  It should be toned-down, not made so egregious. Wjhonson 22:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the "first reason"? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to say something like let me paraphrase "it it was newsworthy it would have beeen reported somewhere else already." Which is silly.  If the researcher themselves is reporting it on their own web site, why would it also need to be published in the Skykomish Bugle in order to be cited?  All newspapers do, is repeat the story already writen :) Wjhonson 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It advises people to exercise caution about using material on a researcher's blog that absolutely no one else has any interest in publishing. It doesn't say not to use it, but simply advises editors to stop and think, because the information may not be notable enough for other publications, and therefore might not be for us either. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've added to the wording.  It does not say "that absolutely no one else has any interest in publishing."  It simply insinuates that the editor has to look elsewhere then the source which is the reported in the first place.  And it does say, that it must be published in a third-party source.  That's the part I removed.  That restriction in the case of a reporter or professional researcher known in their field of expertise, is just plain silly. Wjhonson 23:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say that it must be published in a third-party source? Can you quote the sentence (in context)? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed another part, which was senseless :)  Let's say Ted Koppel on his www.tedkoppel.com web site says, "The City of San Diego yesterday passed a resolution outlawing smoking, one of the members told me privately they were against it, but felt afraid to vote their mind".  And he happens to live in San Diego, was at the meeting and interviewed the person.  You're going to tell me, that that has to be published in the San Diego Star or wherever to be a credible source?  Pardon me, but that's a dumb restriction.  Editors should take precautions when using information from the sites of professional researchers.  More than that is too strict. Wjhonson 22:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say it has to be published elsewhere first. In the case of a well-known journalist, it says exactly the opposite. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:RS is a guideline, not policy. Always remember that. --Davidstrauss 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for disregarding professional researcher websites 

message: This sentence in the second paragraph of the article is kind of hard to understand:
"It is the responsibility of the person seeking for content to be included to provide references."
Could someone fix it, or delete it?  I'd do it myself, but I'm not really sure what the sentence is trying to say. -- Zeno Izen 01:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that the burden to provide references is on the editor adding material to an article. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An unclear sentence 

message: Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people - Is one book which asserts a historian's own personal interpretation of historical documents a sufficient source to list someone as LGBT, when no other source is known to share that view? Bearcat 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the scientific consensus about so-and-so being gay? Is the perception that that person was gay sufficiently popular that saying he was wouldn't give undue weight to a minority opinion? Dr Zak 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that "no other source known" is your opinion.  Based on nothing.  That is WP:OR.  Now if you can cite a source which states that then fine. Wjhonson 22:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Scientific consensus is irrelevant for that list. "Gay", etc. are social labels. "Homosexual", etc. are the biological ones. Whether someone is gay is not a scientific question. Now, whether that source is reliable enough to assert the social label is a different question. :-) --Davidstrauss 06:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:RS-related RfC 

message: A few guidelines should probably be added to this page regarding these situations.  I would recommend the following.  -- Beland 15:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need even more ways in which editors can accuse each other of not using reliable sources.  We have to make the assumption *until proven wrong* that a secondary source is accurately quoting the underlying primary source.  We can't spend half our lives fact-checking from primary sources which may exist at only one library in the world. Wjhonson 15:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, some degree of source checking should be encoraged. We do not want incorrect information repeated on Wikipedia simply because an editor is too lazy to check and see if the original is easily available.  Also, in articles that deal with controvercial issues, you can have secondary sources that, for POV reasons, deliberately mis-quote the original or quote the original out of context.  By asking an editor to check to see if the original is easily available, and if so, to use that instead of the secondary source is to me a good thing. Blueboar 15:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument that Wikipedia shouldn't be made accurate because it's too much trouble, and that we should assume that whatever is posted on some random web site is correct because it's easy to get to,  does not seem to align with the goals of the project. Many political and literary figures have sayings attributed to them sprinkled all over the web...many of which are misquotes or incorrectly attributed.  Most of these situations could be resolved by asking for the full citation to the original work (usually missing in the secondary source) which being all famous and everything is available at the corner bookstore or local library for ultimate verification.  -- Beland 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One argument is, "Consider the intermediate source is accurate unless proven wrong" and the other argument, "Consider the intermediate source with skepticism until proven accurate".  My familiarity is with intermediate sources, on personal website, who have a cross to bear, i.e. partisan, anti-POV website owners.  They publish anything that smells.  I don't trust it, myself because even if they give it 100% effort, they have a point to make which is not neutral. Terryeo 12:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indirect sources 

