Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Investigative journalism by news organizations is not bias or partisanship

Proposed new bullet in the News organizations section:

* News organizations may report content that is unfavorable to a subject, or that a subject may wish to remain hidden, such as the results of investigative journalism. When a legitimate news organization targets a subject in a report, it does not in and of itself establish that the news organization is biased with regard to the subject, for purposes such as establishing bias sufficient to exclude the source or otherwise limit content drawn from the source, nor does it establish that the news organization is partisan, for purposes of excluding or limiting appropriate direct quotation or other relevant content drawn from the source

This minor clarification is an explicit statement of a widely understood editorial guideline. While our guideline currently clearly states that news organizations may have opinions, some tend to see unfavorable news reports as demonstrating bias sufficient to prohibit including in our project content which furthers balance and neutrality. In talk page discussion it is not uncommon that content, considered by some editors as unflattering to the subject of the article, will be opposed for inclusion on the basis that the news organization publishing unflattering material demonstrates the bias of the news organization. Or a weakened paraphrase of a news report is suggested on the basis that the news organization report demonstrates the news organization is a partisan opponent of the subject. It is hoped these two sentences will clarify some not uncommon misreads of WP:IRS and so will promote collegiality at article talk pages. Thank you your support of this reasonable measured and helpful clarification of our project's guidelines for identifying reliable sources from news organizations. Hugh (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed addition. Biased, partisan sources can already be reliable per this guideline. Nothing about them being biased makes them specifically unreliable for factual statements. Whether a view expressed by a partisan source is worthy of inclusion is a question of WP:WEIGHT, not this guideline. This guideline is not helpful for identifying partisan sources, but if it were "publishes investigative reports" would probably not be high in the list of criteria one way or another. Sławomir
Biały 10:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. We agree that our guideline already states that biased, partisan sources may be reliable. However, in practice, on the front lines, on article talk pages, this needs to be clearer; one category of sources where our guideline needs more clarity is news organizations. WP:IRS is more often used in support of exclusion than inclusion. Noteworthy reliable sources, and news organizations more often than other sources, are challenged for inclusion, not on due weight grounds, but rather on the basis of bias or partisanship, merely on the content of the source being unfavorable or unflattering, rather than actual demonstrable bias or partisanship. Bias and partisanship guidelines may be appealed to when opposition to inclusion on due weight policy grounds may be perceived as weak. We have all seen it, I think; legitimate investigative journalism is derided on article talk as "attack piece" or "take-down." WP:IRS is being read as interpreting WP:NPOV to mean "nothing negative." Numerous diffs available upon request. What is your experience? The proposed reasonable two-sentence addition will help our project focus properly on the main issues of due weight, neutrality, and balance. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a rather complex issue. One needs to be careful using biased sources, because it is easy to use them in a way that they are not reliable. For example, if the source draws a conclusion based on facts that it presents. Clearly WP:ASF applies, but sometimes the lines are are very blurry as to what conclusions are being drawn, whether it is the news agency making the conclusion or the author, etc. Generally speaking, one should avoid very biased or partisan sources because, even if they are reliable for the "facts" that they present, typically they will present only certain facts and not others, so it is much more difficult to achieve WP:NPOV. So, I don't really see a problem removing highly biased sources, unless there is consensus for keeping them. But that needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, and attempting to revise this guideline to be even more permissive seems like the wrong approach. Sławomir
Biały 18:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your engagement on this issue. Yes, we agree, identifying reliable sources can be complex, and depend on many factors, including the context, and the facts/intepretation dimension. We should not oversimplify identifying reliable sources. Yes, non-noteworthy, highly biased sources should not be included, however, as we all know, pillar/policy WP:NPOV is non-negotiable and trumps guideline WP:IRS at times, and we are asked to summarize noteworthy significant points of view, even those unflattering to a subject; we all know this but it seems sometimes people forget:

Editor A: It's a noteworthy significant point of view attributed in-text WP:NPOV

Editor B: OMG read the source! It's clearly biased WP:IRS

Editor A: It's noteworthy WP:NPOV

Editor B: It's biased WP:IRS

...

Can we add just a very few words to maybe help us all break out of this familiar gerbil wheel? A few words here can save us all many many words at article talk pages. All the above proposed bullet point is trying to say is that legitimate news organizations start from something of a mild presumption of non-bias and non-partisanship, if only to the extent they are not presumed biased or partisan merely on the basis of an unflattering report. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

But the guideline already has WP:BIASED. It's not clear what you want to add. Sławomir
Biały 16:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. WP:IRS already has WP:BIASED, which says very clearly and very generally and very much on point to this thread: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective," and WP:IRS already has WP:NEWSORG, which reminds us that news organizations may express opinionsas well as facts. But section WP:BIASED does not specifically mention news organizations and section WP:NEWSORG does not specifically mention bias. A source payload that includes unflattering content, that unflattering content may be advanced as evidence of bias so severe as to prohibit inclusion; have you experienced this? Hugh (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Often "unflattering" sources of a BLP are subjected to much greater scrutiny. So, I don't really see a problem with that. Sławomir
Biały 17:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we agree, BLPs have additional editorial constraints. The above proposed clarification does not relax any considerations on BLPs. For some, the section you cite, WP:BIASED, is their least favorite section, and "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" their least favorite clause, in all of P&G. You point out a source is noteworthy, it's a significant point of view, it's attributed in text, it's not Wikipedia voice, you remind them sources need not be unbiased, and no matter what, WP:IRS is read as "nothing negative." Surely you have run into this pattern if you have edited in controversial areas? Hugh (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that what you are saying is not something universal - it has to be applied case by case. Best I can tell, you're asking this in relation to an ongoing AE, and evaluating what the material in question here, while all the other check-boxes may be clicked, there still seems something wrong with using a single sources to put forth a rather strong negative claim about something in Wikipedia's voice. There's ways it can be added without that issue - stating, for example, the more neutral point and then adding "According to X, Y". Alternatively, while the source may not be necessarily biased to the specific topic, consensus may determine that it is a few short leaps of logic away to require careful addition of negative materials. This basically means that I don't think we can change anything in policy or guidelines to really address this, because there are a lot of cases where it can be true or not, so definitely doesn't represent standard practice. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we agree, the way to address the possibility of bias is through in-text attribution. The problem addressed by the above proposed modest clarification is that, for some, in-text attribution is not enough, and WP:IRS is mis-read as "nothing negative." As far as the idea that nothing can be done to help, I think it is always true that unflattering content, in and if itself, does not automatically besmirch a specific source, and we can say that. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Good grief, this is a lot of argumentation for something that is very simple. Sure, merely being biased one way or another is not, in itself, a criterion of reliability. However, there are sources whose biases are so extreme that they are ipso facto unreliable. An example is certain conservative talk radio personalities, or liberal "documentary" film-makers that shall go unnamed. No one would dream of suggesting that their "investigative reports" are remotely reliable (other than, possibly, as primary sources in certain very restricted cases). Yet here you appear to be suggesting that we cannot rule out such obviously unreliable sources. This is clear and obvious WP:BEANS. I suggest someone close this proposal as time-wasting nonsense. Sławomir
Biały 22:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your engagement. Yes, we agree, bias alone does not disqualify a source as unreliable; the problem addressed by the proposed clarification is that based on many talk page discussions this could be more clear to some (not to you or me but to others). Yes, we agree, some sources are so biased as to be unreliable, and yes, we agree, no one would suggest we adopt a guideline making it impossible to rule out such sources; the proposed clarification does not do that, this possibility is covered by the qualifications "legitimate" above and "well-established" below. This is a real problem to the extent the lack of clarity unnecessarily impedes collegiality and neutrality. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but the text appears to give us a license for declaring such obviously biased sources reliable. Also, could you please give a list of examples that you feel that this proposed guideline could have helped in achieving consensus? You seem to note agreement with every editor on every point, including all of the arguments against the proposed text. So it is unclear to me exactly what you hope to achieve here. Sławomir
Biały 16:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The proposed text does nothing to give license to declaring obviously biased sources reliable; it reminds us that unflattering/unfavorable content alone does not constitute bias. WP:BIASED cited to raise a sourcing issue in a content dispute, when the source is neutral but the report is unflattering/unfavorable, is this not within your experience? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The proposed text does not explicitly give license to declare obviously biased sources reliable; however it would be read as such. Although unnecessary, it seems a plausible clarification if

