Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 12

message: Can all those news sources that appear in Google news be taken as Reliable Sources? My personal belief is that we should take them all to be reliable publications as Google accepts them based on their compliance with certain parameters.This will help us in case of issues where parties attack a publication saying it is not reliable and also help us understand which publications are nationally recognised worldwide.59.176.17.19 09:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google News 

message: It would appear that the policy page has been returned from Historical to active status or at least that there is a movement afoot to do so, so I have taken the liberty of commenting out the historical tag here. If this movement carries on it may be appropriate to unprotect the page as well in accordance with common practice. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before it was made historical, its standing as a guideline was questioned by many. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  shouldn't be placed on talk pages to begin with. >Radiant< 14:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing {{tl|historical}} from talk page 

message: It sure seems like maintaining a policy and duplicate guideline would be less then a perfect solution.   I suggest that Wikipedia:Reliable sources be merged and redirected to Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources as you can see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Unreferenced&curid=1440745&diff=116750158&oldid=115646489 already it is not clear which one is the guiding principle.  Signed Jeepday 14:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This guideline was redirected to ATT.... but there is now a question as to whether ATT is going to remain policy or not (which was why this guideline was reserected)... that primary question needs to be answered before we merge or redirect anything.  IF ATT remains policy, I would agree that we should redirect.  IF it does not, then this guideline should revert back to being in effect. Blueboar 15:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Reliable sources should be expanded to include discussion of more examples of reliable and unreliable sources. A major problem with merging several policy and guideline pages into one is that useful details are eliminated in order to save space. Wikipedia can use this page to save its institutional memory of past decisions about which sources are not reliable. We have a spam blacklist and we could use something like a sources blacklist for unreliable sources that are frequently cited by Wikipedians. --JWSchmidt 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment this is handled well at the FAQ page attached to WP:ATT.  If it turns out that ATT is rejected, then that FAQ (or at least the parts of it that relate to reliable sources) should be shifted over and attached to this page. Blueboar 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A bad idea.  See Wikipedia talk:Attribution#This merger is a really bad idea for some of the reasons. --Henrygb 22:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources]]

message: This section seems to go a little too far.  There are contexts in which such sources are valuable (cf. Godwin's law), mainly for establishing first date of public appearance.  I do of course undertand the point this section is trying to make, I think it is just overbroad.  While the content of some random Usenet post is potentially highly questionable, the archived timestamp on it probably isn't and in many cases may be the only source for the date in question. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the change is sufficient. Many bulletin boards, etc. are moderated with editorial oversight, and do have known contributors--this is particularly relevant in the academic world.  The last sentence about the exceptions should not imply that they are the only exceptions. This will be an increasingly occurring situation as such media become customary channels for serious work. This also affects Notability issues where such sources are the only realistic sources.  DGG 21:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the points you are all making... but right now is not the time to be fixing it... see below. Blueboar 00:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this page is already in debate, then people should not be actively citing it as an authoritative reason for their removal of citations from articles.  Perhaps WP:RS should be downgraded to a proposal rather than a guideline until this merge is completed?  --Thoric 03:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the change that was reversed was made soon before the page was redirected, without discussion. If you want to keep a static version, that version would need to be a relatively stable, established version, not one with new, undiscussed changes. —Centrx→talk • 03:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, is it accurate to say that until this debate is completed, that an editor cannot cite this policy to remove links to a website? (Yes, I am asking this with a specific instance in mind.) In either case, what are the steps to show conclusively that a website is not a reliable source? Or can anyone simply declare that a website is not a reliable source, & put the burden of proof on other people to prove otherwise? -- llywrch 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a link to a website should or should not be removed as being appropriate or inappropriate for an encyclopedia, then it should or should not be removed regardless of whether this page is tagged as anything or exists at all. Generally, all of these guidelines and policies are advice and assistance for making an encyclopedia which, as regards reliable sources, needs to have accuracy. —Centrx→talk • 21:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: See also Centrx's comment on this RS/ATT conflict below. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no evidence that there is clear consensus for any changes, so I will comment out the editprotected tag. Once consensus settles down, the page will be unprotected. CMummert · talk 20:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries; the issue was a little convoluted, as the editprotect was a request for a re-revert of a revert of a restoration of material removed a while back without consensus. :-)  The page is unprotected now, and I fixed the problem.  WP:RS now agrees with WP:ATT again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet

message: Please don't make changes right now.  As most of you know, this page was merged into the FAQ page at WP:ATT, and was made historical ... well, Jimbo has asked us to do a poll on whether ATT has consensus or not, the result of which will affect this page.  That is the only reason why this page is back to being active.  For people to be able to decide properly in that poll, it is important that the various policies and guidelines that were merged into ATT stay in the same version that they were in when the merge took place.  This is not the time to be making changes.  Once it is determined whether this page will rolled into ATT or not ... then we can suggest changes at the appropriate location.  Please be patient. Blueboar 00:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That rationale makes some sense to me, but seems unneccesarily stridently presented. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not the same version that was merged into ATT. For example, you reverted to a change that was made after ATT was established. —Centrx→talk • 03:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm. As to be saying Yoda might, that seems to be a point of goodness. Hmmm... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The rationale no longer makes sense.  See Editprotected requests above and below. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE - NO CHANGES RIGHT NOW 

message: Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion 
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ATT]]: Join the discussion at 

message: There should be a prominent merge tag posted on this page, directing people to the discussion, which is supposed to be trying to attract as many people as possible.  This is the very problem that led to the current dispute:  that there had been no merge tag on this and similar pages while discussions about possibly merging were going on.  Would someone please correct this and put up the merge tags?  --Coppertwig 00:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better yet, just remove the improper full-protection, which is not supported by anything at WP:PROT. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added the merge template; cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has not been resolved.  The current merge tag says that some parts of the page "have been merged" into another page.  It does not warn users in any way that there is a proposal to demote the entire current contents of the page to "inactive" (see proposed poll wording at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll).  A proper, normal merge tag would do so.  --Coppertwig 18:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Please see WT:V and WT:RS for draft tag suggested (in scope, not in exact detail) by WP:RFPP peeps.  A similar tag could be applied here, and I think everyone would be happier with it.  After I take the trash out (IRL, I mean) I'll copy if over to here for discussion as well.  PS: Boldface objections to the "Resolved" tag aren't needed; as  says, just remove it and keep on discussing. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTE: There is a proposal to merge this page into WP:ATT. 

message: The last paragraph of Types of source material contains a misspelling ("polititian" should be "politician") that you might want to fix when (or if) editing of that page is again permitted. --Rich Janis 09:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been taken care of by an admin :) SGGH 22:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor typo 