message: I think it should be made clear that there is an intermediate step between reporting something as a fact and not reporting it at all - reporting with attribution.
For example, many scientific theories reported in Wikipedia have the benefit of scientific consensus; these can be reported as accepted facts.  But sometimes certain scientific studies are published in reliable, peer-reviewed journals, but have not yet been (or never will be) reproduced.  In a case like this, it is inappropriate to simply report the findings of a study as if it were true.  Instead, an article should read something like, "A controlled study of X published in Y in 1954 found that ___[1]".
It is important to check for professional criticism of the study; if it has been deemed faulty by scientific peers, it should not be included (unless it is notable for other reasons, such as being important to the history of the field - right or wrong - or because it was the source of a lot of controversy).  If the debate over the underlying facts is still unsettled, this should be noted, and any competing studies included as well.
Someone previously asked on this talk page for guidance about what to do if there are multiple reliable sources, and they disagree.  ("Inconceivable!"The Princess Bride (film))  It could be reported, with weasel words that "sources disagree", and that "some say X[1]" and "some say Y[2]".  But it's probably better to say in the text, "Author A says X[1] but Committee B says Y.[2]"
I've heard that the standard that the reputable New York Times uses here is that claims supported by two independent sources may be reported as fact, but claims supported by only one source should be reported with attribution.  Obviously, their journalists and fact checkers also use their editorial judgement about which claims (however many people are making them) belong in print, for reasons of credibility, liability, information content, and relevance.  It will be a long time before all the claims made in Wikipedia can be supported by two independent sources, but it is probably a good idea to report with attribution if someone tries and fails to find multiple sources for a given claim.  If there is only one source in the entire universe for a given claim, then readers will have to trust that source if they are going to trust the information. -- Beland 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations with textual attribution 

message: The census cannot be used as a source?  I would like to hear some comments on that claim. Wjhonson 16:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the claim that the census can't be used as a source? Gerry Ashton 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the census can be used as a source.  It is an official government document. Blueboar 16:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here Xoloz says that the census is a primary source and cannot be used. Wjhonson 16:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The census is indeed a primary source, so it should be used with caution. It's reasonably reliable, but does not tell us that the person recorded in the census is noteable. An articles should rely mostly on secondary sources. Gerry Ashton 17:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue being that Xoloz is saying the census cannot be used, period. Wjhonson 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah... no.  I never suggested the census cannot be used; I never suggested anything even remotely close to that.  I suggested it is a primary source, because it is.  You have a strange way of reading, User:Wjhonson. Xoloz 20:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah... context.... the census is indeed a primary source.  It can be used to reference itself (ie to verify a statement about what the census data is).  From the context of the comment, however, Xoloz feels you are using it as a secondary source, which would not be allowed. Blueboar 17:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite agree with Blueboar. An unreliable primary source can only be used to provide information about itself, for example, this page shows that a WP editor using the name Gerry Ashton thinks the census is a primary source. A reliable primary source can be used for factual information, for example, on July 4, 1870, Honora Ashton was 39 years old. The problem with primary sources is that they often provide fine-grain details, and the process of combining large amounts of fine-grain detail into a cohesive summary tends to be original research. Gerry Ashton 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It would depend on what you are trying to use the census for.  Genrerally, you can only use it to back statements about what it actually says.  It is OK, for example, to state "According to the census of 1848 the population of Origon was 3,294 people and 9000 cows"... but you could not use it to back up a statement such as "In 1848 people in Origon liked cows".  Can you explain how you wanted to use the census? Blueboar 18:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To prove the names, ages, and residence of a family.  "So and so lived at this place in 1870 and was 6 years old..." That sort of thing. Wjhonson 18:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Census data contains private information about people? Don't think so... ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: U.S. census data does indeed contain private information about people, but the private information isn't released until 70 years after the census. The most recent census with full details available is the 1930 census. Ancestry.com has digitized much of the census records, and you can purchase a subscription to view the records. Or, you can purchase the microfilm from the National Archives . Gerry Ashton 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The major complaint about my sources is that they are obscure.  But the requirement is not *on* me regarding proving a source is reliable.  Rather the requirement to prove a source is not reliable is on other editors to find some WP:RS which states "source x is not reliable".  Any other interpretation is WP:OR by that editor stating his/her opinion about a source, which is irrelevant. Wjhonson 20:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without getting into the overall issue of whether a local historical figure is notable enough for Wikipedia or not (this is not the forum to debate that, please) ... There is a difference between reliablility and obscurity. A source can be obscure and still be reliable, it can also be easy to find and yet not reliable.  I would also say that the census can (and should) be used in this situation as a source ... for it does indeed clearly verify that person W was X years old and lived in Town Y in the Year Z. If you used it for more than that (ie interpreted the data to prove a point), I would question its use. Blueboar 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The manuscript census will always be a primary source; using it will always be original research.  The published census volumes count as secondary sources (they are compiled by experts from the raw census data), Rjensen 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No I used it for exactly what you said. To prove that person x lived in town y and what z years old.  And that's all I used it for  And I was using a compiled source.  Xoloz says that does not matter, that even a compiled source is unusable as a secondary source. Wjhonson 21:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not see a reason not to accept Census data as a source for the stated purpose. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Census as a source 