1. "Investigative journalism" is completely removed as being a relavent factor,
2. The independent clauses are combined, as the dependent clauses are identical,
3. Something should be added that extremely favorable material is not necessarily writen by the subject, and
4. An additional sentence is added that, just because something claims to be "investigative journalism" and is extremely positive or negative, that does not mean it is not hopelessly biased to the point that reliability is in question. (In other words, remove "in and of itself", and add a further clarification that an extreme position may be evidence of bias or unreliability, although not definitive.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

1. "Investigative journalism" is offered in the above proposed content as an example of the kind of news report which one might expect to be unfavorable to the target or which the target might prefer be hidden. The proposed content is not specifically about investigative journalism. An example here helps our colleagues understand what we are talking about.
2. Bias and partisanship are not treated identically in our policy. Bias comes in in consideration of whether or not to attribute in text, and in the extreme whether or not to consider a source reliable, while partisanship comes in in consideration of the appropriateness of long direct quotes. Hugh (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Pieces called "investigative journalism" are examplse of material which one would expect to be unfavorable to the target; they are also more likely to be too biased or partisan to be used, even from otherwise reputable news organizations.
2. If the dependent clauses of the two sentences are the same, the sentences should be combined, or the two sentences be distributed to the two sections of the guideline they are intended to modify clarify (which clearly suggests that "investigative journalism" be removed).

All this is assuming you have some accepted justification for inclusion. So far, no one has agreed with any of your justification, as far as I can tell. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I too disagree. "Investigative journalism" may be either reliable source or not (depending on its content, publisher, author, and the context in which it is used, as with any source) but nothing about it being "investigative" is any reason to single it out in this guideline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Of course reliability depends. The above proposed two-sentence clarification does not attempt to automatically qualify all investigative journalism as reliable; it tries to make a much more modest point that reports from news organizations are not automatically disqualified on the basis of bias or partisanship when the reports may be read as unflattering to a subject. In my experience, WP:IRS is invoked in such cases at article talk in challenging noteworthy content, often enough that a mild clarification seems reasonable to reduce some misunderstanding. What is your experience? How would you rephrase? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I too demur - and note that I had already posted on this talk page about the new "addition" which is discordant with prior practice. Collect (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification? My understanding of the policy is that biased sources are still reliable and can be used. Reliability is not about lack of bias, but rather about fact-checking. So isn't the addition unnecessary, as we don't exclude RS based on potential bias? LK (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Arthur is correct that the change was not proposed "in vacuo" but for a quite specific purpose, and to advance such a purpose, this guideline is singularly ill-suited. Collect (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, focus on content, and avoid personal attacks. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The statement might be acceptable, but unnecessary; however, HughD is trying to refer to articles (I would say "columns", rather than "articles", but there is no consensus) in Mother Jones, which is not a "news" organization, legitimate or not. It is an advocacy organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

But there is a fair point that while MJ does have established biases on some topics for being an advocacy organization, if they did investigative reporting on a topic that does not obviously fall under that bias, and its established they are otherwise reliable, it doesn't seem appropriate to call that subsequent report biased. Not that I've seen many advocacy groups go into depth on anything outside of their direct interest, but it could happen. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Arthur's crusade for a Mother Jones-free encyclopedia is an extreme example, but misreads of guideline WP:IRS with respect to pillar WP:NPOV are much more pervasive. No news organization is immune to charges of bias and partisanship when due weight exclusion stumbles. The New York Times and The Washington Post have been accused of bias, which may or may not be true in a particular case, but in any case they are noteworthy sources, and the possibility of bias is not grounds for excluding content attributed in-text. The appropriate response to the possibility of bias in a noteworthy source is in-text attribution under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, not exclusion under WP:IRS. Guideline WP:IRS would do well to include a gentle reminder to our colleagues of WP:NPOV, where WP:IRS is occasionally misread to overrule WP:NPOV. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I think what more needs to be considered is exactly how independent a source is, as we prefer reliable and independent sources. A biased source may not be as independent as one may think. So regardless of the reliability of a source, if it is clearly not independent on a specific topic, that source should be avoided unless its necessary to provide the appropriately weighted balance on a counterpoint. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: Thank you for your comment. Yes, we agree, independence of sources is important. Say an unflattering report from a source, consensus emerges independent, then consensus agrees noteworthy - then an opponent of inclusion of reaches for bias or partisan under WP:IRS; have you experienced this drill? Can't we try a simple clarification to head some of this off? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I should reply, as you're about to be blocked, but .... I could support the statement, although unnecessary, if rewritten to note that the favorability or unfavorability of the report is not necessarily an indication of bias. (With all the other cavaets, such as "legitimate news organization" or "organization with a reputation for reliability", still present.) We should not assume that the reporter is unbiased because the report is negative. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, as for the specific material Hugh wants included: to the extent that it has an meaning at all, it is an opinion, and should be treated as such, per WP:ASF and other guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sources of investigative journalism should satisfy the same requirements as all other sources, inter alia WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Based on the edit patter the proposal seems to be just an attempt to get an additional argument for justifying WP:REFSPAM by Mother Jones links. Beagel (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to interject here... Sources are NOT required to pass WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NPOV... Those core policies apply to what we write in articles, Not what is written in the sources we use. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

My bad not being precise. I meant using sources when writing content, not sources as such themselves. Beagel (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Revision

Revised proposed new bullet point for the News organizations section:

* News organizations may report content that is unfavorable to a subject, or that a subject may wish to remain hidden, such as for example the results of investigative journalism. When a well-established news organization targets a subject in a report, regardless of whether the report is favorable or unfavorable, it does not in and of itself establish that the news organization is biased with regard to the subject, for purposes such as establishing bias sufficient to exclude the source or otherwise limit content drawn from the source, nor does it in and of itself establish that the news organization is partisan, for purposes of excluding or limiting appropriate direct quotation or other relevant content drawn from the source.

Comments? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Even for legitimate news organizations, clearly inadequate to address the bias in favor of negative statements. The bullet point also needs to be neutral. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

What might be appropriate would be the addition of a sentence to the existing paragraph on news organizations:

• Even if an article is extremely favorable or unfavorable, it does not necessarily indicate that the article is biased or establish that the news organization is partisan.

This should solve any legitimate problem that HughD has with the existing wording. It could be strengthened, but not to preclude the possibility that an extreme POV could be indicative of bias. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Nope No need has been shown to alter the status quo ante. It seeks, alas, to be worded in an interesting manner suggesting that biased or negative anonymous allegations about living persons should specifically be allowed, inter alia. Current Wikipedia policies appear to conflict with such an interpretation of the wording proposed. If, on the other hand, the wording were simply:

"Whether a report is true, factual, biased, or based on being aimed at a "target", if presented as an "investigative report" by any source or publication, even if that source or publication is not otherwise a reliable source, it may be used in any Wikipedia article, including articles covered under WP:BLP, notwithstanding restrictions made under that policy"

My position would be just as clear. As worded, for example, the wording at the start of this section would clearly assert that the Rolling Stone problematic rape story should still be usable in BLPs. Collect (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Should there be a section "Use up-to-date evidence"?

I've run into this issue before with articles on archaeology. In this case it's articles on List of Chinese inventions (and another one on Chinese discoveries) using some sources that are very old and at least one that a review says that some material made obsolete by later sources. It's the nature of fields like this that new research refutes older material at times. WP:RSMED says:

Keeping an article up-to-date, while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability is important. These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published.

• In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written. The range of reviews you examine should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies.
• Assessing reviews may be difficult. While the most-recent reviews include later research results, this does not automatically give more weight to the most recent review (see recentism).
• Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews. E.g., the article Genetics could mention Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species as part of a discussion supported by recent reviews.

There are exceptions to these rules of thumb:

• History sections often cite older work
• Cochrane Library reviews are generally of high quality and are routinely maintained even if their initial publication dates fall outside the 5-year window.
• A newer source which is of lower quality does not supersede an older source of higher quality.