message: "Acceptable Sources" is a far more accurate and honest descripton than "Reliable Sources" to describe the basis on which sources are allowed to be used in wiki. A certain blog may be far more informed and reliable on a particular topic than a national newspaper, but the former is an unacceptable source and the latter is an acceptable one, regardless of its reliability. In reality the so-called reliable sources may often have very dubious reliability, so it's rather naive to keep on using that word for them. It also makes it harder for editors to understand why a source may or may not be used, when on occasion they see something which they know is unreliable being called reliable and vice versa. Tyrenius 02:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems too intentionally subjective to me.  I'm not saying there is no possible better name for WP:RS than its present one, I just don't think that is one. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It describes the house policy and is apt. It is ironic that the means, whereby articles are verified with no original research, is based on a premise established by original research without verification. The glib assessment of, for example, newspapers as "reliable" is somewhat lacking in academic rigour, to say the least. The whole basis of verification comes from a useful but highly subjective criterion. Tyrenius 03:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a refereed academic journal, so I'm not sure what "academic rigour" has to do with it.  If all of our sources had to meet that criterion, WP would have nothing in it but about 5000 articles about science. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let's leave academic rigour out of it, and just rely on common sense and elementary knowledge. It is not very convincing to use the term Reliable Sources to convince someone of the sources they should or shouldn't be using, when they can easily argue they are being pointed to an unreliable source in certain circumstances and know a much more reliable one — which unfortunately may not be acceptable on wiki. It is much easier to comprehend and communicate that we have a certain ruling, whereby we have deemed certain sources are acceptable and others not. Tyrenius 03:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I prefer saying reliable sources to saying reliable sources. The concept is that the sources truly be reliable for the subject area they deal with, whether that meets this week's arbitrary standards or not. --tjstrf talk 03:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you want reliable sources, or reliable sources, then, as you are only challeging the definition/nature of "reliable" not of "sources".  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, you have a point. I shall adjust my linking habits. --tjstrf talk 07:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There really is such a thing as relaible sources, and the community of Wiki editors I think does a good job in sorting it out. The world has hundreds of thousands of experts who spend a great deal of effort to validate reliability and publish explanations that satisfy their peers, and Wiki should reflect their work.  That is Wiki should seek out best scholarship, not rely on minimum acceptable levelsRjensen 04:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the problems is that people push to include topics for which there do not exist truly reliable sources, such as news events, much popular culture, etc. An article on any strictly encyclopedic topic certainly should be citing professional histories, textbooks, etc. never magazines and newspapers. —Centrx→talk • 04:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) That includes journalists by the way.  I've detected what seems to be a thin undercurrent of "newspapers suck!" here, and don't agree with it.  While they are not refereed science journals, they do have rather uniform editorial standards (I mean real newspapers and newsweeklies and such, not the National Enquirer and gossip rags), and all of the 20+ professional journalists I know on a first name basis take their role and responsibilities very seriously, especially when it comes to fact-checking, libel and attribution. (For now I'm content to let the reader sort out the radical difference between my and Centrx's view.  I'm actually suprised, since I find that we agree on other topics more and more.  New surprise every day!)— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think "allowable sources" is best of all, because we mean only those sources that Wikipedia by policy allows. There's nothing about them that makes them reliable, albeit some editors here think the mainstream media and academics are inherently "reliable". What is reliable should depend on what we are talking about, but we don't make fine distinctions here. Grace Note 05:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Permissible" works better for me.  "Allowable" for some reasons sounds imprecise and as if we're talking to children.  I can't give a reliably sourced reason for that, it's just a "feel" thing. :-)  PS: I think it's the "allowance" and "I can't go to that playground, cuz I ain't allowed" connection, maybe. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless of the exact word, I think we are hitting on something here.  What is permitted under WP policy/guidelines, vs. what is supposedly objectively "reliable" (a determination which of course can't possibly be objective at all.)  I'm not 100% behind this proposed change at this stage, but it is making sense to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I think acceptable is definitely better than reliable. I personally like the term appropriate sources per the discussion of Grace Note. My mother's blog is a highly appropriate source for non-controversial information about my childhood, while peer reviews academic journals and mainstream science text-books are the most appropriate sources for articles on science. In any case, acceptable, permissible, and allowable are all fine suggestions.  --Merzul 19:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the way to find what to call the guideline is to examine what it is saying and then find the definition for that. There are quite strong rules, so there is a definite sense of authority with some leeway. This needs to be maintained. "Appropriate" possibly shifts it away from the existing parameters and opens the way for disputes in practice. "Allowable" hits the mark quite well, and is easier to spell and say than "permissible". It also hints at some flexibility, as in something is not normally allowable, but may be in a certain instance. It's a bit friendlier than "permissible". I think the playground analogy is a reason for, rather than against, its use! Tyrenius 21:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I think we should drop all the modifyers... What if we just make this a guideline about "Sourcing".  Let's leave the "rule making" to Policy pages and limit this page to "guidance and advice" on how to source statements within the limits given in those Policies.  Blueboar 12:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with User:Tyrenius above. As a newcomer to Wiki 6 months back I was shocked to see the credence given to Main-Stream-Media over other sources. And the MSM being described as "more reliable"! Especially when applied to conflicts between the "West" and non-English speaking countries/cultures/interests this produces heavily biased articles contrary to WP:NPOV and is something that absolutely MUST be addressed. (Sarah777 15:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change "Reliable Sources" to "Acceptable Sources"

message: See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion#RS_and_NPOV.  You can participate at Wikipedia:Undue weight (sources).  Thanks, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments on the merits of the idea (haven't looked into it enough), but strongly concur with the plan of doing this as a separate page; emotions have run very hot lately about making changes to any document related to WP:ATT at all.  Would suggest moving it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight or the like instead, so that people do not become confused and start citing it as if it were an independent concept.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There's addl. discussion over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite WP:RS to make it consistent with the spirit of WP:NPOV? 

