Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

unrecorded radio talk shows

The "Notes and References" of R2-45, at number [7] provides a Convenience link to [1]. That webpage sources a google group message and provides a link to it, [2]. At the very bottom of that webpage appears the referenced text, On a Vancouver radio show this past March.... The article's edit was made by in June 2006 and its edit summary says: User:Raymond Hill: (added cite to a scan of The Auditor #37, added statements by church representatives) That appears at this editing difference. A review of the referenced website, xenu-directory.net, leads to an invitation by Raymond Hill himself to email "povmec@xenu-directory.net" on the website's home page. I have commented on this sort of reference many times in Scientology talk pages. Would editors here be so kind as to comment on this reference? Terryeo 15:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out something fairly obvious which so far no one has addressed: This is not just "a Google Groups message", it is very specifically a Google Groups message which reprints an article from a major Canadian newsmagazine, MacLean's, and provides the original title of the article, the author of the article, and the month and year of the article. This means that Terryeo's section header is, I would say, actively deceptive: there is no issue here regarding the reliability of "unrecorded radio talk shows", because an unrecorded radio talk show is not being used as a source. An article from a major newsmagazine -- i.e., something that would quite definitely be a reliable source if we were working from a hard copy of the magazine -- is the source, and the only question is whether the reproduction we have of that source is an accurate reproduction. In short, Terryeo is trying to dress up a nitpick as a major issue by leaving out important facts, which is by no means an aberration for him. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You have pointed out that you have good confidence that the information extant on Google Group Messages is of quality sufficent for Wikipedia. Thank you for stating your opinion ! Unfortunately, at this time, our editor concensus disagrees with your confidence. WP:RS#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet states: Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources and Posts means messages which contain reprints from major Canadian magazines. Terryeo 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good for you! You have managed to acknowledge that, contrary to your chosen section header, the issue here has absolutely nothing to do with "unrecorded radio talk shows"! You are, of course, still trying to obscure the fact that the actual source of the information is a major Canadian newsmagazine and that the only question is whether we are dealing with an accurate reproduction of the article in question -- but, then again, one would expect nothing else from the same editor who saw a reference that pointed to an article reprinted from the New York Times complete with title, month, day and year, and instead of correctly describing it as a reproduction from the NYT which could easily be, and should be, checked for accuracy, instead made alarming-sounding innuendos about "It surrounds itself with "Associated Press" and other, reputable sounding terms but the actual information appeared in a GOOGLE GROUP !" (wow, deja vu!) and demanded "That reference is completely wrong ! It must be removed."[3] What conclusions do you suggest can be drawn from the fact that given the name of the newspaper, the date on which the article appeared, and the name of the article (in other words, a complete citation) you said not "Let's check the accuracy of this citation" but "It must be removed."? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may make a few suggestions -

1. Antaeus, Terryeo, it sounds like you guys could agree on the description of the problem: The R2-45 article contains a cite to (1) a google groups message that claims to transcribe (2) a 1974 article from Maclean's magazine, which in turn includes (3) a quote from an unnamed Vancouver radio show.[4]
2. Terry, you're absolutely right to seek comment if you have doubts, but if I could make a suggestion, if you want to discuss a change to the WP:RS guideline, maybe you could describe the proposed change more clearly. On the other hand, if you have a question about whether the R2-45 should include the cite given the existing RS guideline, I think it would be most helpful to post some requests for comment at Wikipedia:Third_opinion or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy.
3. As to the underlying question, I don't think the fact that the radio show is unrecorded is relevant - if the Maclean's article is verifiable and reliable, then the quote was presumable factual, and it gets in under "verifiability, not truth."

Thanks, TheronJ 19:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the exact reference for R2-45 can be found in the original Creation of Human Ability. Miscavige's entourage may have edited it out in the most recent printing, but it is definitely in the original. I think Hubbard stated it as a joke, but many folks don't think it is joke-worthy. If there is no accessible transcript or recording of the radio program, then it does not meet WP:V. --Fahrenheit451 21:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

For the radio show, assuming I understand correctly (that the editor used the google group message for information about the radio), I don't think you could attribute/cite the radio show directly. Instead, you would have to cite the google group. Since the google group isn't a reliable/reputable, in line attribution would be required (e.g. According to a posting on a google group, XXX was said by X on the radio.) That makes a rather weak statement (a lot of readers would think "According to to a posting on a google group? Then I won't believe it."), and therefore probably shouldn't be included unless is has significance to the article.