What do people think? Doug Weller talk 16:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Doug, I'm generally supportive of the intent. I wasn't sure about the logic of the "history sections often cite older work" argument though - could you explain a bit more about your thinking here? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

That's just a quote from our RSMED guideline and not relevant generally, as I assume it's about the history of medical developments, drugs, etc. But it would apply to say something about historical theories about Stonehenge. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I drafted an "Age matters" section; hopefully that covers the points you were thinking of. -- Beland (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Academic consensus

Since denialism comes up pretty often when dealing with scientific consensus (and a recurring problem when dealing with the two on Wikipedia), what do folks think about adding some clarification to the section? I'm considering adding the highlighted material:

The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Editors should also avoid fringe theories that unduly cast doubt on statements of scientific consensus. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be reliably sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.

It seems like people sometimes aren't aware of examples of tactics like in climate change denial where people try to claim there isn't a consensus even when sources directly say there is as mentioned in the current policy. In those cases, sources try to say there isn't a consensus because they can cite a paper or two that claims there isn't (often in an unreliable journal at best, groups sticking to claims not accepted by the wider scientific community, etc.), which is a misunderstanding that a scientific consensus does not imply unanimity. I'm hoping this addition acts as a good first step to head off some of these problems instead of needing a longer block of text describing how academic consensus works and is misinterpreted. We already deal with the weight aspect to a degree at the policy WP:PSCI, but since this section is usually the go-to policy for describing when we use this term, it seems prudent to briefly mention wariness on fringe ideas and how they are used in relation to consensus statements. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

That point can be made, but it should be made elsewhere. This paragraph is about what to do if claiming academic consensus. The proposed text makes it suddenly jump off into another topic, then jump back again. The two sentences it splits are one thought. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'm not seeing any jump since the addition is exactly about what to do when someone is claiming academic consensus. Basically, sentence 3 and my addition offer guidance on two ends the spectrum where editors may make a false positive error in claiming there is consensus when sources don't support it (OR), and a false negative in saying there isn't consensus when the sum of the sources actually do say there is a consensus (undue weight and fringe due to unreliable sourcing). On one end, you're asking if sources stating consensus are reliable for the claim, while on the other you're asking yourself if a source trying to dispute a consensus statement in other sources is actually reliable to say there isn't a consensus. Both seem to fit pretty squarely here in terms of reliability for a claim. This much seems appropriate for the context of reliable sourcing and the general how to handle someone claiming an academic consensus question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph is about "don't claim academic consensus unless you have a source." The two sentences you want to split say, jointly: "Make sure you don't violate SYN when you write about consensus; that is, you need a source that directly supports your edit." In between those sentences you want to add something about a different topic, so the flow is broken. Not only that, but what you've proposed effectively reduces to tautology.

If you want to say something about whether FRINGE relates to the academic consensus issue, the connection would need to be clearer and explained in a separate paragraph. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you're taking a narrow reading here, which could explain the disconnect here. There's more going on in the paragraph than the idea that if you're going to claim consensus, you need a source. The paragraph focuses on "don't claim academic consensus unless you have a reliable source." Otherwise this paragraph would be over at WP:OR instead. It touches on what is appropriate for actually sourcing a consensus statement versus needing attribution for individual opinions (which is quite a bit weaker). It basically briefly touches on the types of sources one may encounter and how to handle them even though they aren't explicitly named (maybe it's too concise in that manner that people miss the general categories). That includes:

1. High quality sources explicitly saying consensus.

2. Low quality sources explicitly saying consensus that need to be attributed as individual opinion.

3. Sources that summarize the mainstream scientific thinking without explicitly saying consensus.

4. Fringe sources addressing consensus.

Fringe sources are the only idea not covered to some degree in the current paragraph. It seems odd that you're claiming the flow is broken with all this in mind. If you're mistakenly seeing my proposal as tautology, that seems like perfect justification for including it. Part of the point of including this was that people often misunderstand the nuance of what academic consensus is and how we handle sources addressing it. If someone thinks my addition is redundant our out of place, those are the people we need to be educating a bit more in terms of this policy. Now, this part of the RS policy could be expanded to better explain all the nuance, but it's better to make a small change like this to this summary level paragraph and use that for guidance to expand upon later. Otherwise, it would be a bigger mouthful for the community to mull over without incremental guiding change like this.

At this point, I'd prefer to see what the rest of the community thinks before seeing where to go next with this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Austin Petersen presidential campaign, 2016

The place to ask about individual sources is the reliable sources noticeboard; this talk page is only for the purpose of discussing how to improve this guideline. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I am curious what other users, especially administrators, feel about the following sources. I have been trying to establish notability for the Austin Petersen presidential campaign, 2016 and I believe the sources I have provided are reliable independent sources, most especially on the topic of Petersen or the Libertarian Party in general. I believe the sources show more than enough notability to qualify for WP:GNG but some users are claiming the sources are not enough as they are not reliable. This is only a small list but I believe they are also disqualifying WP:NEXIST as there is a lot of local coverage (although often in the larger context of the Libertarian primary). Washington Times Washington Times Washington Examiner The New Yorker Glenn Beck Glenn Beck Glenn Beck Show Reason.com Newsmax.com freebeacon.com Uptown Messenger Live Action News PJ Media CNN CNN NowThis Media I was told by User:MelanieN - “ Of the sources listed above, the majority are not regarded as independent reliable sources. That would include the Washington Times, the Washington Examiner, Glenn Beck, reason.com, Newsmax, the Free Beacon, and PJ Media. The Uptown Messenger is a very local paper reporting a local campaign appearance. One of the CNN links is routine coverage about the Libertarian Party, the other and the NowThis piece are neither independent nor neutral. The various interviews do not count either; they are not independent. The New Yorker is an independent reliable source, and it does provide some significant coverage of Petersen's campaign as one of the three leading candidates. It calls Petersen "a long shot," the "most eloquent" and the "least known" of the candidates. I do count that as one piece of acceptable, significant coverage. So far, it's the only one - well, plus the routine "top three candidates" report from CNN. ” I believe she may be asking for an overreaching amount of sources to show notability. As well she seems to be indicating that all the sources I listed should never be considered unreliable, something that this very talk page says is an incorrect statement. I appreciate any feedback. Acidskater (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

When a source is clearly unreliable in large part...

When a source is clearly unreliable in large part... to what extent should it still be usable?

Talk:Cary_Grant#Higham.2FMoseley_Reviews has a discussion which appears to show a source has some major problems (NYT review in one of its milder statements says " The book's obsession with Grant's sexuality is more a reflection of the authors' keen perception of what sells books than of any allegiance to the dictates of ethical journalism." which appears to imply that the book does not comport with "ethical journalism." People magazine said " In this lurid book, the authors cruelly defame a man who can't defend himself and show disdain for his admirers' ability to distinguish honest biography from innuendo.")

I removed some material (some of which has been re-added using the same source, alas) and the editor Dr. Blofeld made a claim "The material mostly wasn't bad material though."