message: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Header.
I was asked by an admin from WP:RFPP to come up with a combination of the merge header from WP:RS (as of this writing) and the protection header from WP:ATT, to be used on both WP:V and WP:RS, and propose it on the talk pages of both.  Above, someone has raised issues that might be addressed by a similar custom message here.  My take at this is located at the link above.  By belief is that this version will satisfy everyone.  It has the text (with twiddles that make it apply to this page instead of ATT, V or NOR) from ATT's tag, with the merge tag formatting of the one presently at RS.  I believe it would obviate the need to continue editprotecting about the need for a merge tag. I think it also absorbs all the ideas of the template in the topic above, too.  Any objections?  It looks like this:
PS: I has a noinclude variant in it for the case that protection is reinstated here.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New combined merge/community discussion header tag

message: Jimbo Wales requested a poll to gauge community thoughts on the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. A poll for this is being crafted, and is somewhat close to done. Concensus for the past 24 hours (with the occasional dissenting voice of course) that the thing is close to done. Only the main question is still heavily debated. A pre-poll straw poll is here:
Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Q1_Straw_poll_duration
To sort that out. Accepted group concensus seems to be to pre-poll to 4/1/07 22:00 and then launch a site-wide poll (again, as implied/requested by Jimbo) at 4/2/07 00:00. Please help hash out the wording for that last quesion. - Denny 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo Wales's requested poll nearly done - please see 

message: Shouldn't be too controversial. 
Wikinews's mission in part is to act as a reliable source for wikipedia, so if we then don't allow it, that would be silly.
Certain usenet FAQs and posts are considered canonical wrt usenet itself. It seems  fairly safe to make that as a clarification on self published sources. This doesn't quite cover (in)famous documents like the sci.skeptic faq though. Hmm.
Actually, another reliable wiki is wikisource, which replicates reliable sources that can be freely published.
I'll add that as another example. If the list gets really long, we might need to refactor/move elsewhere/ do something else :-/ 
--Kim Bruning 11:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good direction, though some details need sorting out.  All the "you can use that as a source, it's a wiki/blog/Usenet post/whatever" get pretty tiresome.  It's not the medium, it's the message and the writer.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boldly added notes about wikinews and usenet 

message: Per comments on the Talk page here, and in other locales, it appears groups of editors are specifically against Jimbo's specifically requested public poll to gauge thoughts/support on the idea of the ATT merger. As it has been stated that the Poll is "dead" per users such as User:WAS 4.250, I am nominating this. If there is wide spread support to run this poll, this page should be kept. The MfD is here:
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll
Thank you. - Denny 16:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Result of MfD is a Speedy Keep... now let's get back to work on the Poll.  New voices are needed to break deadlock.  Blueboar 17:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll]] 

message: #What does "extremist" mean? How can one tell/demonstrate that an organization/individual is widely acknowledged as extremist?
#What's the rationale for the "extremist" clause? How does this clause agree with the NPOV policy? Itayb 17:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale for the "Extremist" clause

message: This news website requires users to register and log in before they can view the newspaper's online articles. Does this not hinder its utility as a source?--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may really be a bigger question than this page can handle (cf. WP:EL), but my take is that since you can register with anonymized, bogus information, the hindrance is trivial.  Getting at a site with fake personal info is much less hindring than paying for a hardcopy source. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do people always compare register/pay to view sites with the effort/cost of buying a book?... To me it compares more to going to a library... you don't have to register unless you want to check something out and take it home, and it is usually free.  I am not saying register/pay sites are completely off limits, but I do think they are lower in the range of reliablility than other sources. Blueboar 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You and I don't often see eye-to-eye on ATT-related matters, so just as a handshake: Well said. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 12:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For full use most libraries require you to be a local taxpayer (or a tuiton-paying student). The NY Times service is free--after you pay your internet provider that is. Rjensen 15:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Correct.  As long as all of the information is provided so that the article can be found in a library (article title, publisher, date, and author when available), the link is merely a courtesy.  As to whether the NY Times itself is reliable, that's another topic.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYTimes.com as a source 