Also, the format of the convenience link in the citation does not make it completely clear that the editor used the original reference from the LA Times instead of the xenu.com site. Assuming they did look at the LA times, I would reccomend rewriting the citation to make it clear.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. It is so easy to overlook: 1. Raymond Hill goes to Google Groups, finds a message he likes and posts it on his personal website. Then, 2. User:Raymond Hill comes here to Wikipedia and quotes the message he has just archived from Google Groups in a Wikipedia article and cites his personal website, thus increasing his personal website traffic, you see? While this is but one example of such archived Google Group messages, there are others in the articles. Terryeo 12:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Your claims about Raymond Hill's motives are inappropriate, speculative and a personal attack, and are in violation of your post-arbitration probation. Please withdraw them. -- ChrisO 12:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I understand you may question my motivation. Should I have linked directly to the Google group ARS directly? Maybe. Maybe I shouldn't have linked the article at all in retrospect. Paradoxically, by not linking to a transcribed version of the Maclean's article, it would seem the reference would have been less disputed. Well, consider that I am transparent enough to have included a link where I got the article. But really here is what happened: since its inception, I have collected lots of material from ARS which I personally consider trustworthy. So when I found this Maclean's article (while trying to find more information about former scientologist Nan Mclean), it was not exceptional that I decided to web it.
Then, seeing that it contained an interesting reference to the R2-45 process, I went to wikipedia to see if it was used in the article. It was not, and decided to include it (by the way, along with your request of the time that R2-45 was considered a joke according to many spokepersons from the Church of Scientology.) My motivation was to add useful information to the article. Consider I have nothing to sell. Consider the R2-45 article was improved (do you dispute this?)
And about your primary concern: the radio show is mentioned in the Maclean's article, which is what is cited, therefore it is a valid cite. The actual spokeperson on the tape is even namely identified in Nan Mclean's affidavit which mentions this tape.
In any event, I am constantly trying to find first hand material, and have had some successes in doing so. This particular Maclean's article is something I'm trying to get my hands on. Raymond Hill 16:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me permission to question your motivation. I refuse to question your motivation, your motivation is completely clear to me and is not the motivation which User:ChrisO states that I perceive your motivation to be. I have stated that you have placed a google group message on your personal website and then have cited that message here, editing a Wikipedia article to reference that message on your personal website as a secondary source within an article. I have not commented on your motivations. A discussion of motivations would be appropriate to an individual's talk page (I believe). A discussion about WP:RS, appropriate to this page. Terryeo 18:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly clear, Terryeo, that you were questioning Raymond's motivation, or otherwise there was absolutely no reason at all to insert the gratuitous "thus increasing his personal website traffic, you see?" in your account of Raymond's actions. If I wrote "Terryeo posts frequently to 'Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources', thus increasing his edit count, you see?" I doubt that you or anyone else would accept the flimsy claim of "I just commented on the result of Terry's frequent posting, not commenting on the motivation of Terry's frequent posting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have commented on the result of User:Raymond Hill's editing, but I have not commented on the motivation which Raymond Hill makes his edits with. However, if you argue that when Raymond Hill archives a Google Group message and then edits Wikipedia, citing his personal website archive, that Raymond Hill can not expect any reader to visit his website to read the message which he archived, then I could follow your statement in regard to Raymond Hill's motivation. No, I don't comment and I don't mention Raymond Hill's motivation. Terryeo 12:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The innuendo in your comment was clear enough, otherwise why refer to "increasing his personal website traffic"? Once again, you're doing little but poison the atmosphere on the Scientology articles. I consider this a clear violation of your parole. -- ChrisO 12:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I simply can't agree that we should not air the issue of archived newsgroups being used as secondary sources. Nor, should go unmentioned that owners of personal websites post to google groups and use those same messages themselves as secondary sources in these articles. Nor should it go unmentioned that individuals whom publish their personal POV widely at xenu.net, solitary trees, and other personal websites and anti-scientology newgroups and even win compititions for their anti-Scientology essays, also use those very same opinions as secondary sources here on Wikipedia. You say that I am implying or using induendo. Sorry about that. When stating the simple facts as simply as possible in these sorts of emotionally laden areas, some editors are going to read some implication beyond the stated word. Sorry about that. My comment does not include Raymond Hill's motivation but speaks of the results of Raymond Hill's editing. Terryeo 13:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume that any error on User:Raymond Hill's part had to do with a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy, but that he meant well. However, the fact that he added the source in question, and that on his own site, he cites the google group, not the LA Times, I would say it is reasonable to assume that this is an indirect source, not a convenience link. Therefore, the citation format should state the google group or xenu.net as the publisher, with credit given to the LA Times as being the original publisher. Of course, google groups and xenu.net are not considered reliable / reputable publishers (except under certain strict conditions, e.g. as primary sources for information about themselves or their opinions). (Also, to ChrisO - I was under the impression that "parole" did not prevent editors from commenting on talk pages. See WP:PROB.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I too assume User:Raymond Hill edits in good faith, and like the rest of us, might make a small mistake from time to time. Re: "parole", I was specifically enjoined not to edit Scientology articles, further statement included, "may make appropriate comments on talk pages". From time to time I supply a reference because I've a somewhat full collection of Scientology books and lectures. Terryeo 00:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't prevent him from commenting on talk pages, but Terryeo is specifically prohibited from making personal attacks and causing disruption on articles and talk pages. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Remedies. I should note that he has repeatedly broken his parole (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Log of blocks and bans) and is two blocks away from a year-long ban. Regrettably, he's chosen to take an relentlessly tiresome and negative approach towards editing - instead of saying e.g. "this source doesn't meet WP:RS, I suggest you replace it with X", he's chosen to go from talk page to talk page to complain about individual editors, make personal attacks, engage in internecine feuds and so on. ChrisO 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO's actual actions included 1. Going to my User page and telling me that I should retract the information I presented about User:Raymond Hill. As I said, I can not retract Raymond's editing. 2. Going to the arbitration secretrary's (Tony's) User page and telling him how I was engaging in a "personal attack". 3. Going to the administrator's notice board and presenting that I had made a personal attack on User:Raymond Hill (just above). The result of all the of this, ChrisO's refusal to talk to me directly, wasting Tony's userpage space and the administrator's notice board space (requiring the attention of 2 administrators) and finally, posting here, has been effort and attention by several otherwise busy people and all because he mis-perceived my statements. I in no way personally attacked. I stated the situation as simply as possible with no reference to motivation, no implication of an intent to deceive or to otherwise interrupt or show bad faith. So, hey, ChrisO makes a HUGE DEAL of it. But that does not make Raymond Hill's edit right. His edit still references a Google Group Message that he posted to his personal website and then cited into a Wikipedia article. Terryeo 07:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not to say that there aren't problems with the Scientology-related articles - clearly there are - but he hasn't bothered to go through any of the stages of dispute resolution, he hasn't solicited community input through RfCs etc, and he's extensively disrupted Wikipedia policy pages in discussions that quite honestly don't belong there. He has a peculiar and very narrow view of what constitutes a reliable source, and has made numerous complaints which are just a waste of time - see e.g. Talk:Scientology and psychiatry#The eighth reference, where he complains about a reference to an article on the online version of the German news magazine Der Spiegel on the grounds that "It contains advertisements" (sic). This sort of stupidity has been going on now for eight months. Please don't fall into the trap of letting him waste your time. -- ChrisO 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO has been rather careful not to address me. He has only stated a small part of the difficulty with "the eight reference", an article from Salon.com which runs blogs, an archived article by one Katharine Mieszkowski, without clear indication of where it was published, what its circulation was, etc. There was more to my statement than merely, "the page has advertisements". As a small note, no one else sees a personal attack in my presentation of User:Raymond Hill's edit which cites his own website. In fact, User:ChrisO, your Personal Research, as manifested in Newsgroups is cited much too often in these articles. At the time of this posting this newsgroup message which User:ChrisO created 1998/10/13 and is archived at [5] is cited as reference [81] in the Scientology#_note-81. Yeah, there are problems and one of them is User:ChrisO's personal research creeping into articles via newgroup and personal website references. Terryeo 07:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To correct the false information you are spreading, Terryeo, the article in Der Spiegel did not appear "without clear indication of where it was published"; as anyone can see for themselves the article has a very clear notice stating "This article has been provided by Salon.com as part of a special agreement with SPIEGEL INTERNATIONAL. In return, our colleagues in San Francisco will publish selected articles from Der Spiegel on their Web site at: Salon.com". Yes, indeed, there was more to your statement than merely, "the page has advertisements", but "the page has advertisements" was the true part. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks have two components - the intention of the person making them, and the perception of the person receiving them. Many times, a person may perceive a personal attack directed at them, while the person making the "personal attack" may not have meant it as such. Rather than quibbling over who is right on such a subjective matter, I think it is better for the person accused of making the personal attack to either a) apologize or b) clarify how they meant it / didn't mean it, and for the person who felt hurt to forgive. In this case, User:Raymond Hill doesnt' seem to have said anything, and Terryeo has done b.

While Terryeo may be somewhat deletionist regarding bad references, and hold references to featured article quality standards even in areas (like Scientology) where it is apparently difficult to do so, any disagreements we may have do not mean that Terryeo does not have the best interest of Wikipedia (as he/she sees it) at heart. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I must point out that I've seen nothing that indicates that Raymond Hill is aware that Terryeo is here making accusations about Raymond trying to exploit Wikipedia to drive up his web traffic. I'm dubious enough about the idea that a personal attack (from someone who had to be put on a personal attack parole) can be concluded not to be a personal attack if the target chooses not to respond to it, but in this case we don't even know that Raymond has had the opportunity.

As for whether Terryeo has the best interest of Wikipedia at heart, I would like to point out an incident referenced further up in this section, in which Terryeo is presented with a reference that claims to be a reproduction of an article from the New York Times of July 17, 1989. Is there any newspaper for which it would be easier to check a citation than the Times? And yet, instead of making the reasonable request that someone check the original article -- Terryeo demands that it be removed. I find it very hard to believe that someone who, when faced with just about the easiest possible citation to verify, tries to get it removed instead, has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it would be more accurate to say that Terryeo is deletionist for any references that don't support his POV. Prior to his banning from editing Scientology-related articles he had no compunction about repeatedly adding slabs of unsourced material. He has consistently advocated an ultra-strict approach to critical references while being very lax about pro-Scientology references. Frankly, in my judgment he's using the references issue as a means of purging anything that doesn't fit his POV. If he's really acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, you would expect him to approach the matter even-handedly, wouldn't you? -- ChrisO 21:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Quibble. I point out a bad citation. A google messages archived on a personal website. I point out the message was archived by the very person who edited to include the messages' information as a secondary source in a wikipedia article. I point out the inclusion of the editor Raymond Hill's reference which points to his own, personal website, will tend to increase his personal website's web traffic. What happens? User:ChrisO does not understand I have made a statement, instead he sees an implication of personal attack. Too Bad. I stated the situation as simple and as directly as I could. Everyone makes some mistakes sometimes. I'm all for letting go of the issue when the actual situation is understood because that is how we can work toward a better Wikipedai. This idea of preventing editors who do not agree with ChrisO, Feldspar and Hill's point of view from presenting their mistakes is beyond silly. ChrisO's archived newgroups messages sprinkle the articles, Feldspar creates more aticles than anyone working in the Scientolgy Series. I did not make a personal attack. I said nothing about Raymond Hill's motivation. I stated the situation as simply as it could be stated. Can we acknowledge that User:Raymond Hill made a mistake, the User:ChrisO misread my statement above made a mistake himself, judging my statement to be a personal attack and notifiying other (besides himself) administrators? In any event my comment (and I make mistakes too) is about a reliable source of information, not about personal attack and past mistakes. I would prefer that newgroup messages NEVER be used as secondary or intermidiary sources of information, they are just too unreliable. Terryeo 00:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, so I should get right on stripping 90% of the information out of Babylon 5 articles? Phil Sandifer 00:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Feldspar creates more aticles than anyone working in the Scientolgy Series." Care to back up that statement, Terryeo? Go ahead, try. Why don't you just take a big old count and tell us all the staggering number of articles I have created. Well? C'mon, go ahead! Tell us all! You thought it important enough to bring it to everyone's attention; now show that you weren't just making random accusations. So go on; present us all with the full staggering list of all the many Scientology articles I've created. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting, Terry. Still waiting for you to provide the big list of Scientology articles I've created. Or even, say, two. Still waiting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Accurate observations ChrisO. It is also interesting that Terryeo is now promoting the citation of Laurie Hamilton's comments from experts.com, which is in essence a collection of single topic personal websites, for the Scientology article.--Fahrenheit451 00:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to accusations on talk pages that I have made mis-statements, I have linked on talk pages within my posts in reply. I have linked to Hamilton's answers to similar questions. This action is a defensive action on my part because people who are unfamilar with the knowledge comprising the subject have accused me of what I'll gently call, "mis-statement". This was not a promational action, this was a defensive action. Terryeo 00:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Farenheit451, I don't think that last charge is true--Terryeo likes the way Laurie Hamilton explains some ideas about Scientology, and he cites her in the context of talk page discussions about those ideas, but I don't think he has ever proposed her about.com posts as reliable sources to be cited in articles. However, I heartily second your endorsement of the observations of ChrisO. This topic--where Terryeo implies that an editor was using "unrecorded radio talk shows" as reliable sources when nothing remotely like that pertains to the situation in question--is typical of the misleading nonsense that Terryeo has been salting the Scientology articles with on virtually a daily basis for the better part of a year now, leading to countless wasted hours of confusion and haggling. BTfromLA 01:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to make sense on the comments above, attempting to understand what is this all about. Seems that editors that have ongoing content disputes elsewhere, and have done so for a while, come here to air their differences with the expectation that non-involved editors can make sense of it and comment. Not easy... So, this is what I have undertood: Some editors are using convenience links to user groups postings, to what seems to be descriptions of possible reliable sources such as newsprint articles, transcripts of radio recordings, etc. The policy in this regard is quite clear: USENET, user groups, discussion forums, etc., are not reliable sources. So, citing these user groups and linking to them is not kosher, even if what they describe may be reliable sources. What can be done is to cite the original source, after it is verified that it indeed exists. I would not consider the fact that it has been posted in a user group, to be sufficient proof of compliance with WP:V, because a non-reliable source is just that: a source that does not have sufficient credibility due to lack of editorial oversight, for example, to be used a a source about anything beyond the user group itself. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