Is "the material is mostly not bad" or the like a sufficient reason to allow use of what might be a questionable (at best) source? This is not a personal issue I have with any editor, but a general question - when a source has such problematic reviews from sources most would consider reliable and authoritative, does the source still meet WP:RS for claims an editor thinks are not "bad material"? Collect (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Will you please just drop it? The information was largely verifiable elsewhere and I mostly restored material and verified by different sources. Plus I removed any possibly contentious claims. I've said I'll try to replace the source as much as possible, what more do you want?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Again note please that the issue raised here is one of general usage of problematic sources, and is not about a specific article or source (which is not what this talk page is for at all) - but what the best procedure is in future for such sources. I recognize your tremendous editing history, but the issue is not related to you, but to the general implicit requirement that we vet sources before using. Collect (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Well you know what the answer is going to be, technically no, we probably shouldn't use any source which is known to contain a mistruth or gross exaggeration. The High and Moseley book contains a lot of info though and I strongly doubt it's all made up. It's clearly very well researched when you read it, particularly early life. But they did what they did emphasizing the homosexuality and Flynn and Nazism etc for the sake of $$. And it was the dubious claims which were widely reported and criticized by a lot of critics. The entire book is not like that otherwise I'd not have used it. It is unfortunate that I began with that book as when it was ordered of course I wasn't aware of its reputation. Too late to go back now, I will try to replace what I can but the details particularly about his early stage career are highly valuable and undoubtedly not made up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Alas - I fear you should read more about Higham's own family life and note the amount of similarity he then places in Grant's life - I find no reason to trust Higham on the "early life" part at all. Especially about alcoholism and violence, and being dressed like a girl etc. The issue on this page, however, is the general one of what to do with a clearly badly flawed source in the first place. The LATimes quoted Donati as saying "Charles Higham describes himself as a serious writer and a scholar; yet, in the academic realm the worst sin is falsifying primary-source material to prove one's thesis. Deceitful, pseudoscholarship degrades information and distorts the truth." I fear the issue is a tad more than one or two lines of over-emphasis on allegations of gay affairs, being a male prostitute etc. But again - the issue raised is more general than that here. Collect (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, a lot of the information is verifiable from other sources, I've already replaced a good number, so it can't be all false! I just looked at the September 2015 article version before I edited it, do you think that superior?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you get a copy of the Higham and Moseley book on Amazon before you dismiss it entirely. Give it a read and see what you think. If it didn't seem like a legitimate biography or reasonable quality source I wouldn't have used it. If I remove all material from it for the sake of some book critics criticizing the small part of the book which are sensational claims (to sell) the article is going to be far worse off. There's a lot of quite important details in there about early performances in particular. Some are verifiable in other sources which I've tried to replace. It is obvious to me that the information is largely accurate, but for the more sensational claims it is best avoided. It's going to be difficult to write a highly comprehensive article on this without it. I can try to reduce use of it as much as possible but there's no way I can really remove everything without it really affecting the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I read the reviews which specify that the book is basically trash. What more do I need to know? If I gave you a list of 100 "facts" about a person, and told you that at least 50 of them were untrue, how confident would you be in asserting any of them as "fact" on Wikipedia using that "reliable source"? We are far better off using "best available source" which has not been questioned, rather than using "most convenient source" which has been discredited, alas. Most of what Weems wrote about Washington was "fact", if I recall correctly, and the "cherry tree incident" was given as an "anecdote", but one who relies on his works in a Wikipedia article is likely to be disabused of that concept. Collect (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've replaced at least 20 sources this morning and found that the information was accurate. The only inaccuracy I found was breaking two ribs rather than 3 in the Long Island accident. The book is proving to have been reliable. I think they used the 1983 book as one of the sources as some of the info can be found in that. I agree that we are "better off using "best available source" which has not been questioned, rather than using "most convenient source" which has been discredited" and I will try to replace what I can. Certainly any use of it towards homosexuality and major claims should be banned. I will remove any negative claims about him displaying OCD etc on set if I can't find another source but will keep it for non controversial info about his early work etc if it can't be replaced. Given that the source has been criticized it should only ever be used in moderation, ideally not at all, but I think it would damage the article if we removed everything because a few critics found its coverage of "Grant da gay" absurd.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Forums

Whilst fully agreeing that forums are almost always not reliable sources, they can be a great source of reliable sources. Should a note to this effect be added to this effect? Mjroots (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Kindly create article on 'Anandmurti Gurumaa'

Off topic; this page is only for discussing improvements to this guideline. Go to RA to request an article. - TransporterMan (TALK) 17:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Anandmurti Gurumaa is one such rare paragon of virtue and purity, an enlightened master. Moved by the pervasive plight of the masses, she has been bestowing upon people the greatest gift ever viz eradicating the root cause of all suffering. And she has been doing this relentlessly for over thirty years through innumerable discourses and meditation camps held in India and abroad. She is emphatically secular, declaring herself to be religion-less and bears no allegiance to any one particular religion. Everyone irrespective of their cultural and religious background and belief systems is welcomed. And yes, atheists are welcome too, for Gurumaa is a sound rationalist and never advocates unquestioning faith in anything or anyone. Her exhaustive know how of various paths of spirituality is indeed unparalleled. She has a comprehensive mastery and in-depth knowledge of ancient scriptures including the Upanishads, Bhagawad Gita and the Gurbani, to name but a few! She effortlessly expounds on the teachings of a myriad of sages from different parts of India and oversees. Essentially Gurumaa can adeptly guide any seeker, any aspirant, no matter which path he or she wants to follow. And herein lays the uniqueness of this splendid master. What’s more, the compassionate Philanthropist that she is, she spearheads a noble mission called Mission Shakti which is aimed at empowering girls and women. An awakened being, a rationalist, a visionary, that is Gurumaa, may mistakenly invoke an image of a person with an austere disposition. She must be categorized under- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biography/By_profession#Hinduism 1. (Times of India) Speaking tree 2. The Hindu Newspaper 3. The Hindu 4. Amar Ujala Newspaper 5. Wikiquote 6. India Today Newspaper 7. Times of India Newspaper posted articles of anandmurti gurumaa to their blog ’Speaking tree’ 8. Times of India Newspaper posted articles of anandmurti gurumaa to their blog ’Speaking tree’ 9. Tedx talk 10. Karmapa 11. Article in DNA Newspaper 12. Article in DNA Newspaper 13. Article in DNA Newspaper 14. Article in DNA Newspaper 15. Article in DNA Newspaper 16. Karmapa 17. Karmapa 18. Karmapa 19. Life positive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.243.253.202 (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC) References

UGC and technical topics

What do we do about the fact that for many technical topics, online forums populated by experts are frequently useful (sometimes exclusive) sources of information, and may even be the means by which various bits of "official" information are disseminated? UGC is heavily relied on, both in the form of user support forums, and community documentation wikis, at articles like Ubuntu (operating system). This should probably be accounted for in some way here. All it takes is one over-literal interpreter of what is presently written in this guideline go on an inline tagging rampage, or even do massive deletion damage in a large number of OS, application software, video game, and computing hardware articles.

Another related circumstance to cover is when something like a formal press release is reposted in an online forum; sometimes the only immediately accessible copy of something is from such a posting. Per the WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT policy, it is necessary to properly identify such a source, e.g. with the |via=name of forum here parameter of the citation templates, while crediting it to the original author (if specified) and original publisher/issuer, not the forum poster, and using original date of publication/release identified in the content, not the forum-posting date.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I would question, in the former paragraph, whether the right WP:WEIGHT is being assigned to those topics, if the only sources which can be found are online forums and wikis.

Regards the latter, such sources are usually marked as official, and I would treat them as WP:SPS. But you should still be able to identify a better source either commenting on the press release or at least carrying the press release itself. --Izno (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Expand WP:TRIVIA "in popular culture" guideline

Please comment on sourcing examples in "in popular culture" articles and sections. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Instagram

Can instagram be considered a reliable source? For example, a dancer is on tour with Rihanna. Could I add the dancer's name and use the instagram of the dancer as reference. The instagram page would have this information on their page along with pics of them dancing with Rihanna? Thanks for your response. 174.88.109.154 (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The proper place to ask questions about whether particular sources are reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia, is the reliable sources noticeboard. However, the answer is almost certainly "no." Sites which you can modify yourself are almost never reliable sources. Moreover, a picture of them dancing with Rihanna is not itself proof that it was taken on tour with Rihanna and to analyze it and come to that conclusion would almost certainly be prohibited original research, both in general and in violation of the policy on uses of primary sources (both because it requires analysis of a primary source and also because it involves information about a living person, Rihanna, other than the creator of the source, in violation of BLPPRIMARY). Of course, that's all general analysis, when the specifics are considered the answer might be different so you might want to give it a whirl at RSN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Movie

Off topic here, but editor has also posted to appropriate article talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
"Theri" Tamil Movie crossed 175crores in Box office collection. Referencehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theri_(film) Kasim999 (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH and WP:RS issue with low-quality reliable sources that contradict high-quality reliable sources, but not directly

This issue stemmed from this reply of mine on this discussion. I can find several sources that generally qualify as reliable sources, all of which indirectly contradict other, better reliable sources. Since the contradiction is indirect, disqualifying these sources is WP:SYNTH. A solution has been suggested through WP:ONUS, but the article in question is a list article, which means there are dozens of potential list items, and each of them will have to be discussed, and the discussion will just be an indirect way to use synthesis and original research.

