Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Television

While there is no need to single out a particular news channel, otherwise neutral commentators have remarked that tv generally has deteriorated due to diminishing audience (many choices now available). They are now faced with preaching to a much smaller choir, who, BTW, is not as well-educated. This is all "regular" channels. Student7 (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't confuse all with US mainstream TV. There are plenty of other major TV channels outside the US following somewhat different schemes, some of them targetting larger (occasionally also better educated) choirs.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Is source reliability Objective or Subjective?

A spate of recent discussions have challenged the reliability of sources that I suspect most of us would consider reliable—Fox News, CIA Factbook, Wall Street Journal, and others – based on errors (perceived or real) and not the criteria we outline in WP:RS. Is that criteria—independence, a reputation for fact checking and accuracy—subject to interpretation on a case by case basis, or once that reliability criteria is met (consensus of WP editors) for a given source, is that an objective evaluation. In other words, once a given source is deemed reliable by the community, is that reliability permanent until proven otherwise? Clearly, when a source is used in a specific article context, it may or may not be appropriate (the guideline is fairly clear on that), but that contextual inappropriateness doesn’t make it an unreliable source.

If, for the sake of discussion, a once reliable source is deemed unreliable by the community based on our objective criteria, does that now make all instances of that source’s use void? In other words, if Fox News was deemed by consensus unreliable, would we now go through and purge (or tag) all instances of it as unreliable?

If our reliability criteria are indeed objective, then once a source is deemed reliable —independence, and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy--, then it ought to be immune from reliability attacks unless those attacks are criteria based. Most specifically, a reputation for accuracy does not mean 100% error free or 100% neutral. Yet, otherwise reliable sources are challenged subjectively when some factual error or bias comes to light. What is it? Is reliability an objective consideration or subjective one? --Mike Cline (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point you bring up. In my opinion, for the sake of discussion, the criteria used to judge whether or not a source is deemed "reliable" must be objective and clearly stated. The Project is designed to be an encyclopedia of knowledge, with only facts that can be verified from reliable secondary sources included. If subjective criteria were to be allowed then it would dissolve into a chaos of competing partisan bickering that would be little more than a discussion forum filled with flames.

News organizations and the news articles they produce are and should be considered to be "reliable". An error in these papers or reports may in of itself become a notable event worthy of an article, but they do not, and should not force a wholesale re-evaluation on the reliability of the source itself. Similarly, blogs, editorials, and reports from editorial sources can, and should, only be used as sources for their own content - not for the topics they represent. Commentary is not in the same class of journalism and not subject to the same rules of fact-checking, so it cannot be considered a reliable source for the topic of discussion.

That said, any source that self-identifies as having a bias towards a particular point of view, or one that only reports on a single side of an issue (See: Media Matters for America or conversely The Heritage Foundation) should not be used as a "reliable source" on that topic as their bias is self-evident and therefore any conclusion reached suspect. SeanNovack (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not the bias but the accuracy that matters. Moreover publications don't miraculously lose their bias (nor become miraculously accurate) just because they are published in newspaper or book form. A blog by some distinguished/notable scientist is certainly more accurate (and authoritative) than a book by Ann Coulter on matters of evolution. The rules of fact checking (or rather the accuracy of an article) primarily lies with the authors & publisher and the quality of their work rather than distinguishing formally between "commentary/editorial" and "news". In particular with Fox it seems to have become popular to produce "accurate" news, while allowing completely inaccurate to nonsensical claims as far as commentary or "non news reporting" is concerned. However of a quality media publication, I'd expect some level of accuracy and fact checking no matter whether they label it as news or commentary. The idea of a (good/quality) commentary or editorial is to provide some additional information/opinion/explanation/assessment of certain facts for readers but not to make them up.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If a source is deemed unreliable in one scenario that does not mean it is reliable in all scenarios, the reliability of a source is usually domain dependent. As far as subjective versus objective is concerned it is both (there is no black & white scenario here just shades of grey). We do use some formal criteria for reliability (hence somewhat "objective" as a guideline), but independent of that authors still have to check whether the reliability holds in particular case. There is no easy clear cut mechanism you simply can apply without thinking like algorithm.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly... These challenges to media reliability are based on a flawed "always on/always off" reasoning... no source can be 100% reliable or 100% unreliable. When someone asks "is this source reliable?", we always have to ask: "Reliable for what?" The exact same source may be considered absolutely reliable for one statement, and yet completely unreliable for another statement. Context is vital to determining reliability. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

To detract from news channels for a moment, ran across an apparently npov report on US national roads (name is irrelevant here). This collects the data reported by each state and ranks the state, based on this self-assessment. The organization for these purposes was npov, like WSJ or NY Times. However, the input from the states is another matter. Each has a pov, whether they want to "prove" their bridges are fine or whether they want to "prove" that their bridges/roads needs a lot of money to be in good repair. In short, the states reports that are used are rather questionable. There isn't much else and editors reporting on state roads may be forced to use this report for actual data. However, using the authors' "comparisons", after assembling this data, is a bit of a stretch: deciding that Montana's roads/bridges are "better/worse than" Maine's. This is an extravagant reach IMO. This seems to be a case where the use of an otherwise reliable source should probably not be applied to use all material the otherwise "reliable" source has compiled.

There are otherwise "reliable" sources for colleges that poll students on unusual stuff like their observations on the consumption of alcohol or drugs or "partying." While the source is unquestionably accurate, we wonder sufficiently about the students input, that this information about being the "worst school for binge drinking in the country" should actually be used in the article. I think editors have tended to avoid this extension based on a few students' observations covering a few schools and extending it to the entire nation. Student7 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

npov is a Wikipedia term of art that refers to our WP:NPOV policy. (And it very definitely does not mean 'a point of view that is neutral'.) It has no meaning outside of that context - there is no such thing as 'a report that is npov' or 'input that is pov'. Dlabtot (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A source cannot be declared to be reliable or unreliable; it is only possible to determine reliability in the context of the specific proposed use. The most awful garbage-y source is typically a reliable (primary) source for its own publication date. The most amazing, generally accepted source may be unreliable on a specific point. Please read Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/FAQ. The last FAQ directly addresses this question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We should link this more often, however I must say given it's creation and the number of involved editors it somewhat lacks official/consensual character for now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 64.178.245.232, 19 May 2011

64.178.245.232 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Kinaro^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Ban Fox News as a source of information

As you can see here, Fox News has portrayed Obama is being born outside the United States, which is obviously false. If FN blatantly falsifies one topic, how can they be trusted on anything else? I am hereby proposing a ban on the use of Fox News or foxnews.com as a source to verify any information on Wikipedia, and a requirement that anywhere Fox is used solely to verify any information that it get replaced with a truly reliable source ASAP. Shaliya waya (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Perennial suggestion... and the answer is still a clear NO. For one thing, the mediamatters.org article is about Sean Hannity's show... and some comments by Sarah Palin... both of which come under opinion/analysis and are not news programing. This makes a world of difference. We don't expect the same level of accuracy and neutrality from opinion/analysis programing. I could see the argument for saying that Sean Hannity is unreliable, but not the entire network. We can not ban an entire network because one or two talking heads are idiots. If we did that we would have to ban CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, MSNBC, the BBC and just about every other TV news source (and probably the Wall Street Journal, Le Monde, The Times, and most print newspapers as well) because at one point or another they have all done the exact same thing. Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters just happens to be the first Google hit I came up with on the topic. But there are more sources. I tried to find the original article from 2 weeks ago, but it is a needle in the internet's haystack. Still, it's the point. It is known to all that the Fox network lies a lot, even on Obama's birthplace. I do not see how any honest person can support Fox News or foxnews.com being used to verify anything except perhaps a sports score. Shaliya waya (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Shaliya, because of this guy's actions, shouldn't we also propose banning the New York Times? Cla68 (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Though I personally like the idea of banning fox, I essentially have to agree with Blueboar for the reasons he has stated. Nevertheless while it is true that you can find similar "failures" with other networks or newspapers, one could still argue there's a difference in degree and prevalence of such "failures" between Fox and the other outlets named above. While that difference might matter and is the reason why personally avoid Fox as a source, it probably doesn't matter enough to justify banning Fox while allowing the others.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You may be able to find failures within an individual journalist here and there. But the entire Fox network and all their reporters live to lie, distort, and promote the right wing cause. They are a news outlet in name only. Shaliya waya (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually believe this to be true. But if you're going to prove that there's wholesale systematic problems with an entire network... then you need to WP:verify it. A lot of newspapers get stuff wrong. You need to show that Fox is wrong, and consistently wrong. It's not enough to find a pundit or opinion piece of insinuation, because we don't report those as sources anyway. It has to be systematic problems with their news reporting. Proving something systematic is very very hard. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• I do not think this proposal is helpful. FOX is sub-tabloid television news. FOX runs a strong ideological line. Neither of these mean that FOX lacks "editorial oversight and fact checking". In most cases there will be better news sources than FOX; and FOX's opinion pieces ought to be treated as such. But this does not make FOX inherently unreliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the perennial, totally non-utile proposals which are made. We could ban any source which is accused of having opinions - which basically is everything from everyone. Fox News is RS for news stories, just like CNN is, and MSNBC and CNBC etc. Sky News etc. Opinions from any source should be cited as opinions. Some folks tend to quote opinions as fact, and that generally is a problem.