message: One of my pet peeves is a direct inline hyperlink to a RS news article that does not include any info but the link. If that article gets moved to a new URL, it can be very difficult to relocate without anything but a hyperlink to go by. Although sometimes there are good clues in the URL itself, such as a date or author name in the directory structure. Yahoo news links are notorious for going dead, and providing few clues. - Crockspot 19:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right; that's why I hound every WP:FAC about full and complete biblio info on sources, and completing blue link refs.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's an increasingly thorny issue, though - some "mainstream news media" articles only exist in online copies.  As far as I can determine, the pretty darned reliable BBC News articles available at the BBC website do not exist in any other form.  There is no BBC newspaper or magazine.  I definitely ack. Crockspot's point, but this is more complicated than it seems, here in 2007... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 12:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newspaper/mag citations that only cite the online copy

message: I propose this addition: Note that these posts can be used to provide examples of common word usage, regarding for example slang words or newly invented words or new meanings for old words. In that regard they serve the purpose of a vocabulary clipping file. When dealing with new words lexicographers look for actual quotations showing how the word is used by ordinary people.  The blogs are excellent sources for common ordinary usage of new words, slang words, and the like. That is they don't give a definition of the word (only reliable sources do that), but they use the word and thus the lexicographer takes notes. For 100 years they have been using sources like letters to newspapers, which are like blogs. Rjensen 20:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I am somewhat sympathetic to this proposal, and would have supported it wholeheartedly a year ago, I have to say that terms used on blogs, if they really catch on, eventually make it into reliable sources. For example Moonbat. It used to be a blog term, but now is in use regularly by two Boston Globe columnists, as well as numerous notable pundits. We also need to be careful about BLP and notability. Joe Blogger's myspace page attacking a third party should never be allowed. Michelle Malkin's blog using the term Bush Derangement Syndrome may already be allowable, because she is a notable columnist, and her blog posts may be used, as long as she is not attacking third party. If the term is truly notable, it will show up in reliable sources eventually. I think the benefits of patience far outweigh the consequences of opening a pandora's box for short-term gain. - Crockspot 20:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with Crokspot. If a term that originated in a blog is notable enough to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, it will have been used in other media.  For the few words that gain notablility purely in the blogsphere, I think we would need to show usage beyond just one or two blogs.  Joe blogger may come up with a wonderful neologism... doesn't make it notable. Finally, I think we need to remember that WP:NOT says Wikipedi is not a dictionary... I would think that much of what we are discussing is more appropriately placed at Wiktionary.  Blueboar 13:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not thinking of new terms invented on blogs. The debate started over how the word "Yankee/Yank" was used. The dictionaries do not have citations from recent decades but the blogs have current usage. So let me propose this: I propose this addition: Note that these posts can be used to provide examples of everyday word usage, regarding for example slang words or new meanings for old words. In that regard they serve the purpose of a vocabulary clipping file. Rjensen 13:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the arguments above apply to new usages for old words as well.  If the new usage is notable enough for inclusion, it will appear in multiple sources and probably appear beyond the blogsphere. Blueboar 13:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Consider this:  If you need to collect primary sources to justify a point then you are likely engaging in OR and are possibly violating NPOV. Just be careful.  We need to let others make the points for us. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 14:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the collection of anecdotes, which would be dubious historiography, to say nothing of encyclopedic standards. We call it indiscriminate collection of information. Let some researcher do it, and publish in a learned journal; then see if he gets shot down. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs as evidence of actual usage 