What I'm asking is, is there a way to contest the use of reliable sources that only indirectly contradict better reliable sources? BrightRoundCircle (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

What part does the "Better source" template play in rendering an unacceptable source usable, at least for the present?

The template {{Better source}} exists (it has a reason field: {{Better source|reason=|date=July 2016}}). I've occasionally use it for cites of refs which:

1. Are worse than just borderline unacceptable -- random person's blog or wikis, for instance.
2. Are on obscure subjects for which published fact-checked material in highly reputable sources might never come to exist (although you never know).
3. But which I personally believe to be almost certainly true, based on my overall sense of the subject and the source.

Is this OK? The template documentation does not give an entirely clear answer. My opinion is that it's almost always better to have something than just a {{citation needed}} tag, because the {{Better source}} template (which generates the legend ^{[better source needed]} after the cite) alerts the reader that it's a poor source, and also alerts editors to the need to look for ref upgrade if they're so inclined.

I ask because another editor removed some tagged unreliable sources from an article, and maybe he's right. So how far does {{Better source}} allow us to turn to the dark side? Newspapers not known to have rigorous fact-checking operations? The National Enquirer? Blogs? Wikis? Forum posts? Unpublished letters? Underwear labels? WP:GUYINBAR? Or none of these? Herostratus (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that an unreliable source is worse than no source at all, since by their nature those are sources that we don't want to refer readers to. Another point to consider: the sources at issue in this case had been tagged for over 2 years. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

N.B. the particular edit we're contending about is here. I think it might be reasonable to add to the {{Better source}} documentation something like: "Don't use this if you suspect that no reliable sources exist for the material; delete the material instead (or tag it as completely unreferenced using {{citation needed}}). This template is intended for use when you do not personally have access to a reliable source, but you reasonably believe one might exist" or whatever. Or maybe not, I dunno. Herostratus (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I would submit, though, that at the far margins of notability, excellent sources (such as articles on the subject by the LA Times or Der Spiegel etc.) are hard to come by. The article in question is Human Top (Bruce Bravelle). It has 14 sources, 12 of which are marked with "better source needed". (Incidentally the sources are all almost certainly accurate -- there's no reason for someone to lie about this stuff, and this is the sort of thing that comic book fanatics are, well, fanatical about getting right -- but they're not formally fact-checked or otherwise considered reliable by our standards.) If you remove the sources you are essentially removing the article, for ill or good. Herostratus (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, "no reason to lie" doesn't necessarily mean "accurate", especially if there's no fact-checking. We don't need "excellent" sources, but we really should have decent ones if we want the article to exist. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

But "no reason to lie" combined with "not the sort of thing this person is likely to get wrong" makes for a probably accurate source. That is a different from a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense, which basically requires that the source, besides being neutral, employes fact-checkers and/or has a reputation for accuracy. Reliable sources are best, but almost-certainly-accurate-IMO sources are, IMO, acceptable if tagged with "better source needed". Herostratus (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Reliable is the requirement; other stuff doesn't meet that, whether tagged or not. (And comic book fanatics disagree (and argue endlessly) about details all the time, trust me on that one). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Then there's no function for the template {{Better source}}. A reliable source doesn't need it, and any source that could use it can't be used. But the template was nominated for deletion, yet kept. So hmmm. Herostratus (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I use it for tagging material that is most certainly true and has a valid but poor source. Examples here, though other editors may use it differently. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the article you've linked, and {{better source}} cannot be used in the way it's used. A wiki article is never generally unacceptable as a reliable source. That source has to be removed and the claim tagged with {{cn}}. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

That's reasonable, since wiki articles are subject to trolling and vandalism. Herostratus (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikia

Is Wikia a reliable source? 142.160.89.57 (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

For the vast majority of topics, no. User-generated content is extremely rarely an acceptable source. Better not use it if you are unsure. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal to require at least one RS source for all new articles

There is a discussion now taking pace at the village pump that may be related to the subject of this policy/guideline page. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Software-related sources

I couldn't find any mention of source code or documentation as reliable sources in the archives. They're clearly both self-published sources, and given that former is quite literally the subject and the latter is an explanation of the subject, my initial thought is to consider them as acceptable for use. But I thought I'd double check by asking here.

For context, I'm working on User:Σ/Testing facility/Protoss and I've cited a specific revision of the Mercurial repository for Python (ref 13), because it lists the out-of-the-box commands for distutils. I plan to send it over to DYK (I'm quite rusty in my article-writing at this point!) soon, so could anyone offer any tips? →Σσς. (Sigma) 10:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that source code is necessarily self-published. For example, Calendrical Calculations by Nachum Dershowitz and Edward Reingold contains source code which might be cited in calendar-related articles. The publisher is Cambridge University Press. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as a general question, source code isn't necessarily self-published; the O'Reilly books being the most common cases. But in this case, it is.

I think what I'll do is, when I submit it to DYK I'll make a note for the reviewers to see if it meets their standards there. Thank you for your time, →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Σ, it's important to remember that when you're using source code or documentation that in those cases when its use is permissible that it's still a PRIMARY source which means that, per that policy, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." I do a lot of dispute resolution and in the technical and software areas I've often found situations where people want to take information from documentation and analyze or combine it or compare it to something else to draw conclusions from it. If you're going to use source code or documentation, it can only be used to substantiate exactly what it says in the source and absolutely nothing more. It also cannot be used, even in that exact form, to substantiate something that the average educated encyclopedia reader cannot look at the source and confirm. For example, to point to a chunk of code and use it to source the statement in an article that "XYZ program could display "Hello, world!" on a monitor" is improper unless the average lay reader could, with no knowledge of that code or programming language (for example, the knowledge that the "PRINT" command causes something to appear on a monitor), see that the code causes that result. In that regard, PRIMARY says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that source code is necessarily a primary source. If the author has written the source code after reading a number of other primary and secondary sources on the topic, then it's a secondary source. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think my note in the footnote could be a bit clearer: each file contains a description = ... line that contains a short summary of what the code does. This is the basis for my citing the code itself. It's been nominated for DYK, as it is, so soon we'll all be able to see where the chips fall. →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: Well, I suppose, but it would seem to me that the cases in which source code could be a secondary source would be quite rare. The ANALYSIS policy says, in pertinent part: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. ... They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. ... Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Except perhaps for comments embedded in the source code, source code doesn't make claims about the primary sources it relies upon. It may build or expand upon those prior sources, but it generally does not explicitly comment upon them or make claims about them. You're quite right that source code can be published in a reliable source, and thus not be self-published, and if that source contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis about the code, what's said in that commentary may be used as a secondary source. But even if so published the code published in that source is itself — barring embedded comments or some other unusual feature — a primary source. By way of analogy, as it says in ANALYSIS, "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Forums

Not unexpectedly, my edit to state that internet forums can be a useful source of reliable sources was reverted by Sławomir Biały with the comment that it was "obvious". This might be well-known by experienced editors, but I don't think it is "obvious". Is there a better way to phrase this and include it, or should it stay off the page? Mjroots (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where you get the sources. Internet forums, chats with your hair stylist, peyote-induced visions. What matters is that the sources are reliable as defined by this guideline (somewhat). I think the suggestion that internet forums are a good "source of sources" is just WP:BEANS asking for abuse. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that some internet forums can be useful for finding reliable sources, particularly on "breaking news" items such as aviation accidents, shipwrecks, train crashes etc. I'm not advocating that that forums themselves are in any way reliable sources. I find Pprune a useful tool when there has been an aviation accident, as evidenced at talk:Emirates Flight 521. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

But so what? Why must that be enshrined in an editing guideline??? Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Song review

Reliable Sources Noticeboard is thataway and Dispute Resolution is thataway. This page is for improving this guideline. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I would appreciate input on a discussion at Talk:Blink of an Eye (Tori Kelly song). One editor says PopCrush is not reliable. The other says it's the author, not the website, to whom reliability applies. Thanks in advance. —ATS 🖖 Talk 18:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Wordpress.com