The issue is not with having an opinion, the issue is with being (intentionally?) inaccurate or misleading with the regards to facts. The problem with fox is not its conservative bias or spin, the problem is with its inaccuracy (may it be intentional or due to utter stupidity).

With respect to the concrete example above the problem is not, that Fox is strongly critical of Obama and describes him in an "unfairly balanced" manner, but the problem is, that fox programs claim inaccurately that he wasn't born in the US and that he's a racist.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, Fox News did not report that Obama wasn't born in the US... Sean Hannity stated his opinion that Obama wasn't. There is a world of difference between news and opinion/analysis. Blueboar (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly why I said fox programs rather than fox news. I don't think we have to play Fox's game in that regard. What matters is that employees of Fox state inaccurate things and imho it doesn't matter much whether they do it in the news section or in some analysis/opinion section. From a "reliable" network I'd expect that its employees do not state (obviously) incorrect or misleading things in either.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should add this (and the other handful of sources that are regularly complained about) to the /FAQ, as a sort of mini-WP:PEREN listing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Drop the stick and back slowly away...
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 2

That FOX is a tabloid news and opinion television channel. FOX News programs are generally reliable sources for news, at the standard of tabloid newspapers. FOX Opinion pieces ought to be treated like any other opinion piece. should be added to the /FAQ. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to single out Fox news. Most potentiality reliable sources have ideological biases, which must be considered on a case by case basis for a specific citation. Gigs (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are other papers and 'news' sites around the country aimed at promoting a right wing conservative POV. The Washington Times for example. Fox News/foxnews.com (and also Fox Nation) is the most notable for being like this with national syndication. Currently, more than 5000 articles have one or more references from foxnews.com. Shaliya waya (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• The purpose of Proposal 2 is to avoid this perennial topic of trying to get rid of FOX altogether because it has a clear ideological position—on the same basis one may as well attempt to rid Wikipedia of AK Press, The Guardian, US Government sources, etc etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Singling out Fox in this way is POINTy and POV. So, no.

That said, perhaps we do need to add something explaining the difference between news reporting and news commentary/opinion/analysis programs (as it relates to the reliability of TV and Radio journalism in general). We already distinguish between these in relation to print journalism (noting that editorial and op-ed pieces are reliable for statements of opinion, but not for statements of blunt fact)... I would think this would be a logical extension of existing policy. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't really an extension of policy, it's already there. It could be clearer, and I've taken a stab at clarifying which probably needs savage improvements. SDY (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oof... yes, savage improvements needed... I have give it a stab as well. (but thanks for the attempt). Blueboar (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

SDY... your last was indeed a great improvement... thanks. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of reasons to single out Fox News's coverage of political topics. There are even studies on the correlation between misinformation levels and propensity to rely on FNC (versus other news sources). I think a case could be made that FNC coverage of political topics is special case among various news sources. BigK HeX (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Again... are you talking about Fox's news reporting or its commentary/opinion/analysis segments? It makes a difference. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The bulk of their coverage on political topics appears to exhibit a heavy bias, with numerous inaccuracies cited. Seems to matter little whether it is a "news" program or explicit opinion piece. In my personal experience, I find Fox News articles of political topics to be atrociously misleading -- studies of media bias seem to corroborate this. Personally, I think our caveats on scholarly reliable sources seem to fit in the case of Fox News as well: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs.".

FNC may have editorial oversight, but there are indications that such oversight is not focused on providing meaningful fact-checking when partisan political topics are involved. Their news coverage outside of politics may be more reliable. BigK HeX (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• To quote WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". A mainstream source saying something is verifiable. We can document what is said, and readers can verify it. It's up to the readers to decide who to believe. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a bit more complicated that that... we need to examine exactly what is being said in the article and how it is phrased. Is the material phrased as a fact, or as an opinion? If Bill O'Riley says that "Obama is an idiot" on his show, we can include an attributed statement of opinion along the lines of "According to Bill O'Riley, 'Obama is an idiot'"... this is verifiable (and O'Riley is a reliable source for this statement of opinion). However, we could not phrase it as an unattributed statement of fact (bluntly saying "Obama is an idiot"). That would not be verifiable (and O'Riley would not be a reliable source for that statement of fact). Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the easy case. What of online FoxNews.com articles that omit crucial facts and promote equal validity to tiny minority positions? Articles such as this climate change skeptic article which does nothing to note the vast consensus for the reality of climate change: [1]. It is these cases of subtle advocacy that riddle Fox New's coverage of partisan political topics, making reference to Fox News such trouble. Should quotes be allowed about how "Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'" just because it can be verified as being published by Fox News? BigK HeX (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Singling out any source in that manner is contrary to established WP policy and guidelines. And if it ever were published that WP seriously considered it, WP would be substantially harmed. The reasoning behind the WP:RS etc. pages was to prevent this sort of political posturing by editors, in the belief that where political differences in sources exist, the use of multiple sources mitigates any biases. Now if this discussion were to be printed in, say, USA Today - can you imagine what most people would think? I think I can. Wikipedia would be down the drain in a matter of days. Collect (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Fox News is as reliable as any other U.S. news show. TFD (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

My opinion of Fox News is pretty low, but the value of any source is always contextual. The whole concept of "reliable source" is a bit problematic really - reliable for what? Rd232 ^talk 03:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Collect, the reason to single out FOX is that this page is perennially lambasted by editors who do not understand that FOX's ideology is separate from its WP Reliability. The purpose is to defend FOX from the unjust attempts to ban it, which is why it was proposed to go in the /FAQ rather than the page itself. I'm happy to have my alternate proposal fail; but, not for the purpose of the proposal to be misunderstood. Regardless of my detestation of FOX's infotainment editorial policies, it is in the same kind of reliability category as major tabloid newspapers. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That is true of virtually every news source - and we already clearly state that opinions must be cited as opinions. For all of them. It is silly to single out Fox to be sure, and not a single prior discussion has found Fox News to be non-RS. Meanwhile, the NYT has opinion pieces which we require to be cited as opinions -- ought we list them as well? Nay. And such a "list" would harm Wikipedia greatly. BTW, Fox has had no more "reliabilty problems" than major broadsheet papers - so making an aside about "tabloids" is silly here. Collect (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The opinion pieces of other major news organizations are already covered by policy.

In any case, there is no "harm" to Wikipedia in ruling against the reliability of sources that make repeated indications that their oversight does not foster reliability. And, no, drawing a false equivalence to other major news sources isn't persuasive at all -- the difference in degree is wide and significant. Fox News is singled out because of the editorial practices at Fox News -- their highly selective reporting of political issues and the promotion of tiny minority views is problematic and approaches the sort of reporting of tabloids. BigK HeX (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, I can understand that I must use "Reilly says that X is an idiot," and not "X is an idiot"(footnoted with Reilly attribution). But when must I attribute? When should I avoid attribution?

I have tried to avoid attribution whenever possible, particularly with nn people. "John Smith (nn) says that the steeple is 81 metres high," seems silly, for example, when there is no particular argument about steeple height, and seems to promote a nn person.

Have to use this for political arguments, but should have notable person, it seems to be. "[[X]] says that Social Security will run out in y years." If X is nn, it's too weak an argument IMO.

It seems to me that editors should avoid attribution unless forced into it by disagreement (or unless they realize that it is controversial, like the Social Security/IQ statement would be. Student7 (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say you should never go out of your way to "avoid" attribution. My take is that it is never wrong to attribute ... it's just that, when there is no disagreement over fact, it isn't always necessary to attribute. When there is a disagreement over fact (ie when there is disagreement that something is a fact, when there is debate as to what the facts are or disagreement over what they mean) WP:NPOV requires that we present the various views that are relevant to the debate (giving the various views due weight). And in such situations it is best to phrase our discussion in terms of presenting differing opinions. And certainly a presentation of opinion must be attributed (so the reader knows who's opinion we are talking about). (Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Re use of tabloid sources, note current discussion at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Mayfair art dealer Mark Weiss in disgrace after admitting poison pen campaign on Wikipedia. --JN466 21:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This entire Fox discussion is why people see Wikipedia as a suspect source of information. There are editors willing to deem a news outlet unreliable simply because they disagree with that network's politics. 203.110.206.180 (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. As noted, the link refers to a commentator, not Fox's mainline news coverage. If we eliminate any organization which is perceived as having bias => no more sources => no more Wikipedia. Gerardw (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add that anyone who brings up Fox news again will be whacked with a WP:TROUT :) Dmcq (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

We have been forced to use pov tabloids on a topic that involves the third world. There is often nothing else available. It is painful, particularly when someone says that the tabloid be used verbatim, wild adjectives and all. But careful editors, working together (some agreeing with the tabloid's pov!) have been able to construct what we think is a chain of events that seems to make sense. Whether it actually happened or not is another matter since there is no independent corroboration! And the article's author is clearly afraid of going into the area and getting the facts herself. So the article is "sort of" primary. Secondhand primary! Whoosh! It takes time to sort this out but it can be done. No reason to eliminate material for pov if it contains facts. Student7 (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• • NO ** One look at Shaliya waya's talk page indicates why this user has requested this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperX9 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, Fox News admitted in a court of law that they lie to the public, and defended their right to do so (http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html). Is this true? If so, surely they are not a reliable source? 82.24.74.181 (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any part of that story where they admitted any such thing (although the original jury apparently found that they did). Fox could have defended the case either by claiming that they didn't do it, or by claiming that it wasn't illegal. The fact that they chose option (b) is not an admission.