EXACTLY. That is the issue, thank you ! Terryeo 02:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have subsectioned because Jossi has stated the issue cleanly, in a way everyone can understand. The one citation I mention above is only one of many such citations through the Scientology articles. Information from newsgroups is archived. Call them messages, call them duplicates of articles that appear elsewhere, unrecorded talk shows, etc. Then those are cited. You see above how strongly people react. People say, "oh, WP:RS is just a guideline" and often stronger language is used to discourage any mention about the reliability of source. But Jossi has expressed the issue very well. Terryeo 06:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have de-subsectioned because it is still the same conversation, and a single person's judgement that "the issue" has been reached is not consensus, especially when that same single person was the one who started the conversation under the knowingly inaccurate section header "unrecorded radio talk shows". There almost seems an unseemly haste on some people's parts to assign a quick identity to "the issue", perhaps to prevent anyone from asking whether what is to be done about an imperfect reference is also part of "the issue". Last time I checked, "it doesn't have to be perfect" was still a part of Wikipedia policy, yet certain people would have us believe that no matter how easy it would be to check an imperfect reference and thus make it a perfect reference, instead "It must be removed." If the operating philosophy of Wikipedia has been changed from "find a way to improve on what other people have done" to "find some way to invalidate and destroy what other people have done" then I think that deserves at least as much close, careful attention as whether a reproduction of a newsmagazine article was a 100% perfect reproduction. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus... there is one problem with your concept... WP:RS clearly says: "If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no reliable references are provided may be removed by any editor. The responsibility for finding and adding references lies with the person adding material to an article, and sources should be provided whenever possible." (bolding mine). Thus, hasty or not, there is nothing wrong with removing material that is supported by an unreliable source. If an editor wants to include the information, he or she can add it back again later ... with a reliable citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)

Well, I follow your logic, Blueboar, but the problem is that by that interpretation of the guidelines and policies, every argument that can be made for completely disallowing the use of such article reproductions points even more strongly towards disallowing any information, cited or not, sourced or not, from any anonymous editor. Consider the following two scenarios:

a) The anonymous editor at 127.0.0.1 inserts information into a Wikipedia article which he claims is supported by the text of the article "Fear and Loathing in Sutton: The McLean family's fight to escape Scientology", written by John Saunders, published in the June 1974 issue of Maclean's.

b) The anonymous editor at 127.0.0.1 transcribes what he claims is the entire text of the article "Fear and Loathing in Sutton: The McLean family's fight to escape Scientology", written by John Saunders, published in the June 1974 issue of Maclean's to a newsgroup. From there, another editor inserts information into a Wikipedia article which is supported by 127.0.0.1's transcription.

Obviously, it is the first scenario that provides far more room for error and malfeasance. As opposed to the second scenario, where we only have to trust that the anonymous editor managed to do a word-for-word transcription successfully enough so as not to change the sense of the text, the first scenario demands that we trust the anonymous editor's ability to follow the text and their ability to correctly interpret it and not draw inferences that it doesn't support. Clearly, if our goal is to absolutely forbid any sort of editing behavior that could possibly lead to poor information in the article, both of these scenarios are completely unacceptable.

Yet the first scenario is explicitly allowed by Wikipedia policy; suggestions that editing in fact should be limited to registered users only have all been shot down. The spirit behind the policy is clearly to balance the need to get good information into the articles against the risk of letting bad information in. I think it is in keeping with that spirit of policy to state that when we have a checkable citation, and an article transcription to refer to which an anonymous editor claims is faithful to the letter of the original, then we follow the same policy we follow for the more risky situation when we have a checkable citation, but we have no text to refer to at all and are instead trusting an anonymous editor's assertion that if we did read the letter of the original text, we would agree that the material asserted to derive from it does indeed capture the spirit, rather than the much easier letter, of the original. To do otherwise is to strain at the gnat while swallowing the elephant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Feldspar, when a person does not understand what Mr. Hubbard was talking about when he publically talked about R2-45, that the person would want to read all the inflammatorily stated news about it, I can not possibly present such silly news because the underlying statement which Mr. Hubbard made has not been understood. The newsgroup posting states, What is R2-45? It's long been rumored among ex-Scientologists to mean shooting. You see, rumored ? Of what use is rumor to a reader who has not understood what Mr. Hubbard was talking about? Of what use is it to direct the reader's attention to newgroup rumor when the reader has not understood that Mr. Hubbard was speaking of the usefulness of exteriorization. This is the sort of content issue which we can avoid if WP:RS is implemented instead of being resisted. Terryeo 18:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Terryeo, you seem to have slipped off-topic? You're clearly talking about something different from the rest of us; the rest of us are talking about an article from a major newsmagazine, not about a "newsgroup rumor". -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

TheronJ summary and $0.02 on unrecorded radio talk shows

Summary of problem: Terryeo wants to know whether a citation in the R2-45 article meets WP:RS. That citation (shown as footnote 4 of this version[6]) contains a cite to (1) a google groups message that claims to be a transcription of (2) a 1974 article from Maclean's magazine, which in turn includes (3) a quote from an unnamed Vancouver radio show.[7].

My humble opinions:

1. Contrary to Terryeo's opinion, I don't see that the fact that the quote is from a radio show is relevant. Maclean's is certainly a reliable and verifiable source. If this statement were sourced solely to Maclean's by someone who had verified the article in the actual magazine (or through a reliable source like Lexis/Nexis), the fact that the radio show is unidentified would not be a problem.
2. The remaining issue is whether the "convenience link" is permissible. The relevant section of the WP:CITE guideline is unclear on this issue. Although the section is absolutely clear that the webpage must be a reliable source if the editor hasn't verified the original document, it's less clear about whether the source may be included for convenience if the editor has verified the article.
3. Therefore, assuming that Raymond Hill, the editor who added this cite, actually verified the Maclean's article, this cite could be fixed, at most, by removing the "convenience cite," and even that requirement is arguable. If no editor has checked the actual Maclean's article, then the cite is unverified and should go.

Thanks, TheronJ 18:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, at least say that you do not support the idea that an editor can create and maintain a personal website, place information on it which he believes will be attractive to Wikipedia and then come here to Wikipedia and cite information from his personal website as a secondary source (or intermediary source) within Wikipedia articles. Terryeo 00:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As user groups are not reliable source, the way to resolve this is not to link to that user group as TheronJ described it. Just add a reference to the magazine article, date of publication, etc. so that it can be available to be verified by our readers. Convenience links have to cross a cerain threshold of reliability, and I would argue that user groups, USENET, or discussion forums do not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree and would love to see every single USENET citation removed where it is used as a "repositiory" or an "archived copy". For one thing, WP:RS actually says so. For another, as I read WP:V it implies so. Yet the Scientology series is full of USENET citations as secondary or intermediate sorts of sources. Some guy in LA, he sees an article in the LA Times and types it into a google group. Then some guy in Denmark picks it out of the google group and archives it on his website. Then the information gets cited from the Denmark personal website. And when I point out WP:RS editors say, "oh it is just a guideline". I don't know how to get WP:RS implemented. Terryeo 10:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Oh is just a guideline" is not an valid excuse. I am not familiar with the Scientology articles, but I would be concerned with any article that is using many convenience links to unreliable sources. As expressed before, citing the original source is more than sufficient for WP:V, and unless the convenience link is hosted on a reliable source, it shoud not be used. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that TheronJ summarized the issue very well. The question is whether and under what circumstances the convenience link to a transcription (or scanned copy) of an article (originally published by a reliable source) on a personal website is acceptible. As far as I can see, this is an unresolved issue--some editors, like Blueboar, take a very strict line that basically argues against any convenience links: if I understand him (?) correctly, in his view, one would link directly to the original source (e.g., the New York Times own website) or you have no link. Others, including me, think that a more liberal view toward convenience links is called for (at which point I want to underline the fact that, by definition, the convenience link is NOT the original source that is being cited as a reference, but a reproduction of all or relevant parts of the cited source material ). As to Terryeo's accounts of the editorial discussions at the Scientology articles--well, as the present example shows, Terryeo is hardly a reliable source in these matters. At issue is a convenience link to a transcription of a MacLean's article on a personal website which archives news articles about Scientology. The transcription had been previously posted on a google group. Terryeo presented this as if google group accounts of unrecorded radio talk shows were being used as a reliable source. BTfromLA 17:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

BT, my view on this is strict... but not as strict as you make out. I feel that convenience links are fine, as long as they come from a reliable source. Yes, that severely limits what can be used, but I am not arguing against all convenience links. Here is the problem (and why I do take such a strict stance...