message: I have a technical and administrative question regarding one paragraph in the criticism section on the Debito Arudou entry. Apologies to those who may think this background is unnecessary. On 25 October 2005, the Japan Times published an interview with author Alex Kerr. In one of the questions, the interviewer specifically asks Kerr about the political activist activities of the WP subject, Debito Arudou. Kerr responded critically of Arudou's tactics as a form of conflict resolution, while still acknowledging positively "that gaijin and their gaijin ways are now part of Japan's new civil society." Seeing how (1) it was critical (and therefore appropriate for the criticism section), (2) published in a mainstream newspaper, and (3) not original research (a clear WP policy requirement), the WP article was edited to include a brief synoposis of Kerr's criticisms and concerns, being sure to (1) document the source for the reader for further reference, and (2) include specific quotes from that interview for flavor. Like it or not, a publicly verifiable criticism was made. Yesterday,  the subject of the criticism (understandably) seized an opportunity on the coattails of another blogger to publicly criticize Kerr's commentary on his own personal blog and e-mail distribution lists, perhaps to force a retraction. For the subject's criticisms of Kerr, see: "Alex Kerr falls into 'Guestism' arguments with unresearched arguments" at <http://www.debito.org/index.php>. Apparently, Kerr responded. However, the editing questions are now many: (1) the alleged clarification was posted on the subject's personal blog (is this considered a self-serving and unacceptable source?), (2) the subject himself, claiming to post on behalf of Alex Kerr, posted the reply (is this still considered reliable?), (3) the clarification still points out that, in Kerr's experience, these confrontational tactics do not work while clarifying the comment to read "no doubt that a stronger, more direct approach is appropriate [in the subject's case.]" (not necessarily a retraction, but a clarification?) and (4) both the subject and (apparently) Kerr are publicly asking their friends and supporters to "amend that Wikipedia article to indicate that [Kerr] wholly support[s] [the subject's] activities and [his] methods."
What to do?
1. Ignore the WP subject's personal blog entry and the posted clarification for the problems stated above?
2. Somehow request on the subject's WP talk page that a clarification be sent by Kerr to the Letters page of the Japan Times where the criticisms were original published for reliable accuracy?  
3. Completely delete all mention of the initial public criticism? (No doubt this option is what some WP subjects would prefer)
4. Append another brief footnote to the initial criticism mentioning that, due to public criticism from the WP subject, actvisit Debito Arudou, on [such and such date], Alex Kerr responded on [such and such date] and then attach a hyperlink to the WP subject's personal blog comments where Kerr's clarifications may be found? 
Any advice on how to proceed would be much appreciated? J Readings 19:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A subjects personal blog is authoritative for what his views are at the time of posting. If he makes two contradictory statements at different times, they are each authoritative for the time posted. We cannot speculate for why he may have changed his opinion.  If the matter is significant enough to warrant the detail, quote the claimed original statement and the claimed retraction and keep both. Do not rewrite history, and do not let the subject rewrite it. Any sensible reader will understand the possible self-serving nature of a person's own statements. (I am discussing the general question--I have deliberately not looked at the article in question.) DGG 06:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the thoughtful reply, DGG. Let me apologize again if this venue was inappropriate for the type of question asked. I followed your general advice and added the new information to the article. That said, I have to confess I'm still uneasy about using the subject's personal blog as a reliable source. It seems very self-serving. Best, J Readings 17:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentators who are Pressured/Asked to Revise/Clarify their Public Comments

message: Would this qualify as a reliable source? Are page on the site dayd that it has some users contributing to the site, of course since there is an oversight process this wouldn't necessary disqualify it from being reliable. Aaron Bowen 23:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello? Aaron Bowen 14:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The site itself is not automatically reliable or unreliable.  SOME of it's material is reviewed, but some is open editing.  So it depends on what is being cited... a review of a show by a "trusted editor" is probably reliable.  A comment made by joe blow on a show's forum or blog page would not be. Blueboar 15:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I know IMDb isn't considered relaible, that's why I asked. Aaron Bowen 15:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[TV.com]]