message: Xoloz now outdoes his last statement with this one "and in my judgment also, your article does not contain a single reliable secondary source".  One of my main sources is a newspaper the Snohomish Tribune.  According to Xoloz this fails WP:RS.  Wjhonson 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Xoloz states that newspapers are primary sources.  So this would imply that a newspaper can never be used in any wiki article.  Am I right? Wjhonson 20:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wjhonson keeps saying that primary sources can't be used in Wikipedia articles. This is just plain wrong. Further, the proper balance between primary and secondary sources should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:No original research, not here. Read WP:NOR#Primary and secondary sources. Gerry Ashton 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you have it correct... a newspaper contain both primary and secondary reports.  A newspaper report by an eye witness journalist would be primary, a report from a non-eye witness would be secondary, as would any analysis of the events discribed.  Both can be reliable depending on how they are used in an article.  It sounds lik Xoloz is taking an overly strict view of WP:RS.  (note that I am not saying that your article's subject is notable... only that using WP:RS in this way to say that it is NOT notable sounds wrong to me).  This does sound more like it might be a NOR issue... the sources by themselves seem valid. Blueboar 23:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Newspaper articles can be accepted as reliable sources and thus citable, in particular if the newspaper is deemed to be reliable (e.g. not a tabloid, for example). ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not a tabloid" won't stand up. Plenty of reputable newspapers are tabloids; The Times, the Daily Mail and Libération are three that come to mind. Discriminating based on format plainly isn't viable. What you're referring to, I think, is the distinction between so-called "popular" and "quality" newspapers, though even there I'm not sure you could automatically say that one is reliable and the other isn't.  -- ChrisO 23:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This gets into a very fine-grained discussion, where we would actually need a list of those newspapers considered WP:RS and those not, or maybe just those not?  Anyone wanna start that list?  Then WP:RS could point to it.  So a new story on Elizabeth Taylor published in The National Enquirer wouldn't stand up, but one published in the Washington Post would perhaps.  I think however, we can all agree, at least, that any newspaper of a community, where it is the *sole* newspaper serving that community has to be given the benefit of the doubt on WP:RS.  So all local newspapers meet this mark. Wjhonson 23:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspapers as reliable sources 

