User:Alansohn/Reliable sources for fictional characters

A number of editors have been insisting that reliable and verifiable sources about works of fiction are "opinion" that can be ignored and discarded. The close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 10 and of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_4#Category:Fictional_obsessive-compulsives revolved around the issue of reliable sources. If the sources provided (and the thousands more available just like them) are reliable, it would seem that there can be no doubt that in this case that the reliable sources would trump the claim of original research. These sources were excluded there and again here as reliable sources based on an interpretation of Wikipedia policy that 1) A review of a film or television program is by definition an "opinion piece" and can thus be excluded (this diff, and even more clearly at the following diff, as well as your statement here); and 2) The only reliable source about a fictional character is from its author or writer. ("The only persons who can accurately describe Monk as obsessive-compulsive are the writers of the show, and I haven't seen any sources pointing to them." this diff). While it seems abundantly clear to me that this interpretation is incorrect, I put the issue for discussion at WT:RS and WP:RSN, the folks who are the experts in reliable sources, and received the following responses, quoted verbatim:

• Neither of those two claims is correct. "reviews" of films and books are not the same thing as opinion pieces, regardless of the fact that subjective claims are made in them. And the claim that "only the creators of a show" can be "reliable sources" is both a misunderstanding of what RS means and a common confusion about fiction. Take Deny All Knowledge, a collection of peer reviewed essays about the X Files. It would be beyond absurd to claim that book is not a reliable source, yet if I assume that only the creators of fiction can speak reliably about the work of fiction, I would have to. editors aren't allowed to infer that Monk is OCD. Secondary sources can obviously do so. This doesn't mean that the categorization is not subjective, however. Protonk at WP:RSN
• Actually, with Monk, OCD is the entire premise of the show, and it would be pretty ridiculous to say we'll never find a source that Monk is OCD when its probably in several issues of TV Guide. I looked at the CFD and some of the other characters were more of a judgement call, such as Niles Crane from Fraser. And probably the CFD had more to do with doubts of the importance of such a category. BTW, I agree that neither of the two assertions is true; opinion pieces can meet RS, and secondary sources can opine that Monk is OCD. Squidfryerchef at WP:RSN
• This probably would be better at RS/N, but I agree with you about sourcing. The numbered items above essentially reverse the priority usually assigned to sources. Published reviews of fiction are independent sources, and hardly ever considered as mere opinion pieces, but rather as reliable sources. (It is usually easy enough to separate out reviewers' opinions -e.g. "this is the greatest TV series ever."). If they were not considered reliable sources, it would be impossible for any fictional topics to be treated in wikipedia, as they would all fail notability for not having independent reliable sources. Of course the creator of a work of fiction is decisive about many aspects of a fictional character, but not about such things - where disagreements are hard to think of in any case. In the given example, Adrian Monk, the character is very, very clearly written to be obsessive-compulsive. It would be surprising that the words don't appear somewhere in scripts, and it would be hard to believe that any substantial review of the character would not descibe him as such. Note that ' "adrian monk" obsessive compulsive ' gets 11 gscholar hits and 21 gbooks hits, some from academic psychological sources. Literature has often been used as a source of insight into psychology by psychiatrists, psychologists and philosophers and it is not very hard to think of psychiatric conditions named after fictional characters, or to find statements like: "The traditional example of obsessive compulsive disorders is Lady Macbeth"[1].John Z at WT:RS
• What you've been told is in conflict with how notability is considered, and John Z is correct. Reviews from established critics or from reliable sources (such as the example SFGate one) are appropriate RS for information. Input from the original creators is useful, but it is a primary source. --MASEM at WT:RS

While there is certainly room for shades of meaning and the occasional difference of opinion, the strong divergence between the interpretation of WP:RS offered by those most familiar with the policy and the interpretation you have put forth, would thus seem to place your interpretation in conflict with Wikipedia policy. The people who know reliable sources policy the best seem to be rather strong in describing these sources as reliable. I am already working on further documenting this issue and putting to bed the claim that independent reliable and verifiable sources about works of fiction are not reliable.