Is Wordpress.com a relaible source? 206.45.9.182 (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Wordpress.com is mostly reliable source only about itself, see WP:ABOUTSELF. Everything else published on this website as a publishing platform is self-published and is generally not a reliable source for wikipedia, with certain exceptions, see WP:SELFPUBLISH. Therefore please be more specific with your question: which webpage do you have in mind? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Just the website itself. 206.45.9.182 (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Improving the RS Guidelines regarding Lifestyle reporting

One of the things that came out of a recent deletion discussion was the fact that the RS guidelines are unclear as to when things that appear in well established news organizations are not reliable, specifically Lifestyle Section reporting. In this case, the subject had been on almost a half dozen morning news shows like Good Morning America (on three continents) and had features with ABC News and Inside Edition, in addition to print features in Vogue Magazine, Marie Claire, and many others. And consensus was that the article should be deleted. One of the editors that voted to delete agreed that the guidelines were unclear, and I myself believe that there should never be "unwritten rules" or guidelines, as that also promotes confusion. So I'd like to open a discussion as it how WP:RS can be improved so that it is clear that it doesn't matter if it is the NYT, the WSJ, or Forbes, if it is a Lifestyle feature, reliability is a) nonexistent, b) questionable, or c) not assumed just because of the news organization (and a, b, or c is precisely what we should discuss. I'm leaning towards c). There should also be a set of concrete criteria to determine whether or not a source is reliable. The current guideline (a particular paragraph of WP:NEWSORG that comes closest to dealing with this) reads:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news).

— WP:NEWSORG

So at this point I'd like to open the floor to others to get their take on how we should go about improving WP:RS so that guidelines are crystal clear and match established practice. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

In short: "Celebrity Gossip" is not worth the paper it is printed on. Especially on websites. Collect (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The case cited above had nothing to do with a celebrity. The guidelines need revision. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

document that uses Wikipedia as a source

I realize that I can't cite a Wikipedia article directly as a source in some other Wikipedia article. Also, it's a bad idea to cite some document as a source in a Wikipedia article, when the person who wrote that document based it entirely on a Wikipedia article (see Wikipedia:Citogenesis).

Is it forbidden to cite some document as a source in a Wikipedia article if that document lists a Wikipedia article as one of its sources, no matter how many other sources that document may have or how reliable that source may otherwise be? Should I unconditionally delete on sight any references in a Wikipedia article that refer to some document that itself uses Wikipedia even once as a reference? --DavidCary (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No, of course not. But I don't see any real discussion besides edit comments. Are you sure that's the only objection? --GRuban (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Heat Street

I thought I'd open a discussion about Heat Street since there's been quite a lengthy debate about it here. The site is basically a news, opinion and commentary website belonging to the Murdoch stable and founded in April 2016 by former British Conservative MP Louise Mensch. A user wishes to reference an opinion piece from the site as part of Traingate, but has been advised this would not be appropriate. My own thoughts on Heat Street are that it hasn't been around long enough to establish a reputation. As I understand it, a website such as this one would build up a reputation as en encyclopedic source by being referenced by other reliable sources, which does not seem to be the case so far. I believe a similar stance was once taken with the Huffington Post, although that seems to have changed over time as it has entered the mainstream media. Given the tone of the discussion at Talk:Traingate about this source, I thought it would be sensible to mention it here. Any thoughts on this topic? This is Paul (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I will start by saying I am uncomfortable with having the same topic being the subject of concurrent discussions in more than one forum. This is a recipe for confusion. I suggest that we treat this as a courtesy FYI notice and post any comments at the original discussion linked above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. The idea of posting here was to generate more discussion, so it makes sense to have that discussion in one place. This is Paul (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Video documentation a reliable source ?

I would like to ask, if Video Documentation such as [copyvio link of a C-Span video redacted] is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia ? & if it is not considered reliable, then why ? --Ne0 (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Ne0Freedom You really should ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Doug Weller talk 20:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe this is the proper place to ask, since it is a general question. The "Reliable sources/Noticeboard" is for questions about specific sources. Whether video documentation is a reliable source depends on the author and publisher, and is evaluated the same way any other medium would be evaluated, such as books, websites, newspapers, etc. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

heritage-india.com

Is heritage-india.com (a commercial book site) a reliable source? I found a newly created page Ranadeep Bhattacharyya which cited a number of sources from this website so I want to check if we can accept it as reliable or not before going for a cleanup also the article says Ranadeep also regularly writes on heritage and culture for Heritage India Magazine, isn't it pointing to WP:RSSELF. Thank you – GSS (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:GSS-1987 You really should ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Done and it's fine to archive this conversation now. Thank you – GSS (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

RFC on Wikidata

Some time ago there was an RFC about whether it was appropriate to import claims from Wikidata to Wikipedia articles. Does anyone remember where that RFC was? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: Here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Current Mayor of Casiguran, Aurora

Hi Wikipedia,

Just to correct what is stated inyour page of the current Mayor of the Municipality of Casiguran in Aurora Province, Philippines. Please change it from: REYNALDO T. BITONG to RICARDO A. BITONG.

I was just corrected by his office after getting this infor from your page.

Thank you and more power.

Lorena S. Lindo utp@ezmaps.ph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.125.99.42 (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Government ministry sources

I'm working on improving the bio pages on current Cabinet members of Pakistan. But at times I cannot able to find third party reliable sources which can backup the material that I want to add to article. I found that some information available about each ministers on their relevant ministry's official website. I wonder if we can use the ministry source to support the material added into WP pages? For instance, here is bio of Ishaq Dar. --Saqib (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-promotional non-extraordinary (and otherwise non-controversial) factual material about an organization (including its members) is usually OK to reference from the organization itself. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It is ok to use such sources for simple matters of fact, such as which portfolios they held and when. It is less ok to use such sources for matters like what policies the politician has supported. As we know, politicians are rather well known as rewriters of history. Zero^talk 23:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If come source, e.g., gov't, contradicts other sources, we know how to handle this, right? For example, we will never believe a ru:president website when it says it brings democracy to Crimea, although it certain contexts we may cite (with attribution) e.g., "Putin says Russia brought historical justice to Crimea". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

And of course we will never believe Pakistan gov't website if it say that "this politician didn't take a single bribe in his life". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Electronic magazines

As there is no separate article about identifying reliable sources in (ta.wikipedia) Tamil, I thought of raising this question here. There is an article about a University professor (https://ta.wikipedia.org/s/3nvx) who is also a radio enthusiast. He created a DXers club and is publishing a newsletter in Tamil and in English for more than 10 years. He publishes them electronically. 1. http://dxersguide.blogspot.in/ - updated regularly since 2005 2. http://sarvadesavaanoli.blogspot.in/ - - updated regularly since 2005 All the entries are there for anyone to see. However, an editor has placed a dubious tag for the citations. The publication is published electronically only. Please clarify why the electronic publication cannot be shown as a citation. - Uksharma3 (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

If someone wanted to cite the newsletter at the English Wikipedia, it would be regarded as a self-published source. See the "Exceptions" section of this guideline. Chances are, the professor's academic expertise is not in the area of long distance radio communication (which is what "DX" means among radio enthusiasts), so his academic publications would not qualify him as an expert in the area of radio. If the professor has published in radio-related publications, such as QST, then he could be considered an expert in the field and his blog could be cited, with the precautions described in the "Experts" section of this guideline. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sharma sir, is this answer satisfactory? In fact, I believe any article written by a scholar, regardless of which medium it is published in, qualifies as RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

My question is misunderstood by User:Jc3s5h. The question of whether the person is a professor or not does not arise. I will explain it further. A publication (let me say) "Beach boy" is published electronically by whomever it may be. I am writing an article about beach. I say in the article that a there is a publication called Beach boy. Now, can I give the URL of the electronic publication to prove that there is a publication by that name? I think it can be done.

You can see in the article that he did his M.A., M.Phil and Ph.D all in radio/communication related subjects. His research paper for M.A. was on 'Foreign Tamil language Radio Broadcasts'. For M.Phil he did research on Community Radio. Finally for his Doctorate he did research on Green FM Community Radio in Dindigul.