message: Please continue here, the edit history is getting large. Wjhonson 21:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right I agree that webpages and "boardcast emails" should be listed as "published".  Then in the definitions of available and public we can tackle these again and tweeze them apart. Wjhonson 21:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And Yes Gerry I agree with that, published has to be "on recordable media" of some sort.  The air, and your eyes, aren't recordable media. Wjhonson 21:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not rely on a technological definition alone.  A journalist's notes of an event may not be sound or video recorded, nevertheless, these notes may later be used as the basis for an article which gets published.  So, the published data needs to be on a recordable media, but the source data need only be recorded.--Fahrenheit451 22:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: At Wjhonson's suggestion, I have written a proposed definiton of published source and placed it at User talk:Gerry Ashton/collaborate. Please make any comments here for possible inclusion in my collaborate page. Gerry Ashton 21:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree, webpages are published and once we establish what is published we can establish the thresholds of "reliable", "reputable" and "verifiable".  But we really, really must have it read, "published to the public" and not "published to a public" because the last would be "distributed to a specific public" and not "published to public".  For example, if the KKK distributes a document to its members, has that document been "published to a public" or "distributed to members"?  Published comes from the word "to the public", meaning broadly, to everyone and not to just the ruling class, not to just the working class, not to just the bakers and the candlestick makers. Terryeo 21:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The difference, which I keep pointing out to you is the intent of the publisher.  A publisher is in the business of selling many copies.  He publishes with an audience in mind and hopes that many people are interested and will purchase more copies.  The definition you keep pushing, "Copied and distributed by an individual (company) to individuals" does not satisfy the condition of "publication" because its targeted audience is not everyone but is a limited in quantity and specialized number of individuals who prequalify for the distributed information. Terryeo 03:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-withstanding your assertion about the distinction between "publishing" and "distributuon", the issue is that a definition of publishing is not needed (just read Publishing to see the many competing definitions of the term). Applying the WP:V in conjuction with WP:V and WP:NOR wins the hand each and every time, when assessing the validity of a source for incluson as a reference. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 03:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There is usually a huge gap between accessibility to the public in theory and in practice. In theory, peer reviewed scientific journals are available to the public. In practice, it is a tiny percentage of non-scientists who goes the extra mile to either subscribe to a journal or go to a university library to read a journal there. So if the AAAS publishes something in Science, it's obviously published, but it's also obviously "distributed to members", and only a tiny portion of THE public as public-at-large will ever read it. Yes, there will still be a large number of non-members who will read it. Still, care should be taken not to generate the impression of "stacking the odds" in favor of publications that one deems convenient to a specific cause. The convenience parameter included in the suggestion is problematic in that it can create conflict with verifiability. Some documents are restricted access, and some are simply so inconvenient to reach that care has to be taken not to be fooled by someone who produces fake information simply supported by publications he knows no one will bother to verify. --OliverH 22:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The brass ensemble example poses no problem.  It was previously published, but since it no longer exists in accessible form, it is no longer considered a published source for the purposes of Wikipedia.  And if an editor translates a passage from a magazine written in an obscure language, wouldn't that be OR?  Public accessibility goes hand in hand with published source, the way Wikipedians use the term, and the notions should not be separated.  Otherwise, a live speech itself would have to be viewed as a published source, since it was presented to the public. Precis 23:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Published (page 2)

message: I'm posting here to request additional comments from you all at this link.  I feel that myself and the anon have an impenetrable barrier and perhaps other voices are needed.  Thanks. Wjhonson 00:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way this request is related to whether an editor can successfully advance their own claim, without the need to cite a source, that another source is unreliable. Interesting issue, which we've touched on above. Wjhonson 19:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC from the RS experts 