Illustration: Suppose that one day the police break into your house, without a warrant, and "find" a kilo of cocaine that they've planted. The moral defence is to claim that you're innocent and that you've been set up. But if you want to avoid jail, you'd do better to stand on legalities: the police had no right to search in the first place, and anything found through that search is inadmissible as evidence. This doesn't mean you've "admitted" cocaine possession; it just means you made a tactical decision to use the argument most likely to get you off the hook.

Do Fox News stories lie? Yes, sometimes. If we required sources to be spotless, Fox would be off the list - but so would just every other major media organisation. They've all had scandals of one sort or another. To make the case for Fox News being treated as a generally non-RS, you'd have to prove that this was widespread, which is a lot harder to do. --GenericBob (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Is what they (allegedly?) did sleazy

Is a subject's brother a RS?

In the Larry Norman article, an editor is using the brother of the subject as a source. First, the brother was not present at the events being described. Second the brother is running the subject's business now that the subject is deceased. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the content. Please provide more information. Thanks! SuperX9 (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Bert Randolph Sugar.

I corresponded with him about 60 years ago, when I was about 12 and he was about 14. I can scan this correspondence and send the scans if desired. We exchanged somewhere between several and many letters. We traded baseball players' autographs. At the time, he was at 4312 Warren St., N.W., Washington 16, DC. He started a "Sports Foto Club," which he said would last only until June 25, 1953. Membership cost a dollar, and one received 30 photos for that amount alone. After that, photos were 8 cents each, 15 for a dollar, and 33 for 2 dollars. Bert already had great handwriting at that time -- very mature looking; I thought he was an adult then. If more info is desired on him, I have more. James Ivey, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.36.26 (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Using your correspondence would be considered Original research based on a primary source. Sorry, but we can not use it. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources must be WP:Published. Scanning and posting (=publishing) his letters, by the way, might run afoul of copyright laws. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it be a problem for him to put the comment on the talk page, for those interested?Mzk1 (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A brief comment is probably fine in terms of copyright law, but scanning and posting whole letters is probably not. However, since the material cannot be used to build the article (since it's not WP:Published and therefore cannot be a WP:Reliable source), then it's basically fan-site chat that isn't really suitable for an article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Leaks

WP:LEAKS is a redirect to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. However leaks are not discussed in the article. patsw (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Using the Wikipedia entry for news leaks as starting point for definition, can a news leak reported in reliable source be included in the content of a Wikipedia article (subject, of course, to the other inclusion criteria)?

• Yes. The Wikipedia relies on the credibility of its reliable sources in news media, authors of works of non-fiction, documentarians, etc. to vet the content of sources within organizations or governments who impart information on the condition of not revealing their personal identity, just as the Wikipedia relies upon these same reliable sources for content from primary sources speaking on the record. Furthermore, I note it has been routine practice has been to include such content, there's never been imposed a complete ban on leaked information. A good example of this was the summaries of actual leaks appear in the Wikileaks article. patsw (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• No: By definition, "leaked information" cannot be a reliable source, since it has no true "source," simply rumors. Nor can leaks be verified. Allowing a free use of leaked information could quickly override the goal of neutrality. For example, if the NY Times, or a politician, says X, but a "leaked," uncredited statement, says X is false, who do you believe? It's bad enough when a highly reliable sources gets pitted up against a notably weak source, since they can both be cited and give a pseudo-neutrality to the topic.

It would seem that the only way a leak could, or should, be used is if it is clearly identified as "leaked" and "unsourced" information and hence "unreliable." But then what's the point? This is still an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or blog, which will reprint any rumor from any source, if it makes for a good headline. I'd say that when we come across leaks, we plug them up, call a plumber, and definitely don't drink from them. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. In your example we are relying upon the judgment of the New York Times that their "source in the administration" or "source close to the investigation" to be who the Times states them to be (ie personally known to the reporter, but not personally identified to the reader) because the credibility of the Times itself is at stake. It has been a major scandal at the Times and at The New Republic when their articles have used fictitious sources. If a source is ultimately revealed to be fictitious, the remedy would be to add that finding to the article, or to delete the fictitious content. patsw (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the publisher's "judgment" that's involved, but the fact that if they were required to reveal their sources, they would, or else they lose their credibility quickly. But the bottom line is legal liability. The publisher is primarily liable for publishing falsehoods. But your suggestion of citing fictitious information, and then add that it's fictitious, makes no sense. It can only serve to confuse readers who shouldn't be expected to figure out all the true and false statements. The easiest solution is just to print the truth, and delete what's not true. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

But until a certain story is revealed to be fictitious, we have no reason to believe that a reliable source like the New York Times is unreliable for this one story until it is known to be false. We shouldn't just outright claim that a normally reliable source is unreliable just because it won't reveal where it got the statements from. Whistleblowing doesn't make statements or news organizations unreliable. And it is not our job to say whether a story is false or not. Unless some other report is released declaring a story to be false, we must go on with the story being true. We repeat the news, we don't decide whether the news is true or not. Verifiability, not truth, remember? Silverseren^C 00:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment, pretty much yes I think this RfC has some importance to the question. However, I think it depends. You ask about reliability and, according to news leak, there's two major kinds of leaks. The first is when information is given to news organizations in preparation of a press report by some organization. These leaks would then obviously be reliable. because the information is coming from a specific source. However, any speculation in them should be directly attributed to the writer of the article. That still makes them reliable though. The other kind of leak is the release of confidential information, which should be seen as primary sources made by a specific organization. It is necessary to follow the requirements of WP:Primary in such a case, but they are still reliable sources. Unless there is a specific reason not to believe a leak to be reliable, then I don't see an issue. Of course, as always, sources should be attributed in the text to the author and news organization that wrote them, but that is just common practice. Silverseren^C 00:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There may be some problems or contradictions in those ideas:

• Many news sources don't print the name of the journalist. And even when they do, the journalist is an employee of the publication, and their employer is the one that's liable. The reporter may lose their job, but the entity which chose to "publish" the material is the one liable, not the writer;
• In either of your examples, leaks should never become "obviously reliable." One could even define "leaked" information as the opposite of "reliable," "sourced" information. I see no grey area - it's simply "sourced" or "unsourced." Rumors, gossip, secrets, and leaks, are actually less reliable than hearsay, because with hearsay at least there is a "real" source;
• The comment that "unless there is a specific reason not to believe a leak to be reliable, then I don't see an issue," is circular reasoning. How can a leak ever be "reliable?" And attributing who published the leaked, unsourced, facts, should not add to their reliability. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'll keep it simple. If a leak is being published by a reliable publication, such as the New York Times, unless there is other evidence to suggest that the leak is unreliable and that the publications editorial staff has not properly investigated the subject as we generally assume they do, then we should continue to believe that the reliable publication is giving reliable information. It being a leak is rather unimportant really, because the editorial staff would still have had to research and investigate the subject regardless. Silverseren^C 00:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree mostly. The NY Times will always have a documented reliable source for their material, even if they don't disclose them. They stand behind their reputation, and when subpoenaed to prove their statements in court, they show them. In those cases where they are sued, many of which are civil or non-publicized, they will prove their facts in private mediation. When a major paper uses undocumented, unsourced, defamatory information, and loses a suite, it becomes a major news story. It's even a less-than-major story when tabloids lose a suite, but still news. If a major paper claims a fact "according to its" sources, it is assumed they have them but won't reveal them for reasons of confidentiality. But they will when required. When they instead claim their information is based on "leaks," they in effect are saying that they're based on rumors. That's where the tabloids come in. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Clarification re: primary source A primary source leak would be if a source close to the administration leaked a document directly to a Wikipedia editor and the editor sought to have that included in article content. Neither I nor anyone I have seen here is arguing for that as policy. patsw (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wikileaks has turned out to be quite reliable. Even before the huge US State department leak they published many leaked documents and were never accused of falsifying them or other problems. They have or had a staff of volunteers who reviewed submitted material. The providenceprovenance is very important.   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks was leaking "documented" information - hard copy, printed, signed, typed, or whatever. That naturally required either a denial, ie. declaration that the documents are fake, or else a tacit implication that they may be "real. Because they were hardcopy, the publisher was much more insulated. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This meets wp:rs which doesn't say much. When actual reliability is assessed (e.g. at the rs noticeboard) the instance should be gauged by the following:

1. actual reliability of wp:"rs" that reported on what the source said
2. qualifiers and context put on it by the wp:"rs", with special weight given to such when the wp:"rs" is actually a rs. e.g. "Deep throat claims that....", "according to Wikileaks.....", "according to documents obtained through Wikileaks" etc.