message: For normal wikipedia articles, we should use experts in the fields. The "criticism of X" articles are different as many notable critics do not have such qualifications. But they are notable as vocal critics. These critics sometimes make nasty accusations which in the case of the Jews could be classified as "antisemitism" or in the case of Islam as "Islamophobia". The question is whether we should include them or not. What is the exact criterion? --Aminz 06:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally dislike "criticism of X" articles... they are far too often POV forks, and if the criticism are really notable they should be mentioned in the article on X.  That said, there are some topics that need a seperate article to properly discuss criticisms... where there is enough material to justify a seperate article, and where including a full discussion of the criticisms in the main article would simply make the main article increadably long.  The key is to make sure that any "criticism of X" article is presented in a NPOV manner... discussing the criticism accurately and fairly.  Too many "criticism" articles become lists of "things we hate about X", when they should be dispassionate discussions about the criticims and the critics.  Let me restate that... such articles should focus on the criticisms and the critics and not on X.  You need to include context... do not just include what the critics say, but also discuss why they say it. You might want to discuss the history behind the criticism.  You should discuss how prevalent such criticism is (is it a fringe view or one widely held)... and don't for get that NPOV means that if there are criticisms of the criticism we should discuss those as well. Blueboar 13:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. If there is nothing that satisfies RS and discusses the critics and criticisms, then the article shouldnt exist. Hornplease 20:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:Criticism, and it's talk page entires.  Jimbo opined once somewhere that criticism should be woven throughout the article, but there are valid criticism articles (think in terms of art or literature critics).  My problem with many "criticism" articles/sections is that it's a POV term; what one POV-pusher terms "criticism" may be fact just facts documented to reliable sources, and often, POV-pushers push one side of the story off to separate sections or articles and call them "criticism" rather than weaving all sides of the story into a seamless whole. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation of [[WP:RS]] for "criticism of X" articles 

message: I have removed most references to WP:ATT as it is far from clear that it is policy.
I have also restored some information which was deleted during the last couple of months while the debate over WP:ATT has been going on. Which may have been deleted because it was in WP:ATT or in the WP:ATT/FAQ. Either way I think there needs to be a debate over whether it is removed from this guideline. Specifically the scholarly sources/Non-scholarly sources. I have also separated out the merger of "Partisan, corporate, institutional and religious sources" and  "Extremist sources" as I do not think that they are the same thing. Again I think this should be discussed in detail if they are to be merged. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:ATT 

message: Should the section "scholarly sources" be kept modified or deleted? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have the section headings wrong, but there is some material worthy of keeping, if re-written.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: scholarly sources/Non-scholarly sources

message: I do not think that the sections "Partisan, corporate, institutional and religious sources" and "Extremist sources" be merged. what do others think --Philip Baird Shearer 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not the same... but similar cautions should be given. Blueboar 16:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Partisan, corporate, institutional and religious sources with Extremist sources

message: "Due to the legal sensitivity of these articles as well as moral obligations, do not include anything on living persons, if you cannot find a legitimate secondary source to rely on." is a first cut at an issue arose over a section in a biography of a living person which highlighted the problem of relying on primary sources. See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion#NOR and the entry on Christopher Michael Langan: lessons, and Talk:Christopher Michael Langan#WP:NOR - removing original research, do not re-insert unless you have a source other than original research (and other sections on that page) --Philip Baird Shearer 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies of living persons 

message: Can someone please look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Subway Car Edits? Thank you. --NE2 20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Generalizing from specific photographs

message: What do you think about updating the rather incomplete Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples (has it ever been approved as an official extension of the RS policy?) with text from WP:ATT/FAQ#What_kinds_of_sources_are_generally_regarded_as_reliable.3F, WP:ATT/FAQ#What_kinds_of_sources_are_generally_regarded_as_unreliable.3F and WP:ATT/FAQ#Questions_about_the_reliability_of_specific_sources?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a very good idea. Itayb 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What about the other way around? The xamples and content of WP:ATTFAQ are far superior to that page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update examples