message: This keeps on turning up on my watchlist with some person or other reverting it and claiming to be right to do so. It being an important page, and there quite obviously being a disagreement over it, and there equally obviously being little probability that people might actually not revert, I've protected it whilst you thrash out what way around which should be.
I'm not routinely involved over here, so some other admin should probably unprotect in a few days time. -Splash - tk 20:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo reminded me that this is still protected. Glancing through the recent discussions, the thing that was causing the reverts appears to have died down, so I'll unprotect it now. -Splash - tk 21:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I would like some input about quoting "fringe" opinions. The policy now states that such opinions "may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves and their own activities, although editors should proceed with caution. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources."
As fringe/extremist opinion is mentioned: Stormfront.org, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Aryan Nations,  British Socialist Workers Party.
*Firstly; the way I understand the policy this means that if, say Stormfront.org or  Hamas,  voice a very positive opinion about "A", or a very negative opinion about "B" then this should not be mentioned in the articles about A or B, (but it could be mentioned in the articles about Stormfront.org or  Hamas) Am I correct in my understanding here? 
*Secondly: What it generally considered to be fringe/extremist opinion? In addition to the above, what about the following: Radio Islam, "Bible Believers", Jew Watch, CODOH, "Historical Review Press",    David Duke, and LaRouche Movement/ Lyndon LaRouche?
*Thirdly; can we understand the policy to mean that we can remove any reference to the actions/opinions of these fringe/extremist people/groups, if they appear in any article on WP (except in the article about themselves)?
Regards, Huldra 21:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They could be removed if they are being used as the original sources. But if they are quoted by a reliable source in direct relation to the topic at hand, then they may of course be used by us. For example, if the Washington Post were to quote Stormfront's views on the current crisis in the Middle East, then we could use that in our article about the crisis, using the Post as our source, not Stormfront. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify: the question is whether a reliable source has seen fit to quote Extremist Source A. If it has, then we can too, citing the reliable source. But if it's only a Wikipedia editor who has decided to refer to the views of Extremist Source A, then it's original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is some input, but it might not be quite what you need.  Opinions need to be published to be used in Wikipedia.  If a newspaper reports that (any group)'s opinion is (any opinion here), then that newspaper can be quoted but the name of the newspaper and date and article's name should be included to reference what that newspaper said. Whether "fringe" opinion or "mainstream" opinion, both must first be published.  Terryeo 21:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a real-life example (to the extent that Wikipedia can be called real life).  Several newspapers have ascribed antisemitic remarks to Pete McCloskey,  based on a transcript of McCloskey's 2000 speech to IHR (Institute for Historical Review). There is evidence to show, however, that the transcript, published by IHR, is inaccurate. The controversy is briefly discussed on the page Pete McCloskey.  The IHR transcript is cited there.  Now, if you'll permit weasel words, IHR is widely regarded as a fringe group.  But since the IHR citation is there to explicate the controversy rather than to advance IHR's point of view, I think the citation is permissible.  But I can understand the point of view of those who say it is prejudicial to link to the transcript at all. Precis 21:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Duke's views would be regarded as noteworthy if reliable sources quoted them, in which case the publication, not Duke, is our source. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When to quote "fringe" opinion. 

message: Onward!  Please continue in this new section.  PS someone want to Archive this page?  It's getting monstrous.  I have gone through the entire discussion (I believe) and summarized on this white board here.  Please review my whiteboard and then post your comments back here.  I think we're close to a consensus on publish... I really do... I may be myopic though. Wjhonson 18:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the white board to here Wjhonson 19:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the use of an ultra-broad definition of "published" when the relevant WP:V half sentence is "published by reputable publishers"? We are now creating a list of everything that could be called published in the broadest sense, only to then remove most of it again as "not reputable". I don't think it makes sense to dissect a policy into single words and then try to make a meaningful summary of it again. It is clear from the current pages WP:V and WP:RS what is intended by published (they also mention online publications and so on). The important facts to judge a publication is if it is reliable and if it is verifiable, as per the definitions in those policies / guidelines. A local, unverified (not peer reviewed, fact checked, ...) publication (like a flyer or so, to take one of the examples in the whiteboard) is published, of course, but so what? Many of the examples given (emails, flyers, pamphlets, posters, ...) are usually primary sources or otherwise "sources of dubious reliability" and so do not go to the heart of WP:V at all. Fram 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The need for a definition of published exists because editors use unpublished references within Wikipedia articles.  The specific reference which prompted this need for a simple little definition was distributed to a small quantity of people and is available if you purchase 1000s of dollars worth of courses which take perhaps 2 years to do. Along in there sometime you would get to view the unpublished reference, never published to the public.  User:Fahrenheit451 of course wants, "published to a (meaning any people) public".  The dictionary presents that published means "to the public" (possibly to everyone).  The situation also occurs in the Freemasonary document, distributed to some selected individuals whom are members of Freemasonary.  In addition, if we define the word "publish" in a clean, easy to understand manner then we could move toward "reliable sources" more easily, without confronting the problems "published" raises. Terryeo 01:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not uncivil to state the actual situation. User:Fahrenheit451's comment which sparked the need for a definition is difference. Terryeo 14:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You are distoring what I said and it is interesting that you make the constant reference to a single comment I made in the discussion of another article.  We are discussing definitions of public and publication.  Please stay on-topic.--Fahrenheit451 16:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be many WP editors who have only skimmed the policies and guidelines, and never read any talk pages for policies and guidelines. Also, there are new editors constantly arriving. So I think we should try to use words in their ordinary English meanings, and not try to develop a jargon where published means something different within WP compared to the world at large. --Gerry Ashton 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So we don't need a page which lists what is or isn't published, as that is "common knowledge". I agree, and don't see what the proposed or discussed guideline WP:Published could contribute. Fram 20:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any new editor, joining this discussion, might want to read the over three weeks worth of discussion (see above) that we've had on the meaning of "published".  Evidently, the idea is unclear to the many editors who have participated in these discussions. Wjhonson 20:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fram, maybe we don't need a stated definition, but there may be merit in putting up a definition that reminds editors of the everyday meaning, and perhaps clarifies a few ambiguous points, such as whether something that was shown once on television and for which no DVD or vidiotape is for sale is published. Also, the presence of the definition emphasizes that published is not synonymous with the phrase published by a reputable source. --Gerry Ashton 21:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Isn't it obvious?  If all editors understood "published" in the same way it would not be an issue and there would only be agreement and very little discussion.  There is quite a lot of discussion ! Therefore there is a need for a definition. Terryeo 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Toward a published consensus!