Also keep in mind that folks like Wikileaks (and their mystery sources) are probably more accurately viewed as a conduit for materials than as a wp:source. North8000 (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment—I think that determing whether or not leaked information is reliable very much depends on the way it is reported in the media, assuming that that's how we come to know about it altogether. If a newspaper says, "Leaked documents reveal that Kennedy was killed by the Daleks," then it is being treated as a fact and we can assume that there has been some pre-publication verification by the journalist. However, more often, reports take the tone of, "It has been claimed by an anonymous source that Gordon Brown frequently threw halibuts at his political advisers," in which case the 'fact' is that the claim has been made, not the substance of the claim itself. Does that make any sense? ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 11:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• At the very least even if shown to be authentic a leaked document is a primary source and should not be used until a reliable secondary has noticed it. Dmcq (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think we're working under the general assumption that a secondary source is using a leaked document for information. We're not talking about primary sources here. Silverseren^C 11:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Clarify: Before someone brings up what I said above, The leaked information is a primary source and we're discussing whether a secondary source using leaked information or information given to them is reliable or not. Depending on what kind of leak it is though, like in terms of Wikileaks documents, it is possibly and sometimes very likely that the primary source leaked documents are reliable in and of themselves. Though we've still want secondary commentary regardless, yes. Silverseren^C 11:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, with caution. As Silver seren mentioned, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). However, how the leak is presented in the Wikipedia article should depend on the way it is presented in the media, as TreasuryTag said. If the tone indicates uncertainty, the leak publisher should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article, following the guidelines at WP:NPOV. Guoguo12 (Talk)  23:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

We've had very reliable experience with "leaks" to credible news media in the US. Not sure about abroad with different news media. The only time this hasn't proved true is with "floating" the names of nominees to various administrative/Supreme Court posisitions. Presumably, the public/media did not react well to the nominee and someone else moved up on the list. Other than that I don't remember provably false information from leaks. And even the nominees seemed credible though they eventually did not get their desired position.

Note that except for the "George Brown" sally above, we have mostly been talking US here. Does this cover Japan as well? Italy? Serbia? I don't know. Student7 (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Leak" requires definition: The closest definition on WP to this discussion of "leaks" is news leak. But that defines a leak after it becomes some publisher's news story. I qualify "some" because with the WWW, almost any site, excluding obvious blogs, can be cited as a RS. But the closest attempt to define a "leak" came from Silver Seren earlier:

" It being a leak is rather unimportant really, because the editorial staff would still have had to research and investigate the subject regardless."

The implication being that a leak is treated by legitimate sources (ie. non-tabloid) as a source for "investigation," not "news." Otherwise the headlines during the Watergate period would have been loaded with the term "deep throat," which would have accomplished little more than turning the film into a classic, but trashed the concept of "reliable sources."

I think the closest analogy to a "leak" by RSs would be the "hot tip," "story lead," "anonymous phone call," or "note slipped under the door." And the "leaker" is really equivalent to a whistleblower, but not limited to the workplace. A RS should, IMO, never claim that information was "leaked," since that implies they did not make an effort to prove its truth. That's why respected publications will only treat a "leak" as an unstated starting point to investigate by email, phone calls, interviews or research, its truth. Hence, the concept of "leak" is just another synonym for "hot tip" or story "idea" generated at the local bar. That's why it seems that a "leak" can never be a RS. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

IMO the "leak" itself isn't reliable, but that's completely unimportant, since we're not working from the leak itself: the leaks themselves tend to go unpublished. We're working from our newspaper or other media outlet, and if the publication in question is normally accepted to be reliable for stories not asserting leaked information, then the story asserting leaked information is, too. (Naturally, we should place the leak in the proper context, i.e., by following the source's own presentation of the leaked material, and by avoiding WP:CRYSTAL and WP:DUE failures.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wrong issue As a rule I think this is a job for Template:Current. A recently leaked document has a pretty good chance of not panning out or of meaning something quite different from the initial spin on it. I personally would tend to treat such a source as somewhat dubious until there was some sort of independent verification. Mangoe (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Famous former residents of Romulus Michigan

Lloyd Ward, Romulus High School class of 1966- Michigan State University- 1970 President of Maytag Corporation, names COO of Olympic Winter Games 2002

Submitted by Darcel Green, former resident of Romulus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.236.65 (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want Wikipedia to have an article about this person, then you should read Wikipedia:Your first article to learn how to create it yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Source attribution for News sources

This edit added a guideline saying that each single story [...] should be attributed to the actual source, and not the republishers. As stated, it appears to contradict WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "counts as one source" is supposed to mean. Is this about WP:N? If so, someone might like to take a look at what that guideline actually says, because multiple articles, written by different people and published in different newspapers, can actually count as only one source for notability purposes.

Additionally, I'm not sure that "attributed to the actual source" is feasible, if "the actual source" is understood to mean "the actual wire service". So few of us actually have bona fide wire service feeds; instead, we read newspapers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose what it's trying to do is address the situation where a report on, say, Reuters is picked up by all the mainstream papers, radio stations and TV channels. Then an editor could potentially cite the Daily Telegraph, Australian Age, NYT, BBC online, Guardian, Channel 4 News, all in support of what is actually just one report, making the fact look more significant than it actually is. It would be more appropriate to cite just one of these. It would also be possible, but not essential, to use Reuters itself as the source. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed this without bias toward reworking it somehow. Local sources often take wire sources and change them, sometimes in significant ways. It would be bad to attribute a wire story from a news source to the wire service, since we don't know what modifications have been made. Also "count as one source" makes it sound like we have a scoring system for reliability based on the number of footnotes after a claim, that's not really how things work. As well, you added this to a section that primarily deals with differentiating fact from opinion in news sources, I'm not sure that's the best place to say what you are trying to say. Gigs (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We also don't know which version is being cited. Many wire services are providing alternate lead paragraphs for news stories. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that I can't really cite the original very well and yes, soft copy "floats." It doesn't quite say the same thing as my hard copy, maybe, because they updated to a "later" version after my hard copy republisher printed it. But it is still the same story. They didn't recant or anything!  :) Student7 (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What issue are we trying to resolve with this proposed change? About the only situation where I think the origin of the story might matter is when someone tries to cite multiple sources for the same fact or statement (if multiple news sources all essentially reprint the same AP feed, you end up with multiple citations to what is effectively the same news source)... however, we already discourage the "piling on" of sources like that. There is no need to cite multiple sources, instead you should pick the one you think is the most reliable. So why do we need to note that a story we saw in the New York Times originated with a wire service? Why not just cite the Times? Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Citing the Times or in general a republication is good enough. The author should simply cite where he has read it. Now if another author has read the original publication and knows the republication is identical or at least the content is sourced equally well by the original (say Reuters or AP instead of Times), he may exchange the source. However that is optional not really anything we need to codify in a guideline--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Irony?

Does anyone else find it funny that "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose" on Wikipedia? (see here)

And, on a somewhat related note, how Wikipedia somehow finds secondary sources more reliable than primary sources? Weird ...

71.34.19.61 (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

To be more accurate, secondary sources should be the main sources for an encyclopedia article because we generally want context for the facts we present. Primary sources are indeed the most reliable sources for most bare facts, but we can't scaffold those with too much of our own context and commentary, which is why we need secondary sources. Gigs (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

To answer the first part of the question, we have some control and understanding of our (single) article we are collaborating on and an understanding of those facts and how they got there. We do not know how material got into another Wikipedia article.

In fact, many times, I've had conflicts with editors over linked items where they were making an effort (in effect) to corroborate a "fact" in an article with an unsupported (unreferenced) comment in a linked article. It made no sense. We need the reference in our article. Linking (or using another article) does not make sense. Student7 (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Alertnet query (reliable news sources)

As an NGO CEO I always find it a bit odd that if I put a news item on my website it is not considered a reliable news source but if I use my Alertnet account to put it up on Alertnet (where it is subject to no further control other than that it comes from us) it mysteriously becomes reliable. Is there a logic to this or are people just Wowed by the associated with Reuters? --BozMo talk 17:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the assertion that it is automatically reliable if it is on alternet is totally erroneous, no, there is no logic to it. Dlabtot (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds right. Or at least it should not be regarded as automatically more reliable from being on Alertnet which is what I think you meant. --BozMo talk 07:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Determining academic consensus

In some controversial issues, it's easy to determine consensus. For example, as to whether The Holocaust occurred, I think I myself established the precedent of writing that according to Western scholars there is no doubt that it occurred, but that in the Islamic or Arab worlds, it is widely considered a hoax.

But in other cases it's not so easy. According to Kyoto Protocol supporters, virtually all qualified climatologists agree with the UNIPCC's view of global warming (the AGW theory that most recent warming is human-caused). But AGW theory opponents say that support and opposition is more polarized, and that 20% or more of climate scientists either think the theory is false, or simply that it is unproven. It depends on which poll is considered, and also on whether "the views of 2500 climate scientists" are interpreted as supporting AGW in IPCC documents (KP supporters) or not (AGW theory opponents).

In other words, there seems to be a dispute over whether there is a consensus. Ironically, AGW theory supporters and KP supporters say that there is a scientific consensus, and Wikipedians writing about climate accept this notion of consensus and use it as a basis to delete well-referenced material which contradicts the view that an academic consensus exists.