He worked in the B.B.C. World Service. Then he worked in the Dept. of Visual Communication at Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in Tirunelvely, TN. Now he is Asst. Professor in the Dept. of Journalism and Communication at Madras University.

A person of such standing is publishing two publications, one in English and the other in Tamil, electronically. He is doing it regularly since 2005. The publications are in a blog run by Google. Each entry is dated and timed. Can anyone say that he is doing it for more than 10 years just to have an article in Wikipedia? He is doing it as a service and the publications are available for anyone to see. There is no subscription fee. One need not even register to read the contents.

But an Editor in Tamil Wiki said the citation is unreliable.

Anyway, now I have removed those section about the publication in the article.

The Professor is not interested in the article. I only wrote the article because I thought Wiki should have articles about such remarkable persons.

But my question still remains - whether a publication published electronically, can be given as a citation to prove such a publication exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uksharma3 (talk • contribs)

Please clarify the following:

• Why you think that Tamil wikipedia will listen to opinion of English wikipedia? Each wikipedia has its own rules.
• Did you invite the person you disagree to join this discussion?

That asked, since you claim that the professor in question has expertise in radio communication, his opinion on the subject may be considered reliable, unless there is a strong agreement in radio communication community that this professor is gravely mistaken. (The latter controversy does happen from time to time in various areas of knowledge). BTW User:Jc3s5h did not misunderstand your question, rather you misunderstood Jc3s5h's answer. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Uksharma3 asked "But my question still remains - whether a publication published electronically, can be given as a citation to prove such a publication exists?" If an English Wipedia editor were writing an article about the electronic publication, and it was notable enough to be worthy of an article in the encyclopedia, certainly the wikipedian could cite it, along with other independent publications showing that it is important enough to have its own article.

But if the article were about something else, lets say, the ionosphere, and the editor wanted to make a claim about the ionosphere and use an article from the electronic publication to support our claim, the editor should make sure the source meets the criteria in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. It wouldn't satisfy the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources unless the professor had published relevant articles in reliable sources (other than the one he publishes himself). Those other publications would demonstrate the professor's expertise.

Uksharma3 also wrote

You can see in the article that he did his M.A., M.Phil and Ph.D all in radio/communication related subjects. His research paper for M.A. was on 'Foreign Tamil language Radio Broadcasts'. For M.Phil he did research on Community Radio. Finally for his Doctorate he did research on Green FM Community Radio in Dindigul.

He worked in the B.B.C. World Service. Then he worked in the Dept. of Visual Communication at Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in Tirunelvely, TN. Now he is Asst. Professor in the Dept. of Journalism and Communication at Madras University.

No, I don't know any of that stuff. If all those claims are on his self-published webstite, how do I know he didn't make it all up? Of course, if those claims are on a web page at Madras University, that would be a different story. Professors usually have lists of their publications on their university webpages, and those could be looked at to verify his expertise. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The University webpage showing his qualifications and position, was cited in the article. The electronic magazine is published in Google's Blogger site. Each entry is dated and timed automatically. The very first post is dated in the year 2005 and anyone could see that the entries were made at regular intervals for more than 10 years. In the article I cited its URL as reference to my statement that he publishes an electronic magazine, not as reference to his qualification or position.
The said article is now removed from Wiki on my request and therefore, please treat this conversation as closed. -Uksharma3 (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Document as source for facts mentioned in passing

I edit primarily in historical articles and have from time to time come across examples of citations from sources that incidentally provide historical information more in the sense of background than as well-documented facts. Sometimes these can be from otherwise well-regarded sources. What I have in mind would be a passage in a scientific treatise giving the historical background to a modern discovery or a comment about a historical site that a travel writer for a respected newspaper mentioned in describing a particular tourist attraction. It seems that such incidental mentions should be treated with caution, even though they appear in otherwise reliable sources. Here are a few comments on this issue in discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard (there are more but a sampling should suffice):

• "While I disagree that Kirchick's article is an opinion piece rather than a news article, and therefore would not be reliable for facts, per the "Statements of opinion" section of the Reliable Sources policy, I would generally not use a news article for something that had occured over twenty years before the article was written and that only mentions Rothbard in passing."
• "Only one caveat, that you avoid giving prominence to any points that these sources only mention in passing."
• "scholarly articles often make points not "in their areas" of expertise, such as mentioning certain facts or disputes in passing, or in footnotes, or just ranging afield. Where they range beyond the author's special field of expertise, I'm saying that they are outside their area and have no special claim of being a superior source."
• "Do any of those have the information that you're wanting to add to the article? I'm assuming you've reviewed those to make sure there's more than just a passing mention."

This article does not directly address this issue, although the section that context matters seems an appropriate place to discuss it. I propose adding something to the effect that:

Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable, especially when they address areas outside the author's area of expertise.

be added to the section on context. I'd like comments from editors working on this page before making the change. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I've often wished there was such a statement. A big problem with mentions-in-passing is that they are so many and so varied (due to lack of specialisation of the author) that pov-pushers can always find one that matches their requirements. Editors should seek sources specifically on the topic at hand where possible. Zero^talk 00:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose instruction creep. The policy already says that each source is reliable within its area of expertise, regardless was it in passing or in painstaking detail. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Zero0000 nicely phrases the problem, that it's the focus of the source as much as the expertise of the author that underlies the "in passing" problem. As to the adequacy of the present version on expertise, the few scattered mentions of expert authors don't really address the use of "in passing" comments by POV pushers. Here's a revised proposal that reflects the comments:

Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

With no further comment, I've added the above version to the context section. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

SteveMcCluskey, I sort of agree with this edit you made and I sort of don't agree with it. Where I disagree is the fact that "passing mention" type of sourcing is validly used for a variety of things; for example, when naming a character as an anti-hero (see List of fictional antiheroes) or as a sex symbol, or similar. I think that your wording might complicate cases such as those, causing people to be overly strict. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

In other words, a source might confirm a matter without the matter being the focus of the source. Who is to state that we shouldn't use that source for the matter that is being confirmed? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I've unfortunately come across a case and had to argue against inclusion of a particular factoid at Talk:Tower defense#DotA isn't a TD. In it, a particular source, in-passing, stated a particular video game to be in a particular genre (wrongly so, though there are parallels). It was correct then, and would be correct now, to argue that the game is not in that genre, based on the WP:WEIGHT assigned to the statement by the usually-reliable source--as in, it was made in passing. --Izno (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the edit in question is probably just a restating of WP:WEIGHT, and especially Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. as well as Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. If, say, only one source says something specific about a topic, is it appropriate weight to include that factoid in an article about that topic? Probably not. --Izno (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

And perhaps also WP:EXCEPTIONAL. --Izno (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

And perhaps also WP:ONUS. --Izno (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Izno, I still don't fully support the edit. The edit in question does not make anything clear about WP:WEIGHT; it simply makes it seem that all "passing mention" sources are bad or likely to be bad. And that isn't the case. So I think that Staszek Lem was correct to cite it as instruction creep. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The definition of "reliable source" has been broken for ages

Some key text on this page has bothered me for years.
Page starts: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources..." (OK, we all agree that's the policy.)
Definition of "reliable source": "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."
Reading the latter sentence very carefully, a source can be reliable by having a reliable publication process. Having an expert author is an option but not a requirement. Therefore, if an academic publishing house publishes Mein Kampf (as one is doing right now), that edition of Mein Kampf is a reliable source!!

I'm sure that whoever wrote that section was just intending to explain that in Wikipedia talk the word "reliable" has various meanings. That is true, but this page should be about the meaning required by "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". Being "reliably published" is definitely not enough. Zero^talk 03:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The key word is "may." The edition of Mein Kampf you describe would (regardless of whether or not its reliable) be a primary source, interpretation of which would amount to original research. The most it could be used for is to verify "Hitler wrote this in Mein Kampf." It could not be used to support any claims outside of that. Scholarly annotations would qualify as a secondary source, and they would not be written by Hitler. IIRC, considering the academic publishing house coming out with an edition of Mein Kampf is German, their stated motive is to point out that Hitler was batshit, and Germany has all kinds of laws prohibiting publishing stuff in support of Hitler or Nazism, those annotations by themselves would be the sort of stuff that we would normally cite in an article without any complaint (except from neo-Nazis, holocaust deniers, and trolls).