message: I am concerned that in debating the definitions of "Published" and  "Accessible" we may forget other criteria that should be included (and defined?) as sub-requirements for a citation to be considered "Reliable".  Surely a reliable source is more than simply one that is published and accessible?  "Attributable" (ie, we have to know who published the statement) comes to mind.  I am sure there are others. Perhaps we should make a list of these sub-requirements so we don't forget them when we are done with the more contentious topics. Blueboar 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blueboar (if that *is* your real name!) I would welcome your contributions on this very germane topic over at WP:Published.  I completely agree that published, and accessible are not sufficient to define "Reliable" or "Verifiable".  Perhaps we could list the various things which are, in seperate sections on that whiteboard, so everyone can see, that we are not trying to change the guidelines, only define them more precisely, esp. for borderline situations.  I mean right now we have "poster" as a publication.  Some people might find that highly dubious  however if they further see that that poster is most likely to fail the "accessible" criteria or the "reputable publisher" criteria they might feel more comfortable with allowing it to remain a "publication". Wjhonson 17:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Blueboar, I was tinking along the same lines. I have created a reliable source decision tree at User talk:Gerry Ashton/collaborate, and I'd be interested to know if you think I left anything out. --Gerry Ashton 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because "published" means the distribution of information to the general public, then that action makes information "accessible" to some quantity of people who are random public persons.  After that action takes place, then, the question of "accessibility" can arise, but can not arise before that action takes place.  Therefore, a definition of "publish", first and then, after information is published, there can be a question of how "accessible" that information is at that time. Terryeo 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Splitting hairs, Terryeo... ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 00:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The phrase "reliable published sources" is understood as revolving around "reliable".  If defining the second word of that phrase is unhelpful to defining the whole phrase, would you please tell me how it is unhelpful? I am presenting that it is helpful to define the second word because it will be easier to define the whole phrase when the second word is understood. Terryeo 02:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  rather than looking at this as "reliable" and "published" and "source",  look at it as "reliable-published-source", and note that it is greater that the sum of its components. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 04:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A good definition of published would remove questions which are discussed here because some of those questions are about whether an information was ever published.  However, in meeting those questions, editors are relying on "verifiability" / "accessibility" and while that works, the more direct use of "that has never been published to the broad, general public" would be better.  If a situation is complex and difficult, then it is best to define each of its parts, when its parts are combined, its totality is more easily used.  We can only strengthen our concensus if we define each part before combining them into a whole (which is greater than its components). Terryeo 14:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What else is part of a Reliable Source 