Like Terryeo, I edit on a somewhat controvercial topic... in my case it is articles that deal with Freemasonry. When it comes to the "anti" POV, much of the available material is to be found on the internet. Unfortunately, a favorite tactic on these "Anti" sites is to either misquote something or to quote it out of context. Another is to repeat (as fact) statements which have been proven to have originated as part of a hoax. More to the point, I have repeatedly seen supposedly "authentic reproductions" of original documents that (when you compare them against the originals, which are often NOT available on the internet for easy reference) turn out to have been altered, with words or even entire paragraphs added or removed that completely change the meaning of the passage. These then get copied onto other "anti" websites... and soon there are hundreds of copies of a bogus documents floating around out there. In short, you frequently can not trust the "convenience" link to be an accurate representation of the original.

What I am getting at is that Terryeo's complaints about the misuse and abuse of "convenience" links at the Scientolgy articles is not unique ... this issue crops up on a quite number of articles that deal with controvercial topics. I have even seen situations where one side swears that a linked copy has been checked against the original and is accurate... while the other side swears that, to the contrary, they have checked it against the original and it is NOT accurate.

By requiring that even a "convenience" link points to a reliable source you can, at least, be sure that an independant and relatively trustworthy source agrees that the copy accurately represents the original. Blueboar 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, at the moment time doesn't permit me a full response to your comments--in brief, my view is that if there is a reasonable suspicion that the linked-to info is distorted, as in the cases you describe, that is definitely grounds to disallow those links, and perhaps even to adopt an especially proscriptive policy with regard to specific topics where this is clearly a problem. Obviously, we don't want to direct people to information that we know is fabricated or otherwise misrepresents our sources. But I don't agree that policy should be extended to a blanket prohibition on all sources on all topics because of the mere possibility that the info could be distorted, even while every indication is that the vast majority of such links are accurate and useful to our readers. BTfromLA 19:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The User Talk show existed, obviously its content and not the live talk show is referenced. The reproducibility of the talk show is controlled by some unknown, unattributable, not traceable individual. That person was one of a group of people who do that. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. In this case I'm pretty sure we could agree the individual is pushing an agenda. If I misled anyone, I didn't mean to. I did state that the webpage sources a google group. Terryeo 18:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Res Ipsa Loquitur. BTfromLA 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Res Ipsa Loquitur, is exactly my point. The problem is that in some controverial articles, editors are adding convenience links to non-reliable sources that contain additional information that may be not neutral. In these cases, we should err on the side of caution, and directly reference the original source, without a convenience link to an unreliable source, as we cannot presume or assume accuracy. Think of the reader.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Creeping POV: An additional reason we should err on the side of caution is that a personal webpage might be modified at any moment by its owner. Recently, convenience links are showing up with a "zinger" presented before the information of the link's convenience. The website owner puts his "zinger" in as an introduction to a newspaper article in R2-45's citation 2 before presenting the text of the newspaper article cited. Terryeo 02:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that harrowing primal scene when "the website owner puts his 'zinger' in." From all appearances, the quote from Hubbard that precedes the main text of the article (I'm guessing that is the introjected zinger you have in mind) was 'zinged' by the authors or editors of the original published article. In other words, that's part of the article--nothing was added by the website. Another article by the same authors published the previous day seems to be in exactly the same format, with a different Hubbard quote atop it. To be absolutely sure this is the case, you can go through the microfiche at your local library, or you can pay $4 to the LA Times and download an official copy online. I'm saving my $4, but if you believe that what you've said is true--as opposed to your fantasy or hallucination--it might be worth it to you. I will certainly apologize if it turns out I am mistaken. I trust you will do likewise for wasting our time with baseless charges about zingers, if I am correct. BTfromLA 02:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, are you advocating for allowing the indiscriminate use of convenience links to non-reliable websites (non-reliable as per WP's guidelines)? We need to think of the reader. A reader expects that he/she will find reliable information supported by reliable sources in WP articles. We cannot guarantee that reliability if we link to personal websites, blogs, USENET or user groups. I am sure you understand that. Do you? (Also, we all would appreciate if you can avoid making comments about what you think about editors, and keep this discussion free from these type of comments. If you have a personal dispute with a user, you may want to take it elsewere. It will be appreciated.) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jossi: No, I am not advocating indiscriminate use of conveninience links. I am advocating , though, that the editors of individual articles should be allowed some latitude to descriminate about which sites include reliable copies of all or the relevant part of the cited sources, extending to reliable copies that are housed on sites that might not themselves be deemed "reliable sources" for the articles, because they are hosted online by individuals as opposed to corporate entities. I am indeed thinking of our readers, and I think that linking to more complete sources of information (as opposed to merely footnoting the sources) is one of the strengths of the online encyclopedia, while it is also a gateway to the wilds of the internet. I think that readers understand that the linked-to sites are not Wikipedia, that, while Wikipedia can try to link to reliable sources. we can never be responsible for off-site content, because we have no control over it. (Actually, I think it would be a nice idea to introduce a color-code into the wikipedia code, such that links leading offsite are all flagged by a particular color--green, say--so that readers would immediately be clued to the fact that clicking the link will take them away from Wikipedia.) In other words, we cannot guarantee the reliablity of ANY linked-to sites, so if guaranteed reliabilty is the standard, all external links must go. As a reader of Wikipedia. I think the benefits of linking to rich sources of specific information about a topic far outweigh the dangers of being misled by the occasional bogus, hacked or irresponsible site. And, again, I'm not for being indiscriminate... if there is a legitimate reason to suspect that a site is fishy, that's enough to disinclude it, and I would expect much stricter vetting to emerge in subject areas that actually have a problem with unreliable convenince links. But I think this problem is rare--Blueboar's account of altered freemasonry documents is the only case I've heard of it happening. Terryeo charges that a particular Scientology-related convenience link was misrepresented above, though I am skeptical that he has grounds for that charge (which can fairly easily be adjudicated). Have you run into lots of forged or altered documents linked to Wikipedia footnotes? Bottom line: I think editors working toward accurate, readable articles should be allowed as much latitude as possible in executing their task, and the blanket "thou shalt nots' should be kept to a minimum. BTfromLA 00:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Rules and regulations are not there to fortfeit the good judgement of editors, but we need to be cautious. I am not familiar with the Scientology articles, but I would argue that linking to a white supremacist website to provide a convenience link for an article on Judaism, for example, would be highly innaproriate. So, yes, good judgement of editors needs to be present. And if there is a dispute about a specific convenience link that cannot be resolved, there is always WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

(Undented) That's what I once thought too, BT. Unfortunately it doesn't work. If it would require that I trudge through the article to produce more instances of editors citing thier own personal webpages, their own, personal newgroup posts, citing a personal website owner's personal reasearch I'm willing to do so. But I'm sure you have seen it too. A citiation points to a "document" which was hand typed into a newsgroup and picked up by a personal website owner, put on his webiste with a "zinger" or out - of - context quotation that puts bias on the 'document'. As Wikipedia gets larger I believe we will need more flat out "don't do this" kind of rules. Unfortunately even with flat out rules, editors simply defy them and refuse to discuss their underlying policy. editors defy WP:RS. Terryeo 07:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, are you willing to do the research needed to confirm the validity of your charge that the LATimes article you mention above has been modified by that website with a "zinger"? (If I'm guessing correctly, since you don't spell it out, you mean the quotation from Hubbard that appears above the byline.) If it turns out that you are right--that the quote was added such that it appears to have been part of the original, that would be the first time I've ever encoutered such a thing. This is one of my objections to this whole line of argument, at least the version that has been going on for months in the Scientology articles. Overwhelmingly, the argument consists of scare stories about the corruption that could possibly occur, while the actual information presented in scores of transcribed articles and court documents hasn't yielded even one example of a significantly distorted document being linked to an article. Where I have seen what I think you would call "zingers" (again, it would be helpful if you could give examples) is when materials are fair use excerpts in context, which means that there will be some text surrounding the relevant quotation. This is a slightly different question than the use of "pure" transcriptions, calling for more judgement. It seems to me if the relevant source material is accurately and clearly presented, such that the reader isn't confused about which is the quote and which isn't, a convenience link of that type can sometimes work. My concern is about clear and useful access to the cited material; I don't have any fear about wikipedians occassionally glimpsing a partisan site when they leave Wikipedia, this is already common practice with external links. (I do think that it would be a good idea to label such convenience links--"quoted on a partisan website," "quoted in an essay by Joe Shmoe," or something). Self-citation, which is at least unsavory, is a separate question. BTfromLA 17:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why Terryeo won't address the validity of his charge that the transcribed LA Times article discussed above was deceptively modified with a "zinger" by the website that hosts the transcription. If true, this would be the strongest evidence of a genuine problem of unreliable links ever presented by Terryeo. Yet, he hasn't even acknowledged my suggestions of how he could easily verify his charge, nor responded to the reasons why I find his claim doubtful. BTfromLA 16:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out again, that "personal websites" are not inherently unreliable sources. There are personal websites that are reliable sources. Wjhonson 17:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