In the cold fusion controversy, it's made quite clear that mainstream scientists have declared that no one has convincingly demonstrated the phenomenon, i.e., that there is no replication of results. However, the article devotes as much space as contributors like, for the claims of cold fusion supporters. (I've examined both sides, and I agree with the mainstream on this. But it's because I've looked at lots and lots of minority claims and been disappointed.) The result of NPOV on this issue is that a "fair description" of both sides enables the reader to make up his own mind (which is my case, is agreeing with the mainstream).

My question boils down to this: if there is a dispute about whether a consensus exists, does NPOV policy "contemplate" permitting contributers to insert text into articles which summarizes the views of those denying that there is a consensus? Or may a majority of contributors decide amongst themselves that X is the consensus and that any claims to the contrary are "marginal" views and thus not worthy of mention? Without being able to see what the minority is saynig here, there is a risk that (a) the reader will think we are endorsing the majority and/or (b) the reader will find it very difficult to learn what the minority's arguments and evidence are. The result is a violation of NPOV. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you might have meant to ask this question at WP:NPOV or WP:NPOVN, rather than at WT:RS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably also worth mentioning Teach the Controversy, where a supposed "dispute over consensus" was a ploy rather than an actual scientific dispute. I agree with WaId that this is a question for WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE since it is a question of disagreements between sources. SDY (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but a 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection." [2] citing [3]

I am no expert on the subject, but I do know something about scientists as people, as I would be rather dubious about such a poll. How would they find the scientists? Do they call people at random and ask if they are scientists? Which fields are accpeted as science? Do you mean academics - because if so, that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.Mzk1 (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really following this discussion, but for some info answering the questions you ask here, see the Points of Agreement section in the cited supporting source ([4]) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

So what he should have said was, "87% of AAAS members surveyed said"; then we can judge for ourselves based on what is known about the AAAS on how much the survery reflects scientific opinion. I will Assume Good Faith, that the poster did not check into this.Mzk1 (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that the percentage we use at Wikipedia to determine consensus? Not 95% or 99.85%? I mean, do we support the viewpoint of the NAS and AAAS that there is no controversy, or do we go with opinion polls conducted of scientists? More specifically, is an issue "controversial" within science if scientists in fields outside a specialty (like biology) refuse to accept it at the 13% level? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You can see at Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change and its archives various arguments Ed Poor puts forwards every so often plus the counter arguments there. I had a look at Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature but wasn't able to identify the survey used at the start. Dmcq (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think what is interesting in the survey results is the influence of flood geology. It looks like there is a concerted effort by creationists to take over geology in America, seeEarth - Creationism creeps into mainstream geology. I can see the day coming at this rate when you will actually get some geological society wholly taken over and saying the Grand Canyon was created by the flood of Noah's Ark. Dmcq (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't declare scientific consensus, at any level of percentage. We need to find a reliable source that itself declares a scientific consensus. Gigs (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's good, but what about cases where reliable sources disagree about whether a given idea has attained scientific consensus? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty straight forward. Write about what all the sources say in a balanced, NPOV way. One group's consensus is another's controversy. WP articles do not reflect a consensus on any subject, but reflect what the sources (all of them) say about the subject. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

With appropriate WP:DUE weight of course. Dmcq (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also with the caveat that WP:FRINGE theories can be ignored as appropriate. See also WP:YESPOV. Disagreements about consensus that present alternative ideas can be included in the article if they aren't fringe-ish, with coverage corresponding to their weight. ID doesn't get mentioned in technical discussions of evolution, for example, because of its fringe status as a pseudoscience (it's part of the history, though, and mentioning it in the article isn't out of place, much like Lamarck or Lysenko). Denialism isn't really an alternative viewpoint to present. Groups of minor dissenting viewpoints can be presented as such if there is meaningful disagreement and the viewpoints aren't individually weighty enough for inclusion (e.g. "Non-anthropogenic mechanisms have been proposed, but none have much support as an explanation for observed climate trends.") SDY (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

For editors used to "hard" science articles, it may be unusual to use varying opinions. We "know for sure" that flourine has a certain atomic weight. There is no disagreement. Public opinion is not considered.

For those of us editing religious articles, editing in both sides is common. "B holds x view." "C has y view." After a while, I want my editing opponents to have well-worded viewpoints, because I don't want readers stopping after they have read opposing views (before they get to mine!  :).

I realize that climate discussions and evolution discussions must get frustrating to those involved. But all sides need presentation.

I happen to support evolution, but it sure sounds funny as heck to read the supporting views on anything. "Well, X has fins because it helped them to survive." Then, tomorrow, they discover that X did NOT have fins, they were examining the fossil incorrectly. New statement: "Well, X did NOT have fins and that helped them to survive." Kind of (what?) Post hoc ergo propter hoc type thinking? (I may have this wrong). But anyway, retroactive logic, which may be quite correct, but sure sounds funny when summarized over time. While none of this exactly supports creation theory, sometimes creation theory seems like less like b.s. when compared to the alternative.

I do not have a magic model for working out evolution type editing problems, but I have found with many (certainly not all) editors, if they can be convinced to use reliable sources and objective npov wording, that both can be presented and both sides can learn something. (I know that will seem like a strange idea to evolutionists, but they don't have proof. It isn't atomic weight slam dunk-type logic).

And it may help to quote the other side in support of your own position. For example, I once read an online "paper" from a evangelical religious school astronomer. Bottom line: he said the distances out there were large and real (billions of light years). He did not present a satisfactory resolution, but I assume that he did not mean that God could not have created the universe (uh) 6000 years ago with those enormous distances, but it sure would give pause to anyone trying to make the point that the universe might not be billions of years old. Why go out of my way to quote Urey or somebody, when I could quote or add him to the statement(s) to help make my point?

(Oh, and good luck!  :) Student7 (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a very dangerous thing to do. One thing I have learned over the years is that theists and atheists do not at all understand each other's positions. Arguments made by people on one side were often long ago discussed and dismissed - or even accepted! - by those on the other. Most people who believe in a young earth would still accept that it was created that size, and would have other explanations. And, of course, the age of the earth and evolution are two different questions; evolution is in fact something of a red herring. Also, you sound a bit fanatical, no offense.Mzk1 (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The is no serious disagreement among academics about evolution. The academic consensus is near universal, and has been for more than a hundred years. Results in biology should be stated as plain fact, as plainly as results using Einstein's theory of relativity are stated. LK (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of serious disagreements about evolution, but they're all about the details, not whether it happens in the first place. Things like punctuated equilibrium are still fairly new (e.g. 1970's) in the history of evolutionary biology, and there have been meaningful disputes there, though it's now commonly accepted (honk if you understand it!). "Consensus" does not mean monolithic agreement on all facets of a topic. SDY (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

But the facets/variations/improvements of the general concept are not really the issue (nor are they regarding climate change). That scientific theories get refined and augmented over time is a common thing, but that doesn't mean there's disagreement regarding their essential concept/idea.

As far as the original question is concerned, there is a relatively simple answer (though not completely without caveats). We speak in WP of scientific consensus if some (or several) reputable sources do so (convincingly), i.e. in doubt treat it source based as any other content.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

For instance in Scientific opinion on climate change#Scientific consensus one can see statements by various science organizations on whether there is a scientific consensus. Dmcq (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess my point was: are we writing these article "for the choir?" If we are only writing them for "true believers", why bother? I agree that there may not be much wiggle room for the theory of evolution. But in convincing (or trying to convince) newbies (usually newbies editing an old article), their questions/changes may force a better presentation which is more convincing.

But it can be frustrating, too. It is easier to recommend tolerance than practice it.

But as far as academic arrogance goes, remember that one of the issues of 1800 or so was how the sun could burn (oxidize) for 6000 years and still not be "burnt up." Scientists of every generation have all the answers. But still have significant unanswered questions. Student7 (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is saying the scientific consensus f it exists is always right. The question normally is, do you trust the pilot of th plane to pilot it or that nice character in a suit who smiles nicely ans=d says he will keep it aloft with his love, or do you think the plane would be better off being piloted by you yourself because you only trust yourself even though you don't have a licence? Guess how much an insurance company would charge you for each option. Dmcq (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily trust him for the history of aviation. At most, we can have a consensus for articles on science, not on, say, history of the earth as a whole, and so on. And we do test flights, do we not? We don't rely solely on our knowledge of physics, and physics is a lot more scientific. Or will be put on trial for heresy, like some recent politicians were?Mzk1 (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, but the title of the thread is "academic consensus", not "scientific consensus". As a rule it is good to work out what academic field an article belongs to. Then we can see which texts are likely to be most reliable and relevant. Historians for history articles, physicists for physics articles and so on. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A problem with the foundational concept of "reliable sources" – And a elegant solution

Disclaimer

I put quite a bit of mental work into this, to please refrain from knee-jerk reactions and prejudice, and keep the discussion on a high level. :)

The Problem

From what I can tell after all this time, the deciding factor for “reliability" of a “source” on this site seems to be “authority”. But when you read the page “argument from authority”, it becomes clear, that “the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant”, and hence relying on it is a logical fallacy.
I found that it gets even worse: One person can consider e.g. FOX as a “authority” and MSNBC not. While the other person thinks the opposite. And yet another one (e.g. me ;) doesn’t see any of them as acceptable. So what is an “authority”, is clearly relative to the person. (In other words: subjective.) Something nobody here would accept in any other situation on this site. Other than e.g. “logical soundness”, which is based on the physics behind neurology, which, based on all we know, can be considered universal with highest certainty.
And the final problem I noticed, is that Wikipedia seems to be managed in a centralized hierarchical fashion. Which in practice means, those on top and in control always get the last word. Which of course includes who is considered an “authority”. And what to delete.
In my experience, this resulted in a deletion and editing behavior, that forces the site into conformance with the views of those in power. This is not “evil” behavior. It’s only natural for a human mind. But it still is censorship for everyone not agreeing with those views. And the problem is, that this whole thing, by “both” sides, ignores which view actually is logically sound and based on the laws of physics. It also ignores, that observations between different people also differ. (Which is not avoidable, because of how neural nets work.) So it obviously harms the site.