message: TV news shows used to go and mention blogs and sometimes cite information from that blog.  Where does the information from a blog fall then when a TV news show mentions it? Anomo 03:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article about that blog, if there is such. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 04:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV shows mentioning blogs 

message: The following passage appears in the NY Sun :
*In 2000, Mr. McCloskey spoke at a conference organized by the leading Holocaust denial organization in America, the Institute for Historical Review. "I came because I respect the thesis of this organization - the thesis being that there should be a reexamination of whatever governments say or politicians say or political entities say," he told the group, according to its Web site.
A description of Pete McCloskey's views should not be supported by the NYS quote "I came...", because the NYS admitted that it took the quote from the (highly unreliable) website of IHR. Precis 09:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I do not follow your logic. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That he was there may be cited, that he "respects the thesis" may not, on his own article.  There is no independent source stating that he "respects the thesis".  However the Sun independently states that he was present.  However the entire quote may be cited on the article about the Institute for Historical Review.  That's my view. Wjhonson 16:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think i see where Precis is coming from... while the NY Sun is a reputable source, the website that they took this quote from is not.  However, I think inclusion would depend on how the citation is used and what the article was trying to say.  If you say that the Holocaust denial organization claims that McCloskey agrees with them, then the citation verifies this, and can be included.  If you are trying to say that McCloskey actually does agree them, then no, it is not a reliable citation and can not be included. Blueboar 16:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. Context is everything. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 18:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Righto.  But I thought I'd made the context clear: One should not support the quote to describe McCloskey's VIEWS Precis 20:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  example where a quote in a reliable source should not be cited 

message: We are having a RFC debate at Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry over whether some sources are reliable or not... there are two issues:
*1) One editor wishes to back a boad statement that "Particularly controversial is the Knight Kadosh or thirtieth degree, purported to have been written by Albert Pike and in use in the Southern Jurisdiction of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in the United States, where it is alleged that the Papal tiara is trampled or alternatively that a skull with a Papal tiara is stabbed during the initiation."  He is not stating that this allegation is true, only that the claim has been made. I am not denying that the claim has been made.  However, problems have arrisen over the citations he uses to back up the claim.  The editory cites this page which is a sub-page linked to this page.  The sight claims to have copied an article from the Remnant magazine (which the other editor tells me is a "mainstay of the American Catholic scene.")  I have accepted that the Remnant is probably a reliable source, but that the web site that copies it is not (there is no indication that it is not a personal web page... The only indication of who runs the site is "mario.website@spamslicer.com" listed as the email contact.)  I have suggested that the editor obtain a copy of the Remnant, and cite directly to that... he objects saying that his web based version is OK.  
*2) In backing a counter claim on the same issue, I have included the following statement...  "However, it can be demonstrated that these anti-Catholic elements do not form part of the rituals of the Scottish Rite, but are instead taken from Jonathan Blanchard's Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated, an exposure of Cerneauism (an illegitimate pseudo-Masonic organization founded by Joseph Cerneau and chiefly active in the 1800s). (At which point I cite: Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated, by Jonathan Blanchard, p. 286, .) The other editor has removed the citation and statement, saying that just citing the book is not enough... that to "prove" my statement, I must include a quotation from Blanchard.  I disagree... the book is readily available on Amazon, and at libraries... as long as I have given enough information for someone to obtain a copy I think it meets WP:RS.  I am willing to tinker with the wording of my underlying statement, but I think the citation is valid.
Please pop over to the page and comment. Blueboar 19:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went to the cited page and here is what I found "In his article regarding Vatican II in the February 28th issue of The Remnant, Michael Matt refers to Michael Davies article in which he seems to suggest that "Masonic conspiracies" are part of "paranoid Traditional Catholic fantasies." With that in mind, allow me to offer a bit of history of prior Papal concern regarding Freemasonry and similar secret societies."  This is the only time "Remnant" appears.  The interior quotes however do not represent quotes from the cited article.  This can be seen by the use on the cited page of "seems to suggest" which implies that the situation is not clear.  That by itself is enough to cast doubt on the cited page as representing what *that* article actually states. Wjhonson 19:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice with RFC