...only if the person is a widely recognized expert on the subject, or the article is about the author of that personal website. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

One more opinion on the Maclean's cite

To recap: Terryeo object to a citation in the R2-45 article onWP:RS grounds. That citation (shown as footnote 4 of this version[8]) contains a cite to (1) a google groups message that claims to be a transcription of (2) a 1974 article from Maclean's magazine, which in turn includes (3) a quote from an unnamed Vancouver radio show.[9]. By posting today, the original poster, Raymond Hill, says that he hasn't read the original Maclean's article, but is looking for it. That raises a couple more thoughts:

1. Technically, WP:CITE states that editors should not include citations to materials based on non-RS materials, such as a google groups posting. Still, that's far from the worst offense in the scientology pages, and it's hard to see the harm in giving Raymond some time to find the original.
2. The bigger concern is that the "convenience cite" is an apparent copyright violation, and I can't believe I didn't think about it sooner. It is helpful to readers to be able to read the original article, and I'm sure the link is in good faith, but Wikipedia doesn't link to cites that post copyrighted material without authorization. Raymond, I don't question your good faith, but it looks like best practice would be to take out the "convenience cite."
3. Assuming I'm right, the policy of not linking to potentially infringing copies of copyrighted works might kill most of the "convenience cite" issues. Does anyone want to take a crack at writing a "convenience cite" paragraph for WP:RS, or want me to write one up for discussion?

Thanks, TheronJ 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The faulty reference was removed a few hours ago, right after I posted my answer here. Raymond Hill 22:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, now can we write a "convenience cite" paragraph and get on with production ? Terryeo 00:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed wording

Proposed wording below. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Convenience links

When using convenience links, note that external sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works as a conveninece link, is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Note that the convenience link must be hosted in a website that is considered a reliable source in its own right.

On second thoughts, after reading the above wording, I came to realize that if we just keep it to "the convenience link must be hosted in a website that is considered a reliable source in its own right", that on its own will take care of the copyright issue, as a reliable source would not be one in which we should find copyvios.... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That wording makes sense to me Terryeo 07:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Blueboar 13:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that you three believe the convenience link host must meet the same reliable source guidelines as the original source, but I'm not convinced that a broad consensus has been reached on that point--are you? I'd say the first two sentences about copyright are fine, but the third one--which, applied literally, would dramatically alter established practice on wikipedia--needs to be singled out for consideration by the largest possible group of editors before being placed on the page. BTfromLA 17:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Self Published Sources

The self-published sources section makes no sense what so ever. Before the present a large number of publications were "self-published" - for example Bach' "Art of the Fugue". By the defintions offered here bastardized pirated versions of the Art of the Fugue would be regarded as secondary sources, where as Bach's own plates would not be (self-published vanity press!). Examples of this problem continue all the way up to the present, where original sources are "self-published" and inaccurate assertions are made in the "respectable" press. Consider that under the standards presented here "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" counts as a reliable source, where as John Kerry's personal accounts of being in Vietnam don't.

In short, this section is geared to weeding out say millions of web sites, and creates a reverse problem - it weeds out huge amounts of reliable data which just happens not to have gone through the corporate publishing mill. A recent example is proposed proof of Poincare's Conjecture - self published on the internet.

The current language an open invitation to abuse. Self-published sources have the credibility of the people publishing them - no more, but also no less. If person X has a website that says he's married, we should not "look at this with a critical eye" and demand to see the public records looked up.

Stirling Newberry 23:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice that one of the sentences in the self-published sources section is "In general it is preferable to wait until other sources have had time to review or comment on self-published sources." So if other (reliable) sources have commented favorably on a self-published source, the self-published source becomes reliable. Also, if a work that was originally self-published is reprinted by a reputable publishing house (such as Dover) it is then reliable. --Gerry Ashton 00:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to laugh out loud here, Dover often publishes editions which are not reliable, because those are the ones which are available in the public domain. You've made my point for me - passing through "official" hands does not necessarily improve reliability. The language present is sweeping, over generalized and just plain foolish. I can appreciate wanting to keep out the millions and millions of little web sites out there, but the current guidelines neither include all good material nor exclude all bad material. Stirling Newberry 02:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then where do you get half of your info Stirling? Many of your sources are not reliable either, or you just place information into this encyclopedia which, to put it in a nice way, could be construed as "Original Research." Please, if a publishing house is not reliable, should we consider some history blog that you read your latest tidbit from? T Turner 11:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There are dispute resolution processes if you don't like the sourcing. Stuffing my text message box with threatening text messages on my private phone number with a fraudulent call back number isn't on the approved list last I checked.Stirling Newberry 23:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, notable self published work can be cited... as a primary source. Bach's original plates would be eminently citable in this fashion. The same would be said for Kerry's personal accounts of being in Vietnam. The key is a) the notablility of the primary source (both Bach and Kerry would count as being notable, and b) attribution to the primary source (if citing the original, one should mention that in the article).

Yes, we prefer secondary sources, for exactly the reasons Gerry points to above... but that does not mean we can never cite to a primary sources if appropriate. Blueboar 01:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Stirling has a point,

• However, (small remark), Kunst der Fuge is a bad example: essentially *published* by the composer's sons, with a lot of trouble to establish what was exactly composed by Bach, and what was added/modified by these sons. Use any of the Clavier-Übung tomes or the Musikalisches Opfer, that would make a better example for what Stirling wants to illustrate.
• Also note that in the current Wikipedia system, "Verifiability" is to a certain extent a "notability" selection mechanism, which makes part of the thresholds imposed on the "reliability" of sources *unnatural* to say the least, and anyway far from academic. I supported Stirling's efforts recently to make reliability of sources less of a black-and-white picture (less of an on/off switch between reliable or not - favoured by some wikipedians), and rather a set of recommendations on how to discern more reliable sources from less reliable sources.
• The current on/off approach between reliable or not (coupled to notable or not) has several disadvantages:
  • it doesn't keep out trivia, and will increasingly be less appropriate to keep trivia out (see Lousewies van der Laan, and its recent history if you don't believe me: yes it was printed, and now translated in Wikipedia that she declared "The double helix is the structure of the human DNA", which is quoting trivia's trivia in the article about a politician - but it was published in a "respectable" newspaper);
  • it promotes laziness not to dig to the original source when quoting (for instance stopping at the New York Times when trying to find out whether Grisha Perelman would accept a million dollar prize: two sources that actually quoted what Perelman said on the subject contradicted what the New York Times had published as fact - and the NYT would according to the current WP:RS certainly excell the other two sources on wholesale "respectability". See last paragraphs of Poincaré conjecture#21st century);

So yes, I support Stirling in his endeavours to make this somewhat more appropriate. But I want to make clear that some of this is solidified in the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy (in the three sections about dubious and self-published sources in that policy, that IMHO have no doing in a non-negotiable policy, but should be moved to WP:RS for appropriate updating at guideline level).