message: An interesting question has been raised on WP:BLPN which I'd like to raise here as well for some input. Numerous major media outlets such as newspapers and broadcasters have established their own blogs to serve as a sort of 24/7 op-ed page. One of the best developed examples that I know of is the UK Guardian's Commentisfree blog. It's clearly run with editorial oversight, which makes sense given that legal liability issues apply just as much to a blog as to a dead tree publication. On the other hand, some other newspaper or journal blogs such as National Review's The Corner blog give no indication that they're subject to editorial oversight. So it would seem that we have two categories of mainstream media blogs - those that are explicitly overseen by editorial staffs, and those for whom there's no evidence of editorial oversight.
How do we deal with this distinction? Should we accept major-publication blogs as a source if they are subject to editorial oversight? In practical terms, what's the distinction between such blogs and conventional print-format op-ed pages? Are non-editorially overseen media blogs truly self-published if the actual publisher is a reputable media outlet? -- ChrisO 23:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if they are subject to editorial oversight, they are reliable - it doesn't matter how the information is published, but how reliable it is.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But how do we express that? We could say only "personal blogs" are not allowed, but that doesn't deal with the distinction between blogs that are edited by newspaper staff and those that aren't. How do we tell when they are and aren't edited anyway? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something like: "Articles published on blogs maintained by newspapers, such as the Guardian's Comment is free section,  may be used as source material so long as the newspaper states explicitly on its site that the blog is subject to editorial oversight.  Readers' comments on such blogs may never be used as sources." SlimVirgin (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that formulation. Can we tweak it a little? I'd suggest the following wording to clarify a couple of points (changes highlighted in bold): "Articles published on blogs maintained by broadcasters and newspapers, such as the Guardian's Comment is free section,  may be used as source material so long as the media outlet states on its site that the blog is subject to editorial oversight.  Where there is no statement of editorial oversight, such sources may not be used. Readers' comments on such blogs may never be used as sources." -- ChrisO 19:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major-publication blogs?

message: If I write in an article that "Holy Book ABC says ____ in chapter 30:22" -- this is okay, correct? We're just quoting a religious source. What is the way to go about this? Some users are protesting that this is "Primary Source" and should be removed and I disagree. We're simply quoting what the religious source says. What are the procedures to do this correctly? Quote it exactly as it is in quotes? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is absolutely OK to quote from such texts... they are a perfect example of the proper use of a primary source.  However, some warnings do apply.  First, you must be careful that you are not using the quote to imply a conclusion that would be considered Original Research.  Any interpretation of what the text says or means should be backed by a reliable secondary source. Second, if there are differing versions of the text (the different translations of the Bible, for example) you should note any significant differences between the versions (a nice way to deal with this is to quote several or all of the differing versions)... this is especially true if there is controversy over the language of the translation.  Finally, care must be taken to ensure that a NPOV tone is taken. Blueboar 13:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, frequently, quoting religious sources is done by someone who is critical of the text, or who favours the text so I dont know if it can be NPOV. For example if Holy Book X says "cut the hands off a thief", then I might want to say something like "Book X says that thieve's hands should be cut off ref". People who rever the text might say thats out of context etc. But thanks, you did say that we can quote the text. The only issue then possible could be how its quoted. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SIMPLY quoting the text is not OR, or POV etc.  Commenting on it could well be.  Blueboar 16:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have agreed with another user that we can use "voluptious" - thats the word used in the Quran. I will revert your deletion some time later with the exact Quranic words used. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so do you admit that your edits consisted of original research as well as deception? Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 00:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasnt. The word Kawaib means swollen breasts in Arabic. But if you want to use words of the translators who have obviouslt softened the meanings, we can use those. We have to use reliable sources, I agree. I will restore the article and infact, hopefully we can include secondary sources that talk about the different interpretations of this text. You should restore the original 72 virgins hadith infact. That was sourced. Please dont removed sourced text.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Kawaib" doesn't mean anything by itself. You use original research to give it a meaning. Also, verse 34 does not contain that word. Neither does verse 33. The verse uses the word "WakawaAAiba", which means something different. Just admit you used original research.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 01:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Matt57, do you know Arabic? who told you that Kawa`ib means "swollen breasts"? that would literally render the verse: "And swollen breasts for companions." i think the usc.edu/MSA website has made a mistake or something, Y. Ali translated 78:33 as: "Companions of equal age", ("The Holy Quran" (2000) Yusuf Ali, p. 521, 78:33 ) Pickthall translates it as: "And maidens for companions", (cf. ) and a machine translation of that verse similarly renders it as "And maidens for companions." in any case, this discussion is becoming extraneous to the purpose of this talk page. ITAQALLAH 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets continue this debate else where. We're done with this page. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoting religious sources