A proposed solution

As you will agree, such a situations is clearly unacceptable, deeply wrong, and undermines Wikipedia on a level that turns its entire philosophy on its head. So I propose two changes:

1. Decentralize Wikipedia. No single entity or group should ever be in control. Instead every node instantiates and builds upon prototypes by its peers. (Like the prototyping of Objects in JavaScript.)
2. Only allow referencing logically sound (preferably automatically checkable) sources. At least for the node inheriting the current Wikipedia (or preferably the software behind it). (Mainly, one could implement the checking functionality on Wikisource.)

Then, just like people weed out errors in pages, they can weed out badly managed Wikipedia instances, and even set their own “reliable authority” if they must.

A side-effect would be, that some of those instances could become good enough to be allowed as sources in university papers.
Also, the speed of finding quality information would rise dramatically.
And best of all, anyone can edit could become truth again. Without any strings attached. Without any compromises. Ever.

I love it, and, OK, I might implement it by myself in any case. But of course I’d love to have excited and perhaps inspired some others too. :)
— Navid Zamani <evi1m4chinePHOTONgooglemail.com> (Replace particle by “@”.) (94.220.249.154 (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC))

Comments

(Add comments here.)

the deciding factor for “reliability" of a “source” on this site seems to be “authority” nope, not at all, not in any respect whatsoever. The deciding factor is the consensus of Wikipedia editors, arrived at through discussion. No, Wikipedia is not run in a centralized, hierarchical fashion. Your observations simply do not appear to be in line with reality. Dlabtot (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• In fact, I'm editing at least one article that depends on truly awful reports, some second hand, from the place where the event took place (third world country). The problem for us editors is not to regard the source as an "authority" by any means; they are a joke. But the only source we have. We try to use what they report and make sense out of it. Not an easy task and takes considerably effort on the part of editors who have highly different opinions on the topic.

• More to the point, most lengthy sources go off on a pov after a while and have to be ignored or skipped. FOX may be an authority for some things. MSNBC for another. I am conservative. I generally use liberal sources for my references because they are not likely to be challenged by people who normally would not agree with me! I think people who use sources which only agrees with their pov, naive. These often challenged even if they are correct.

• IMO, we are "de-centralized" as it is. There are article owners who enforce rules for "their" articles and you can't get around them. They outnumber newbies. Venezuelan/Chavez articles come to mind. Student7 (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Must WP policies be observed when carefully weighing sources to determine their reliability?

This question relates to the portion of this guideline which reads, "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made ..." I pose the question here after discussion at WP:V#V:SOURCES vs. RS in DUE; policy vs. essay; slippery slopesWT:NPOV#V:SOURCES vs. RS in DUE; policy vs. essay; slippery slopes (I really botched that link). That discussion there leads off with a link to an exampled discussion of a relevant edit.

In that exampled discussion, careful consideration of the population figure for the Philippines in the 2011 CIA Factbook produced the determination that the CIA Factbook is not a reliable source for that particular piece of information. The methodology used in determining the Factbook figure to be unreliable included synthesis of other sources which give figures differing significantly with the Factbook figure. This specific example isn't of earth-shaking importance, but a consequence of this determination of unreliability was/is that the population figure from the Factbook need not be given due weight, since WP:DUE only applies to sources considered to be reliable.

I've seen this sort of thing elsewhere -- sources deemed not eligible to be given due weight because they had been determined to be unreliable on a particular point, or on a particular article topic, by a consensus of editors active on an article. So -- the question -- must WP policies such as NOR#SYNTH be observed when carefully weighing sources to determine their reliability? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A source can be reliable for one purpose and not another. The logic in determining whether it is reliable for a use is somewhat subjective. So, hopefully they used decent logic. -- Avanu (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The No original research policy is about how we write articles, it has no relation to anything other than writing Wikipedia articles and no meaning in any other context. Dlabtot (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I need to correct a mistake above. I should have said NPOV#SYNTH instead of NOR#SYNTH. SYNTH is in the NPOV policy, of course, not in NOR. The response from Dlabtot sent me scrambling, and turned up that error. Sorry about the confusion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

UM... no... you were right the first time. WP:SYNT (full title: "Wikipedia:NOR#Synthesis of published material that advances a position") is contained in the WP:No original research (NOR) policy... Not in the WP:Neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. Of course, all our various policies and guidelines (and even many essays) interact and overlap with each other, and they should be read and applied together (as a whole corpus). Since the act of "advancing a position" is (almost by definition) a non-neutral act, synthetic statements are one area where the NOR and NPOV policies interact and overlap. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

When there are indications that a normally reliable source got something wrong then discussing this using all available information including unreliable sources is exactly the right thing to do. Errors happen all the time even in the best sources, and they don't become the truth just because they are published. Apparent discrepancies can also be an indication of a source using different definitions than those we have in mind. In this specific case it's conceivable though perhaps not very likely that there is an error in the source, and it's also conceivable that the source uses a methodology for counting the population which in the case of the Philippines produces significantly different numbers from more standard methodologies. (E.g. not counting foreign nationals, or not counting the homeless, or double-counting certain people.)

Our freedom to discuss such things is sometimes abused by POV pushers, but if we abolished this freedom we would open ourselves to even worse wikilawyering. Hans Adler 15:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As a minor point, my recollection of the 2011 CIA Factbook discussion is very different from yours (=Wtmitchell's): I recall editors arguing forcefully hat the CIA Factbook is indisputably a reliable source—but not the only reliable source, and that where reliable sources disagree, we report either the preponderance of the sources (i.e., omitting outliers) or the fact of that the sources disagreement (e.g., "population estimates range from X to Y"), rather than excluding apparently good sources because we didn't like their answers and/or the way they presented the answers (the latter, in this case: a primary complaint was the absence of a methodology section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comment is formatted as a response to mine and could be meant that way, so I feel compelled to respond: I know nothing about any "CIA Factbook discussions". I did not look at the concrete case but was speaking entirely in general terms. Hans Adler 16:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the possible source of confusion; I've labeled the pronoun. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

WhatamI's memory is correct. The CIA Factbook is normally considered a very reliable source. However, that does not mean we can never question it's reliability for a specific statement.

No source is ever deemed 100% reliable, in all situations, no matter what. How we deal with such questions will be different depending on the specific situation. This is where discussion and consensus comes in. If a normally very reliable source says something that is significantly at odds with what is said by other reliable sources, consensus may decide that (for that specific statement) we should deem the (normally reliable) source to be unreliable. Alternatively, the consensus may deem it reliable if we slightly alter the statement... for example: we might hedge how we present it, by phrasing the statement as being an "opinion" rather than phrasing it as being accepted "fact". (And this is where WP:DUE comes in to play... Who holds an opinion matters as much as the opinion itself. In the case of the CIA Factbook, since it is normally considered quite reliable, it's opinions, even when at odds with other sources, should be given a hefty amount of weight.) Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me back up and regroup here. I was in a rush last night when I fumbled out the above -- I'll try to do a better job here. I'll restate my concerns below. I'll include for clarification a requoted snippet from a separate discussion which I tried to incorporate by reference above, and then botched the link which would have led to it (indirectly, through an earlier discussion which linked to it). Please note, though, that the snippet is requoted here only for purposes of example -- I'm not looking for an answer directly regarding that example.

The specific question I'd like to get answered here is whether WP editors, in carefully weighing sources to judge their reliability, are allowed to engage in synthesis of other sources as a part of that careful weighing -- if source A, possibly one which has a long history of being considered generally reliable, asserts "X", are editors allowed to look at sources B and C which say "Y" and Z", and make the judgement that the assertion of "X" by source A is unreliable because it differs significantly from what sources B and C (and possibly some other sources) assert? Bear in mind here that WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", and the judgement that source A's assertion of "X" is unreliable has the effect of designating it a viewpoint which Neutrality does not require be represented.

Here's the requoted example discussion snippet:

[ CIA Factbook estimates the population of the Philippines as "101,833,938 (July 2011 est.)" ]

No, WP:DUE does not apply here. The CIA like every other source uses data from one source which is the statistical office of each country. It's quite obvious that the U.S. Census bureau is using either old data information giving unreliable data or have at least some sort of statistical error. This is why we don't use CIA data at List of countries by population. Furthermore, that population is in an outlier (see below). No other reliable source I've found even come close to that figure.