@Blueboar: note that WP:V currently identifies *all* self-published sources as unreliable (or at least "of dubious reliability"), and states that such sources *can not be used in an article outside the article on the source* as explained in a prior discussion at Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people#Verifiability. That's again the downside of the on/off approach: some sources are declared exempt of a reliability assessment (an academic would assess the reliability of *any* source), while other categories of sources are in Wikipedia's current on/off approach lumped together as unreliable with rather arbitrary selection criteria. I'm happy to announce that many Wikipedia articles thank their quality to not following these "unmovable" policy prescriptions to the letter. --Francis Schonken 13:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Francis, that's not technically correct. WP:V explicitly contemplates that, in some limited cases, self-published sources may be used in articles about their subject matter. TheronJ 13:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What I said is technically correct. WP:V does not use the terminology you claim, "articles about their subject matter" - it says "articles about themselves." It definitely wants to exclude that someone who is notable for writing on a certain subject matter would be quoted in the article on that subject, if this analysis is exclusively self-published (while that would be "also" of dubious reliability). Don't go bending what is actually written in the policy. I tried to rewrite that policy so that it would reflect what you try to quote, but was unsuccessful. --Francis Schonken 14:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's clear that WP:V permits use of self published sources in at least two situations. (1) Self-published sources by acknowledged experts may, in some cases, be used regarding their subject matter (so you might be able to use Stephen Hawking's blog for information on physics), and (2) self published sources, whether or not published by experts, may be used in articles about themselves (so you could use Wil Wheaton's blog for information about Wil Wheaton, and you could have done so even before Wil Wheaton was published on the subject of himself). TheronJ 14:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't say you have an agenda, I only say that re. your point (1) you're misunderstanding, and consequently misrepresenting, the actual content of WP:V, WP:V#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) has: "Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." So no, you can't quote Stephen Hawking's blog in an article on a physics subject, unless the information you want to quote has been previously published by a reliable third-party publication (so outside Hawking's blog - and why would you quote the blog then?)

I'm not making this up, really not, there has been quite some discussion about this on the WP:V's talk page. Any attempt to reformulate this in the way you want to understand this has thus far been thwarted. --Francis Schonken 14:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I read that section differently; I took it to mean that if a person's expertise in a field had been established by publishing in a reliable third-party publication, other self-published work in the same field by that expert could be included in Wikipedia. I've seen both reading on talk pages before, which suggests the section is badly worded. --Gerry Ashton 15:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, @Gerry) Also don't forget that in WP:V, notwithstanding the content of WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper), *all* self-published sources are lumped together in the *sources of dubious reliability*:

"[...] self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability [...]" (from WP:V#Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves)

...and...

"[...] sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves." (from WP:V#Sources of dubious reliability)

So, if Hawking, as a person, has any reliability derived from other content published by reliable third-party sources, the content that is only published on his website *could only be mentioned in the Stephen Hawking article* according WP:V.

Re. "the section is badly worded" - all the more surprising that word for word all these instructions were authored by one and the same person. But I don't want to revive the unpleasant situations I had to go through for finding that out in an attempt to come to a more coherent language in the WP:V policy. --Francis Schonken 16:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes things need to be worked out several times before they "stick" Stirling Newberry 18:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I interpret the section as Gerry Ashton. In some fields much of the literature is self-published. I think it's common sense that the self-published work of a recognized expert in a field can be cited as a source in the encyclopedia. I would say even a relevant PhD thesis by someone with no prior journal articles can be cited, as the PhD itself constitutes a recognition of expertise. Most of us can't keep up on the nuances of phrasing in policy and guideline pages. If the current policy phrasing is being used to disallow such references, and many people think they are legit, what can we do to get the policy wording changed? Gimmetrow 16:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the problem with wording lies on the other end of the reliability stick. S. Hawking is well known. His words (my opinion) are probably reliable words which he would repeat, anywhere they appear. But "well known expert" is a phrase that gets applied by anti-Scientology editors to include Heldal-Lund who publishes Clambake.org, the anti-Scientology site. They read the wording to mean our articles can include anything found on his site because he is a well known critic and therefore a well knwon expert. Terryeo 10:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A great deal of good discussion above. Let me be more specific about what I am looking for:

1. Recognition that by volume virtually all self-published material on the internet is not reliable and should only be cited as a POV, and then only with some indication that the particular expression of that POV is widespread. The current guideline goes much too far. I can certainly see why a blanket ban is appealing, since it closes the door on attempts to lawyer in bad sources. 2. Recognition that there exists a class of self-published material that should be regarded at higher level of reliability. It should still almost always be cited as "X says..." but is reliable enough that qualifications about its reliablity wouldn't be needed, the way one might qualify a POV assertion which is common, but generally known to be false. 3. A set of guidelines for determining which self-published works are more reliable, and how to rank them on a scale of reliability. I would suggest that points made above - for example, the individual publishing being a notable expert in their field, would be appropriate, as would independent corroboration - the way proofs are reviewed by others, even if not published in a journal. Corroboration, reputation at risk and review seem to me to be the best guidelines. The more people of different POVs have reviewed something, the stronger the reliability of the assertions made. While publication and so on might invite scrutiny, often assertions which are beneath notice don't even get debunked in the literature until much later. Consider creationism, many of the best sources are self-published web pages, because the assertions in creationism fall so far beneath scientific notice that it would be difficult to get a peer reviewed article publish specifically debunking an assertion which is obviously false on its face. 4. Avoiding over reliance on the "someone spent money to publish it" heuristic - since there is a huge volume of complete nonsense in the dead tree press as well, much of it stated as if it were non-controversial fact. Stirling Newberry 18:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I too would like to see a guideline which would help an editor determine which works are more reliable. I would envision a Scale of Reliability. I believe the bottom most factor would be "good use of language" (with the possibility that a mistake is possible) and the second, "attributability". "Someone spent money to publish it" does have some applicability to reliable but there are other qualities, too. Terryeo 23:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeezus. This is just common sense. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone posts something on their blog, no one oversees it, no one checks it, they can write anything they like. If someone is published by a big publishing co., they are at least edited by a team of several professionals. The stuff about Bach is a total red herring, unless you are going to have a bicker about what music was or was not in a particular work. Grace Note 06:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't entirely correct. Material on web sites goes through varying degrees of approval, with corporate and campaign web sites - which are self-published material - often having layers of approval. Also material that is on major blogs, particularly those connected with established outlets - is often reviewed by other bloggers and other experts. This gives it a notability that is higher than what posted on use groups. Weblogs vary from self-published and unreviewed - through carefully run through an editorial process. The blanket "dead tree good/electronic bad" isn't really supportable, particularly given how much of wikipedia is compiled by googling. In a sense, claims on web sites are easier for other editors to check, because the assertions are freely available, where as many published papers are on pay basis and could not be checked without spending money on lexis/nexis, MUSE or other service - sometimes $15 US per article.

The point about Bach is not a red herring, original sources often do not met the blanket ban which is in these guidelines. The guidelines as presented 1. Don't represent consensus 2. Don't represent reality. I realize that there is a vast pool of disinformation that editors often see being pushed for inclusion, including usenet - and that any policy guideline would have to continue to keep out the huge pool of trash. However, there are babies being thrown out with the bath water here, and a better written policy should be capable of admitting reliable sources that just happen to be electronically published or self-published. Stirling Newberry 21:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I said blog. If you're going to cavil with me pointlessly, at least read what I wrote. "material that is on major blogs" is not reviewed by other bloggers and other experts. That's bullshit. I can't think of any "major blogs" that have any level of editorial oversight. Name one.

Hotline. When I ran the truth out blog everything went through the editorial board. ALL federal campaign weblogs are vetted by the communication director. The American Prospect blog posts go through editors. Blogs attached to news media are often checked at least as well as say Associated Press articles - which are routinely cited without a quibble. You clearly have never worked in blogging, so I will cut you some slack. I have, and I can tell you that the editorial control ranges from less than zero, to worries about credibility - which is a kind of control of reliability - to editorial vetting. Stirling Newberry 00:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hotline? What is that? Your "major" and mine seem to differ a bit. Truth Out would be a special case; I'll grant you that political blogs are sometimes given minimal oversight, although of course that makes them only as authoritative as whoever is on the editorial board, which in many cases is no one particularly special. Federal campaign weblogs are not major blogs. News media blogs are not checked as well as articles: you've clearly never worked for a newspaper. They are looked over by a website editor if you're lucky. In all three cases, these would only be sources for the opinions of the blogger, which the policy allows. They would not be good sources for anything else. Where I will agree with you though is that our emphasis on newspaper articles is way too strong. This is for two reasons, I think: some editors' belief that newspapers are good sources because they work or have worked for newspapers and not paying enough heed to the truth that while big newspapers generally check facts carefully, small ones mostly don't. An article in the NYT will have had rather more scrutiny than one in the Brisbane Courier-Mail (and yes, AP articles can often get without anyone's really looking at them carefully). I also agree with you that the webophobia that drives this policy is rather misplaced. The problem is that whereas Nutter website is probably a good source for the views of Nutter, or some arcane area in which Nutter is a player, or something similar, it is not a good source for the population of China or the mass of a proton. But people take being allowed as a source as an absolute: if it's allowed for x, it's allowed for y, z and everything else.Grace Note 01:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hotline is a blog run by the Washington Post. This is what I am getting at - you don't seem to know much about the catagory of sources that you are broad based attacking. Stirling Newberry 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The point about Bach is a red herring because Bach is not a source about Bach. You missed the point entirely. Don't worry though. You seem to be enjoying yourself fine without worrying about what the point was, so don't let being way off stop you. Grace Note 00:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please cease the personal attacks. Stirling Newberry 00:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What personal attack? As usual, when someone talks shit, and you say "that was shit", they make out that it's some monstrous insult to have it pointed out they talked shit. It's not a personal attack to have what you've said contested. If you really think it is, you need some to acquire thicker skin or talk less shit. Grace Note 01:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And to answer the objection you are raising, I will answer with an example. Some time ago there was an edit war over "sonata". One editor threw in that classical sonatas had four movements. I pulled out my Haydn edition and listed the number of movements of the works labelled sonata. Original manuscripts are relevant here, because many works labelled "sonata" in later editions were not labelled "sonata" by Haydn. In the dispute later (editted by others after Haydn's death without his approval) would count, where as Haydn's self published versions of his own works would not count. The current blanket prohibition is, I repeat, absurd, simply because it is aimed at current garbage web sites, and blots out content which is accurate because it is the source about which we are writing entries. There is a large difference between a rant on someone's live journal, and a quote.