The Reductio ad Hitlerum does not demonstrate a flaw in the definition. A single brick is indeed an ineffective wall, but you are not looking at it in relation to the other bricks and mortar used to build this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

What exactly does "reliable publication process" mean? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Your reply does not answer my objection. It is nothing to do with the primary/secondary divide. The annotations in the new publication of Mein Kampf are presumably written by expert commentators, so they are reliable on that account and not just because they are "reliably published". The rule should say that the publication process must be reliable (which I take to mean that what we see is really what it purports to be) AND (not OR) the human source of the information is qualified to provide it. Not one or the other, but both. Zero^talk 06:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

If it did not address your objection, then you have either failed to clearly state the exact concern or else are deliberately ignoring part of my response. Saying this "has nothing to do with the primary/secondary divide" is disingenuous -- the fact that Mein Kampf is a primary source is exactly why your complaint is without merit. Even if you meant that as just an example, you've yet to show how the current standards for reliability are a problem.

As I said already, WP:No original research (which is policy, unlike this guideline we are discussing) says that primary sources can only be used when there is no interpretation involved. In the case of Mein Kampf, even if there was no scholarly annotation but it was just a straight reprint, it could only be used to verify "Hitler wrote this exact quote in Mein Kampf." Any claims about those quotes, or even whether those quotes are necessary would fall on secondary and tertiary sources. An academic printing of Mein Kampf could not be used to support any of the claims that Hitler made in that book, nor even claims about what Hitler wrote or thought. Your objection completely ignores a fundamental site policy that we've had in place for over a decade.

Oh, and this very guideline likewise explains that primary sources cannot be interpreted and secondary sources are preferred. And to go further, WP:DUE (which is a part of another foundational site policy that we've had for over a decade) is another reason why this isn't a problem. Supposing for a moment that the current definition given in this guideline does somehow allow a book by a crazy murderer to be cited as a reliable source for claims beyond "this is what the crazy murderer wrote," we cannot give that author's views more prominence than they are given in the relevant academic field. So if someone cited Hitler for, say, claims about Jewish religious doctrine, his view would be dismissed as WP:UNDUE (not to mention WP:FRINGE). Ian.thomson (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

"deliberately ignoring", "disingenuous"? Does anyone want to reply to my comment politely? Zero^talk 07:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

If someone else does, are you going to deny that the very answer to your problem has anything to do with your complaint and fail to address why there's still somehow a problem? Ian.thomson (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you give another example than Mein Kampf, which apparently worked as a red herring and rather confused whatever you may have been wanting to ask?

As for "The rule should say that the publication process must be reliable (which I take to mean that what we see is really what it purports to be) AND (not OR) the human source of the information is qualified to provide it": every once and awhile someone comes around to this talk page, lifts part of a sentence out of context and declares it a problem. What a reliable publication process entails in the WP:RS/WP:V logic is amply illustrated in various places: e.g., was there any peer review involved in the publication process? Editorial oversight (e.g. a board of editors taking responsibility in case an error is published)? Reputable fact checking mechanism prior to publication?... (depending on type of source) etc. WP:RS is a long page, and what a reliable publication process is (apart from the reliability of the author etc.) can't be explained in one catch-phrase I suppose. It certainly can't be reduced to "what we see is really what it purports to be" (how would one check that?) plus "the human source of the information is qualified to provide it" (which is reliability of the author, not reliability of the publication process). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Any "reliably published" text by an unreliable author will do instead of MK. I know I won't get anywhere with this complaint, so I'll be brief. "Reliable publication process" is not a phrase with a common English meaning, unless it is just that we can be sure the novel we are reading is really a book written by the person whose name is on the cover. Nor is "reliable publication process" concisely defined anywhere. You take it to mean something like "publication process that promotes reliability" and I'm sure you are right that that is the intention. But it isn't what the phrase means in English, so the phrase should be changed to something else. We should not be using wiki-jargon on policy pages. Zero^talk 14:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems that what is intended by "reliable publication process" is a process that involves fact-checking, whether by external referees (common in academic publishing) or internal / editorial fact checkers (common in journalistic or other non-academic contexts). Wouldn't it be possible to craft an acceptable short sentence involving these two approaches? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

A novel is a primary source on itself... Pretending for a moment we had, like, Brill publishers release a book where Gene Ray's "research" on chronometry, politics, and educational psychology was organized, edited, and annotated by leading professors in relevant fields as if Ray was a foremost authority on those topics, and that book was given good reviews in all the academic journals... WP:DUE steps in enough that WP:FRINGE applies (and that's ignoring the "it's just the best primary source" argument that we'd use for a Brill translation of a religious text). This house ain't made of just one brick. A Brill edition of Timecube would be restricted to the Time Cube article (replacing most of the Internet Archive links). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@SteveMcCluskey: That's a good start, but I'd like to reveal a little secret: actually there is quite little fact-checking in academic publication (which I have decades of experience with, including as editor). Let's take the example of a research monograph published by a university press, which wikipedia will for sure judge to be "reliable". What usually happens is that the manuscript is sent to several subject experts who are asked whether the book should be published. I myself examined a manuscript quite recently in my area of expertise from a famous academic press and I was specifically told that I was not expected to check it, but only to advise the publisher whether it was well-written, satisfied a need in the literature, and would be well-received by the community (i.e. enough people would buy it, though those words were not used). Instead of the several months it would have taken to check all the facts in the book (which all reviewers would refuse), I was given two weeks. In addition to this, the publisher will assign an editorial assistant to go through the book and fix the grammar, advise on structure, etc, but that person is not an expert on the subject of the book. All of this means that the publication process by itself does not guarantee the reliability of the content. The reliability comes almost entirely from the expertise and care of the author, and that of the author's colleagues who have commented on drafts of the book at the author's (not publisher's) request.
Considering instead academic journals, there will be a bit more fact-checking going on, but, depending on the field, most facts are not checked. The peer-review process of a history journal does not involve anyone visiting an archive to check whether the documents cited by the author actually say what the author claims, nor does any reviewer for a chemistry journal repeat the experiment to see if the results are as claimed. The reviewer will just check if the description of the experiment suggests that it was carried out competently. Moreover, even if the reviewer does assert that a claimed fact is wrong, the author can refuse to accept it and the editor has the discretion to allow the author's version (commonplace). Of course, sometimes reviewers will notice clear errors that can be corrected, but mostly the peer-review system enhances reliability because the pooled brains of the authors, reviewers and editors is more likely to result in a good product than the author's brain alone. In summary, I don't have a good working suggestion in my mind yet but think it is more about expert oversight than about fact-checking. Zero^talk 12:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

There is also post-publication review that is regularized for much of what you are describing, sometimes even 'popularly' by which I am thinking of a review I just read: [1] Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC) I will add, although not directly as a response but as a further observation that it has always seemed good to me that reputation is a consideration here, as the author, the publisher, and even the reviewers all have a valuable reputation to protect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

In occurs to me that the issue at hand with reliable sources is stated kinda upside down. Debates arise when someone declares a source to be non-reliable and hence must be disqualified as a reference. From this perspective the decision process is more straightforward:

a source is unreliable if any of the items below are true:

• a publisher is unreliable (e.g., has no peer review)
• a writer is unreliable (e.g., writing outside of their area of expertise)
• the text is unreliable (eg. when the cited statement of an otherwise reliable author is mistaken)

Staszek Lem (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Published sources too old - companies/publishers out-of-business, no website - Location of Reprinted Articles

I understand that published "reliable" sources are required. However, what if the original publishers / companies have gone out-of-business? Knight-Ridder newspaper articles might be a large example of this. Reprints of articles from magazines or technical journals may be another example on smaller scale. What if the only web-available reprints of original articles are maintained and hosted by a company whose products those articles concern? I'm requesting public clarification of what Wikipedia officially considers to be 'reliable availability of published sources'. TubeGod (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be "web-available". --Izno (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@TubeGod: There's a faq at the top of this page about this. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)