Let's do a slight comparison between the official census vs. CIA data

Year	Philippines Census	U.S. Census Burea/CIA
1980	48,098,460	50,940,182
1990	60,703,206	65,087,720
1995	68,616,536	72,597,432
2000	76,504,077	81,222,082
2007	88,574,614	94,157,465

You can look at other years too. The Census bureau/CIA hasn't adjusted accordingly.

Don't worry, I already checked other multiple, verifiable, reliable and widely used, sources to confirm that the CIA has unreliable population data:

Philippines Stats Office: 94,013,200 (2010 and Medium variant)

United Nations: 93,261,000 (2010) (UN data seems to be the most widely used I've seen)

World Bank: 91,983,102 (2009)

IMF: 95,834,000 (2011) and 94,013,000 (2010)

World Gazetteer: 93,897,444 (2010)

Now, the above is clearly a careful weighing of the CIA Factbook source in order to judge the reliability of a figure which it presents My question is whether the weighing process used, particularly the synthesis of differing sources to refute it, is allowable -- bearing in mind that a judgement of unreliability carries with it a determination that maintenance of NPOV does not require that the mainspace fairly represents the info judged to be unreliable. To my mind, this amounts to an exclusion of verifiable information which WP editors believe to be untrue -- flouting the lead sentence of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." -- note that the wikilink for published by a reliable source there (currently) goes to WP:SOURCES in the WP:V policy, not to the WP:IRS guideline. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Synthesis rule is about what we include in the articles. We're not supposed to take various items and synthesize a conclusion. Determining whether a source is reliable is a different thing entirely. We're not putting our conclusions in the article, we're weeding sources out that logically don't seem reliable. -- Avanu (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what is being done. My question regards whether or not what is being done is allowable. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wtmitchell's statement "flouting the lead sentence of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" is a totally unacceptable interpretation of the verifiability policy. It may be stated as a logical expression, if A is unverifiable then inclusion of A in Wikipedia is forbidden. When dealing with if-then statements, it is essential to understand that when the predicate (A is unverifiable) is false, evaluation of the statement is finished and no information about the consequent is provided. So when A is verifiable, no conclusion can be drawn about whether it should be included in Wikipedia. Indeed, a requirement that all verifiable information be included would reduce the Wikipedia servers to a puddle of molten silicon. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Jc3s5h is correct about the meaning, and therefore the inapplicability, of that sentence.

Wtmitchell, what you want is to be discussing what we call used to call "source-based research". This is the process of comparing multiple sources to see whether they give significantly different answers, and if they do (as they do in the instant case), how to present those divergent views. (Having determined that the sources in question all meet the bare minimum for reliability, your remaining options are: (1) Omit outliers or (2) Describe the disagreement between sources.) This is a matter for NPOV (and specifically WP:DUE and WP:NPOV#Good research), not a matter of verifiability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not only allowable, but an essential part of determining whether a source is reliable. -- Avanu (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought my reason for mentioning the lead sentence of V was clear, but apparently it was not. I'll clarify. That sentence speaks of verifiability being a requirement, not belief of truth (factuality) by WP editors. However, verifiability requires publication by a reliable source. As discussed above, judgement of reliability (determined as per RS rather than as per V#SOURCES), can hinge on perception of truth (factuality) by WP editors. That is, V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, ..., not whether editors think it is true", but if WP editors don't believe a point is true, its source can be judged unreliable, making the point not verifiable. Seems like doublethink to me. Oh well. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

When reliable sources disagree, we are supposed to report the disagreement, not determine which one we believe to be true. Of course, common sense, editorial judgement and WP:IAR may result in a different outcome in a particular case. Dlabtot (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

When reliable sources disagree, source-based research involves comparing the sources. If two or more positions held by multiple sources each can be identified, all such significant positions should be reported. If multiple views are found, and one of the views can be identified as fringe, an error that originated with one source and was blindly copied by others, or is outdated, that view can be ignored. There is no original research unless views are ignored based on the editor's novel opinions, observations of phenomena, or experiments.

The only way I can think of where synthesis would come into it would be if an editor synthesized a new, unpublished view, that was only expressed in the talk page, and which was consistent with only some of the widely-held views of the subject. The editor then removes from the article any views inconsistent with his unpublished new view. That would be source selection based on the wrong kind of synthesis. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The way I see synthesis coming into it is as in the example above with the tinted background. Sources A through F are generally considered reliable sources. Source A is widely cited throughout WP in support of various items of information; some of the others probably likewise. In a particular article, and probably elsewhere on an article-by-article basis, some WP editors observe that sources B through F say generally the same thing and that source A differs noticeably regarding the info they present (the viewpoints they espouse) for a particular bit of information. The conclusion is drawn (the position is advanced based on synthesis of sources) that the info (viewpoint) presented by source A is unreliable. Source A is then treated as an unreliable source for that particular bit of information, Inclusion of the information (representation of the viewpoint) which source A presents is deemed WP:UNDUE.

In case it's not obvious, my focus here is not on the details of the real-world example of editorial decisionmaking described above or on the editors involved -- my focus is on the process which led to the exampled editorial decision. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(Source based) synthesis is allowed. It's almost mandatory. Absence of source based synthesis is rotten writing. Novel synthesis is not allowed. If synthesis of sources leads editors to conclude the 2010 population of the Philippines is around 94 million, and a figure of 102 million is an outlier that can be ignored, then writing in the article that the population is around 94 million is not novel synthesis, because that conclusion has already been published in numerous reliable sources. Now, if one were to synthesize a bunch of sources to demonstrate that all the sources except the CIA were in a conspiracy to understate the population of the Philippines, and only the CIA was trustworthy, that would be novel synthesis. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Restating that in terms that I've used in this article talk page discussion, my understanding is that you feel that a case-by-case subjective editorial judgement that one source is not factual is sufficient to suppress that source (you might quibble with the word "subjective" there), or in line with my observation that a source can be judged unreliable for particular items of information based on whether editors think it is true, and that such an editorial judgement of unreliability negates verifiability and due weight and justifies suppression of the source and the info it contains, in this project talk page discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Whether editors can decide "a source can be judged unreliable for particular items of information based on whether editors think it is true" depends on why they think it is unreliable. If they thing it is unreliable because it is an outlier compared to other sources, or an obvious typographical error in copying information from an earlier reliable source, or other source-based reasons, that's OK. But if the editors think the source is untrue because it disagrees with the editors' own original research, or the editors' religious or political believes, that is not a valid reason to ignore the source.

Also, the statement at the beginning of WP:V, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", only applies to inclusion. It does not say "falsity is not a grounds for exclusion from Wikipedia". Indeed, I am always free to do nothing, and if I encounter a statement that I consider false, and I happen to know of a Wikipedia article that it might apply to, I am perfectly free to do nothing. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

But, if another editor has done something -- has placed content in WP supported by that source -- are you free to remove that content because you believe that your editorial judgement of its unreliability removes the requirement that that viewpoint be given due weight? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate for me to remove content if my only reason for thinking the content is false is based on my original research. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many crank, false, or otherwise dodgy claims made in print, which nobody would bother to publish a paper to disprove, but which we would not include in our articles. Sometimes even good authors in reliable journals manage to slip false claims into their papers, or claims that are so badly worded that they are false if taken at face value. I would remove such things from articles even if they were supported by a citation. This is one reason that we are not required to follow NOR on talk pages, so that we can discuss this sort of issue freely and then use editorial discretion to decide what to include in articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The (waste) majority of the cases in your first line can be removed based on the the argument that no reputable/reliable literature was used to source them. But is important to note that for (justified) cases of removal in the case of reputable/reliable sources an editorial consent (on the talk page) is in doubt required. Because the abuse of this approach is popular with POV-Pushers, who simply claim content things to be crank, false or dodgy based on their (arbitrary) ideological or political views.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

I think "third-party" in "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source." should be changed to "third party" since it is used as a noun. Am I correct here? 76.119.238.191 (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I will defer to the nice folks over at WP:MOS... as they understand the nuances of dashes and hyphens better than we do. However, my initial gut reaction is "no". I think using "third party" (without any dash/hyphen) would imply that three separate parties have "broadcast, distributed or archived" the material (as in: originally the material was aired by ABC, then it was recorded by CBS and, now it has been archived by a third party, NBC). That isn't what we mean. Blueboar (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly no dash expert myself, but the reason I asked is because "third party" occurs un-hyphenated in the next sentence and it seemed inconsistent: "Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited." Wiktionary seemed to think the unhyphenated form is used when it's a noun (wikt:Third party) and the hyphen when it's an adjective (wikt:Third-party). 166.186.171.221 (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The unregistered editor is correct: That sentence should not contain a hyphen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Can a picture be a RS?