Need a current example? Senator Inoyue gave an interview where he withdrew his support for Joe Lieberman. Where was it published? On a blog. Who confirmed it with a follow up call to the comm director of the Senator's washington office? A blogger. The current prohibition against electronic sources is simply not in line with current practice, nor is the blanket condemnation of self-published sources in line with the practice during many periods of time which we deal with. This doesn't change the fact that 99.9999% of self published material on the web is of dubious notability and reliability - but there are some very large exceptions which should be codified. Stirling Newberry 01:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Haydn example is a good one because it clearly shows that you are wrong. Haydn wrote as many sonatas as others say he wrote because his view of what is, what is not a sonata does not necessarily win the day. Haydn's original ms is only a source for saying that he thought he wrote x sonatas, not for saying that he actually did write x. Can you see that? Grace Note 01:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Haydn personally paid for the publication of the actual pieces of paper that Stirling Newberry consulted when he looked into the meaning of sonata, because if not, it wasn't really self-published. --Gerry Ashton 01:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right, it is just common sense. Unfortunately not every editor completely gets it. Newsgroups (a step down or up, I'm not sure which) are frequently archived and cited. It is just common sense, but editors do it and then claim that WP:V doesn't apply for some convoluted reason. Terryeo 09:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

From my experience the most common justification for including an unreliable source under WP:V is to "Verify that the claim is made". This seems to be a favorite of those citing internet postings of unsubstantiated conspiracy claims. Thankfully, the rules and guidelines make it clear that this appoach is not a valid justification. Blueboar 13:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite. I think that in general the editors who want looser sourcing rules want it because they want to include more bollocks, and, even though the printed world has plenty of bollocks, for tons of plain nonsense, you really need to mine the web. Don't get me wrong. I like articles about nonsense (more than most, I think) but there's a real problem when we allow the nonsense to be our source for stuff that is not bollocks or when we include the nonsense in articles that are about something more substantial and then say "yeahbut this utter bollocks was cited in some newsgroup so I have a source".Grace Note 00:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I want it so that we don't have to delete every article on webcomics and half of the ones on popular culture... Phil Sandifer 03:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Stirling Newberry has an excellent point: a blanket ban on electronic sources that lack corporate funding is simply too blunt an instrument to serve Wikipedia's purposes, and I suspect this will become increasingly evident as more information is transmitted and archived on the internet. If you want to deal with this seriously, the guidelines need to be more nuanced and flexible. You could try to author ornate legalistic policies that attempt to anticipate the breadth of source-related questions that will come up in the vast range of subjects that wikipedia addresses. I think it would be preferable for the policies and guidelines to focus on clarifying a few principals about the sort of articles we want--and allow the editors to interpret those principals in light of the particular subjects about which they are writing. BTfromLA 01:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

He would have an excellent point if a/ that was his point and b/ there was such a ban. We do not want guidelines that are too "nuanced" for the reason I just gave: the nuances become loopholes for bollocks-peddlers to squeeze through, and serious editors find themselves bogged down in disputes that common sense should be able to cut through but they are stuck in an "it's the policy" quagmire.Grace Note 02:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Grace is right. We want surprisingly simple, blunt nuances such as "the threshold of inclusion is verifiability". We want phases which will communiate with editors who have learned English as a second language. We don't want subtle, we want blunt, undeniable phrases. If phrases grasp attention, if they are easy to remember, that's even better. Terryeo 02:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. What we want is a general statement of principles, and a bunch of smart editors who can figure out who a bollocks-peddler is and shoot them. Phil Sandifer 03:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Minus the shooting, I agree with Phil Sandifer. If the guidelines are a principals rather than rules, "it's the policy" won't prevail. Ultimately, there is no method to guard against specific examples of irresponsible editing except the vigilence of other editors (augmented by the dispute resolution process if concensus fails to persuade to ne'er-do-wells). BTfromLA 03:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason I do not agree is because experience has shown that some editors will take an "it is a principal, not a rule set in stone" and run with it, citing newgroups messages as secondary sources. Were every editor able to understand and apply the policies, there would be no need for these sorts of guidelines. Every editor does not and we can not expect them too. We require some bottom line rules which can be quoted to those well meaning editors who do not fully understand how to implement Wikipedia Policy. Terryeo 08:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You're just saying that because you're a bollocks-peddler. Phil Sandifer 13:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sonata examples

• All of Mozart's piano sonatas are in three movements. I expect Wikipedia to be not wishy-washy about that, and do away with the myth that all sonatas are in four movements. Based on whatever sources, but the list of Mozart sonatas would work as good as any other type of source to demonstrate that.
• Schubert had this thing that he created some ambiguity about calling some of his multi-movement piano works "sonata", and others, without much of a formal distinction "Fantaisie" ("fantasy"). I expect Wikipedia not to be wishy-washy about that, and signal both Schubert's original designation, and the later interpretation in music history. E.g. the Wanderer Fantasy kept its name as fantasy following Schubert, while the Fantaisie D.894, has been named and numbered as a sonata, from the first time people started numbering Schubert's piano sonatas. All this is neatly explained at List of compositions by Franz Schubert#Piano solo. The sources for this are as well Schubert's music (this goes without saying), as the later editions of this music.
• Domenico Scarlatti's famous series of sonatas are mostly in one movement, and were grouped under the name essercizi ("exercises") by the composer. History decided otherwise, and called them all sonata (including all the one-movement ones). Again, I'd like Wikipedia not to be wishy-washy about this, and mention both Scarlatti's original designations (based on his own descriptions - manuscript or not - and editions), and the "reception history" that changed the common practice regarding the naming. --Francis Schonken 08:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Bach examples

Again here I'd rather take for instance the Musical Offering as an example than the Art of the Fugue. In the Musical Offering Bach wrote "Ascendenteque Modulationis ascendat Gloria Regis". I expect Wikipedia to translate that ("may the king's glory rise like the ascending modulation"), and then also explain that this is a musical riddle, for which musicians have found diverse solutions. For what Bach wrote himself (the riddle), of course Bach's own publication is the ultimate source (and yes, he paid for this publication himself, it is a "self-publication" from whatever angle one looks at it - he didn't submit his riddles for "peer review" or whatever prior to publication); for the (possible) solutions of the riddle: Bach didn't provide any afaik, all solutions exclusively come from secondary sources. This clearly demonstrates that, in this case, both have their function: the self-published source can't be done away with (I want to be able to check always what *exactly* Bach wrote, and whether that wasn't deformed in secondary sources, by translation or otherwise - if facsimiles of Bach's original publication exist I don't want these to be "re-doctored" or transformed in any way as the result of a "peer review" or whatever, I want to see *exactly* what Bach self-published); AND I want to learn about the enigmatic nature of Bach's words, and the possible solutions of that enigma, for which *exclusively* secondary sources exist. --Francis Schonken 08:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fan sites

Could the guideline state whether fan sites could be used as sources in articles or not? CG 13:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "fan sites" (perhaps you could give an example?) ... they may already be covered under "Self published sources" such as personal websites, blogs newsgroups postings, etc. Blueboar 13:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Popular_culture_and_fiction is rather vague about this. However, I guess my personal opinion would be that it would depend on the fan site, and what you were using it for. For opinions (not facts), you could probably use any of them with attribution. For hard facts, the primary source (the media) would probably be just fine, but WP:OR#Primary_and_secondary_sources places restrictions on the use of primary sources. So for any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, you would need to find a secondary source. Beyond the primary source (the media), you would probably have to choose from official sites / publications (the producers or broadcasters or whoever) and fan sites / critical reviews. The official sites are fairly reliable, but may offer limitted information (like leaving out the ending with teasers), and are even more biased than the fan sites because they are trying to sell you the material. Fan sites may be of varying quality - they are less reliable than the official sites, but may offer more material and be slightly less biased. You should look for fan sites run by more fans rather than fewer (or worst yet, just one). Avoid fan sites, or areas of fan sites, that let just anyone add information without going through the editing process (although polls are okay, if you attribute them properly). Having good relations with the producers/recorders/actors/singers/whoever is also a plus (e.g. if they get their own interviews). In short, fan sites are not the most reliable references, but since there really isn't that great a selection of references for media topics, you should try to evaluate them relatively. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 03:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed addition

==Convenience Links==

"Convenience links" are links used in citations that point to a web page hosting a transcription or copy of the document or statement being cited (often used when the original is not available on the web). To ensure that the copies being linked are accurate to the original, a convenience link must be hosted on a website that is considered a reliable source in its own right.