Since WP:FANSITEs aren't welcomed as a RS on Wikipedia, I still tend to read them. However, earlier this year Selena's albums Ones, Amor Prohibido and Dreaming of You were given updated certifications and sale figures, the only sources that came of this was a fansite and another fansite that has a picture of Selena's family holding the plauqes my question is: Can pictures be a RS if there is no such printed sources? Billboard has not talked about Selena since her latest release of "La Leyenda" last year, but I can't find anything! Thoughts on what I should do? Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Since reliable mostly means "are we pretty certain that this information is right", then yes, for certain purposes. A painting, for example, is an excellent primary source for information like "What does the painting look like?" You need to use it like a WP:PRIMARY source, which means that you can use it for straightforward descriptions about (for example) the colors, shapes, and figures in the painting. To give an example, any educated person can look at Georgia O'Keeffe's Cow Skull: Red, White, and Blue, and see that it is a painting of a cow's skull on a background of red, white, and blue. You could not use it to make claims about the artist's motivation, allusions or relationships to other works, the meaning of the figures in the painting, or any other matters of analysis, interpretation, evaluation, etc.

In this case, what you need to worry about is not so much whether the source is "reliable", but whether the information is WP:DUE. Generally, if no source with good editorial control has bothered to say something—even if we're pretty sure that the information is accurate—then it's not really the kind of thing we bother including. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well alright. I wont bother with it then until it hits Billboard or any other magazine. Thanks for your input, AJona1992 (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Betty Blayton Taylor

I am looking to add all resources for my wikipedia subject. it is just a matter of time that I get it all in place. Should I have created a sand page first? Will I be able to us all the after I have inserted all the sources? Also, where are the sources recognized?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantebea1 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not an admin on here but I usually create sandboxes first and work on it for weeks to its fullest potential before submitting it (moving it) to its new page on Wikipedia. If you use ==References== and add this template at the bottom of the section {{reflist}} or if there are a lot of sources, you may want to add a 2 on the template like such: {{reflist|2}}. Sources are reconzied at the bottom of the page (right after a section "See also") and/or above the section "External links". Hope this is your answer, I wasn't really sure what you had mean't. Take care, AJona1992 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read Wikipedia:My first article. I recommend creating a draft so that you can take all the time you want to work on the article. See Help:Userspace draft for the first steps. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC for the explicit auditing of DYKs for compliance with RS policy

An RfC has been launched to measure community support for requiring the explicit checking of DYK nominations for compliance with basic WP policies—including RS policy—and to improve the management of the nominations page through the introduction of a time-limit after which a nomination that does not meet requirements is archived. Tony (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Video Game "reception": Problem of acknowledged media as sources

Hi folks!

In the discussion for the article Civilization V I've pointed out some basic limitations/failures of the WP:IRS policies with regards to video viz. computer games. The users Oosh and X201 pointed out that my "essay" was misplaced there (which I do not think) and suggested I should put it forward here. To sum it up: I tried to show that the article on the computer game Civ V is fundamentally flawed because the IRS guidelines themselves cannot be used without discretion and adaption in the field of video game reception (reviewing). Given the industry-controlled review mechanisms in this field, the article demonstrates how the IRS-guidelines might be carried ad absurdum by applying them without discretion. In this case, it's turning the article into a means of marketing. Not being a frequent contributor myself, I humbly suggest that you guys who are deeper in it should take it as a starting point for refining or adapting your guidelines. To be found here.

Greetings -- 91.89.47.134 (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Small format question?

In the intro, The New York Times is used as an example of a reliable source (publisher). Should it be in italics if it is only being named and not given attribution for anything?

I seriously question using the NYT as "reliable" when you consider how many of their reporters such as Jayson Blair have been caught in fraud! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.69 (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

NOR Question

Is it the current interpretation that WP:NOR would include a Ph.D using his own published work as a reliable source? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 20:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, if it is published and is a reliable source, it may be used. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What if the topic is a debated subject with different points of view? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 22:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

My answer was only intended to address whether this policy turns an otherwise-reliable source into an unreliable source when it is cited by its author while the author is acting as a Wikipedia editor. The source is equally reliable or unreliable no matter who cites it. However, other policies, together with general principles of good writing, may lead any particular source to be excluded from an article even though the source is reliable. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why UMI?

The "Scholarship" section includes the statement "UMI has published two million graduate works since 1938." I have two questions:

• Why is this relevant to the content? It looks out of place to me.
• Why do we pick UMI out of the many companies that provide this service?

Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 19:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And the reference used to verify this content is questionable at best, per WP:ABOUTSELF. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 20:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Your assertion that statements of fact require an inline citation is wrong. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Not_part_of_the_encyclopedia explicitly exempts advice pages from the need to provide citations. There's no rule that says we can't provide these citations if we want, but it is strictly optional.

Additionally, "facts" don't always require citations even in the mainspace; only four specific types of facts are actually required by policy to be followed by inline citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but you're not addressing the issues I raised. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 22:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The section where UMI is mentioned is about doctoral dissertations. From what I've seen, most American universities require their PhD students to publish their dissertations through UMI. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph is talking about the appropriateness of citing dissertations. The fact that " UMI has published two million graduate works since 1938" seems not directly relevant to the larger topic (and sounds like a line from an advertisement). You appear be right about ProQuest/UMI being the most common publisher of dissertations. I still think the sentence is unnecessary, but if I'm the only one to think so then I may be wrong. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 13:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the line. It had no relevance to the general appropiateness of citing dissertations. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Should we defer to reliable sources about their article's reliability?

[I have moved this to Verifiability:Talk] SAI PAYING GUEST is one of the best paying guest accommodations in Ahmedabad near motera international cricket stadium at an affordable rate. There are many IT, Education & Corporate sectors in Ahmedabad and many men especially bachelors come to Ahmedabad from different parts of India. They are in need of good accommodation equivalent to their home. SPTS takes this as a nice opportunity to serve their needs by providing paying guest accommodation in Ahmedabad with exquisite room facilities. SPTS has three paying guest accommodations in and around Vishwakarma Govt. Engineering College, ONGC, IIT, Patni computers, Nirma Institute, Torrent Power, Torrent Pharma, Pandit Deen Dayal Petroleum University, LDRP-ITR. Each room is equipped with amenities like Wi-fi internet connection, split a/c, color TV with Airtel Digital TV connection, Fridge, fully automatic washing machine, Iron box, exercise bike for fitness, fire extinguishers and first aid box. Morning tea/coffee and breakfast is provided along with daily News paper. SPTS provides healthy and homely food prepared from fresh and branded products. It has separate North Indian and Gujarati menu. House keeping is excellent in SPTS. We have good testimonials from many. For transport, 0 mins walk from the paying guest accommodation to the main road, frequent share autos, buses, cab points. We hope that you will enjoy the stay in SPTS. If you are interested so please contact Mr. Nimesh Pandya : 9904154552(M) Mrs. Sangeeta Pandya: 9723824762(M) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sptsmotera (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Change to "News organizations" subsection.

Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations

I've added a bullet point based upon the long-standing text at Wikipedia:Websites#Criteria,

Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be by someone else who is writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that arise in material where the subject of the article itself is the source of material cited in the article.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site worthy enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

I've also lifted a little bit of text from Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources based upon the consistent rough consensus at these discussions. Are they objections to that?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The text you added says, Media re-prints of press releases are considered a special case of republishing and are also taken as self-published sources. They may only be used to establish non-controversial facts about the subject of the re-print.

It's sort of True™, but it sounds like an opportunity for POV pushers to argue over whether something that is apparently a newspaper article is a True™ newspaper article. I can see people adding this to their ignorant idea that only newspaper articles with a byline are "real" newspaper articles and thus creating all sorts of disruption. Once something has been printed by a regular newspaper, it is actually a reliable source, even if its contents happen to match the contents of a press release. We're relying on the newspaper for fact-checking, not for copyediting, and if they're publishing the contents of a press release, we have no reason to believe that they didn't do some basic fact-checking before running it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussions on "what's a True™ newspaper article" are the ones we should be having all the time. Regardless of the regular status of a newspaper, editors are expected to apply critical thinking to the contents. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. In my experience, discussions on what counts as a True™ newspaper article have always been motivated by POV pushing. It is not a behavior that we want to encourage. (What's a True™ newspaper would be a useful discussion, especially when the periodical is a magazine rather than a newspaper. But I've never once seen a legitimate inquiry into whether an articles printed on paper in a daily newspaper was a "real" newspaper article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I won't argue the specifics of your experience, but the current lede of this page says "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Judicious evaluation of sources is certainly something we should encourage. Can you give some specific examples by linking to discussions? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Posting the easiest to find would embarrass the guilty. Check your e-mail. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

While I do appreciate discretion, no thank you. That doesn't help move the public discussion forward. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this newly added point because it seems inappropriate and has been disputed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Sources?

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:John Favalora about whether Gawker, Catholic World News and Miami New Times are sufficiently reliable for a controversial report made in the article, which is about a living person. Student7 (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

New Times is certainly okay. The news section of the Catholic site is probably okay. Gawker I would be very cautious of in a BLP. Barnabypage (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I can gather, the controversy concerns alegations of misconduct. We must be very careful here per WP:BLP. We can report the the fact that allegations have been made (and have been reported on in mainstream media) but we must be careful not to imply that the allegations themselves are factual unless found so in a court of law. It is important to clearly attribute who says what: "According to the Catholic World News, Favalora has been accused of such and such by so and so". Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)