• Discussion:

We have gone round and round on this issue for a while in other discussions... I thought I would post a suggested wording and see what the current concensus is. My feeling is that this is needed. I have seen far too many cases when the copy that is being linked is NOT actually a true copy of the original. Sometimes the webpage owner will only post part of the original document (omitting sections that do not support his or her personal POV); Sometimes the webpage owner adds commentary that distorts the meaning of the original; And in the most agreegious examples, sometimes the copy has actually been altered, with key words or phrases added or removed so that it says something completely different than what the original said. In short, there are far too many unreliable copies of documents out there. This is especially true on websites dealing with controviercial issues, such as those dealing with religious or political topics, where people have strong opinions.

As an encyclopedia, we have a duty to present accurate information to our readers. The only way to be absolutely sure that a transcription or copy is accurate is to check it against the original. This is not always easy. It would be nice if every editor took the time to do this prior to posting a "convinience link" ... unfortunately, this is rarely the case. What ever the reason, and it ranges from laziness to outright POV pushing, too many editors simply find what they want to cite by searching on the web ... and post it without bothering to check rhe copy against the original.

By requiring that a transcription or copy be hosted on a site that is considered reliable, we can at least make the assumption that it is accurate. More to the point, we can not make that assumption with a link to an unreliable source. Blueboar 18:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Support ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Support Such sources lessen our reliability. This manifests most where personal webistes are responsive to the POV of Wikipedia editors. Soon there will be many unreliable, even unattributable websites "archiving" newsgroup messages which will be cited as secondary sources. The web is responsive to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is responsive to the web. Terryeo 12:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose in most cases this seems excessively skeptical. Andries 19:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

We should be skeptical if we care about our readers ability to trust the material in our articles. Not supporting this addtion, with whatever caveats we may want to add, is irresponsible. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should be skeptical, but I continue to hold the opinion that in most cases this is excessively skeptical. It takes a lot of time and effort for the average webmaster to selectively distort a media article from a reputable source. Andries 20:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not the only issue, as discussed in the threads above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I may miss something, but what are the other issues? Andries 21:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Other problems include:

1. The addition of POV commentary before or after the purported source
2. Selective citing
3. Citing out of context
4. By linking to such site, we are implicitly saying to our readers "That is a reliable website", when we cannot be certain of that

All those are exploits that we should frown upon. Wikipedia is on the internet, but it attempts to be a collection of reliable and verifiable material, not an indiscriminate collection of links to non-reliable sites such as personal websites, blogs, USENET, User groups, and discussion forums. That only detracts from our project, and it is not helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

ad 1. so what if this is clearly distinguished then I see no problem

ad 2. If this is a copy or even a long quote then this seems unlikely. And even checking the original source will not rule out out-of-context citations

ad 3. same as 2

ad 4. No, we are only using it as a reference for a statement.

Andries 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC) amended 21:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

re: 1. From my experience, all too frequently the addition of POV commentary is NOT clearly distiguishable from the original texts.

That specific problem would be an appropriate thing to warn against in the guidelines. A confusing convenience link is not convenient. BTfromLA 01:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

re: 2. In this case, we are really talking about sites that selectively copy a short paragraph, disregarding the surounding paragraphs that put the statement being selectively copied into context. This can completely change the meaning of the original author intended. For example, where the original author comments upon something a third person says, some web sites will quote it as a statement of the original author and not the third party.

Again, if something is being misrepresented, it doesn't belong. But fair use quotations of less than a complete document shouldn't be ruled out--we do that every time we quote anything directly. Seems like the sort of decisions editors need to make on a case-by-case basis. BTfromLA 01:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

re: 3: Even when the convenience link contains lenghty quotations there are times when to gain a proper understanding of the meaning in the original, one must read several paragraphs to understand the context of what is being said (for some scholars of the 18th and 19th centuries, when writing styles were more ornate, one might have to read for a few pages before getting to the point). By citing to the original, or to a reliable copy a reader has a chance to see the citation in context. If you cite to an unreliable copy (hosted on an unreliable site), one can not.

So you'd ban all convenience links to book sources that don't reproduce the entire book? BTfromLA 01:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

re: 4. I disagree... we are referencing the original statement or document, and providing a link to what is supposed to be an accurate copy. Our readers rely on us to reference to accurate information. If the copy is inaccurate, we are either not doing our job as editors, or we are participating in a fraud. The only way to be relatively sure that the copy is accurate is to link to a reliable source. Blueboar 22:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It really seems you want to do away with outside links altogether. As a reader, I find them very valuable, and to my knowledge I have never run into a seriously distorted representation of the source (e.g., the sort of edits and alteraions you are talking about), though I have seen a few where the cited material is a quote embedded in an essay in a fashion that makes it a bit hard to find. I don't think I've seen any--certainly not many--where the distinction between source material and webmaker's commentary was unclear, either. I would agree that should be guarded against. But tossing out the vast majority of links to referenced material seems way too proscriptive: a classic "baby with the bath water" situation. BTfromLA 01:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As an aside... Would this proposed addition be more acceptable if it were specificly directed to articles on controvercial subjects? Blueboar 22:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not more acceptible to me. But it might be, if it was directed to a specific group of articles where this seems to be a major problem. Freemasonry, apparently. Are there any others? BTfromLA 01:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

From my recent experience:

• Pseudoscience
• Objectivism
• Israel-related topics
• Islam-related topics
• Scientology
• Mathematics: issues related to the Clay Institute's millenium prizes (Poincaré conjecture,...)
• Biographies of people from Antiquity (e.g. Pontius Pilate's wife, several of the Juliae Caesares,...)
• Western classical music (see above on this page: "Sonata form", Bach's self-publications)
• ...and ...and ...

No, IMHO, the distinction in this context between "articles on controversial subjects" and other articles is untenable. Careful assessment of sources, and what they are used for, on a case-by-case basis (for which WP:RS should provide better help than it does currently) is the way forward, and not hacksaw kind of approaches which are often inspired by people taking stances in one or more of the discussion areas mentioned above. --Francis Schonken 11:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Francis. I agree with your analysis of the situation. Please clarify, though: are the areas you mentioned simply sites of dispute about sources, or are they places where forged or significantly distorted versions of source materials have actually been linked to articles? BTfromLA 12:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of them disputes about sources. Come to think of it I can't recall any website I've run across that pretended to quote, and then gave a significantly distorted quote. Summaries (or translations) may be a bit more troublesome, but over-all (and I do quite some fact-checking in this sense) no reason to proclaim a general "ban" on websites that say they are quoting other sources (usually that's rather a sign of quality). --Francis Schonken 16:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I fully agree. Serious or highly selective out-of-context quoting is exceptional. I have never encountered it. But if there is good reason for suspicion (which seems to be the case for some websites related to Freemasonry and Scientology) then this may become mandatory for those subjects, but only for these subject. Not allowing copies of reputable sources to improve articles will be a serious impediment to improving articles. Andries 17:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. My rationale is spelled out at some length earlier on this page, in the discussion thread "TheronJ summary and $0.02 on unrecorded radio talk show." BTfromLA 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - this page needs to be opened up, not closed further. Phil Sandifer 01:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Care to present your arguments? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've argued against the excessive restrictions this page sets up for months. Phil Sandifer 01:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you summarize them? This is not a poll, but a discussion. I would like to understand your concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Too many articles, including many featured articles, by nature of their topic rely on sources that do not meet this standard of reliability. Articles like Spoo, for example, depend almost entirely on Usenet sources quoted on personal websites. We need to get more intelligent and flexible in our evaluation of sources - not less. Phil Sandifer 02:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That article deserves a {{cleanup}} tag. ≈ jossi ≈ t •@ 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? It's a featured article. Phil Sandifer 04:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The problem here is that people are spinning "reliable source" as an all-or-nothing concept: either it is a source reliable enough for everything or it is a source not reliable enough for anything. This just leads to absurd and ultimately damaging inconsistency. An example: A politician from a particular party may be a reliable source when he's talking about his own party's platform, and unreliable when he's talking about what proportion of the country supports his party's platform. We have no difficulty at all recognizing that the "reliability" of this source is not an objective and fixed property of the source, but dependent on what we are relying on them for.

And yet here we have a proposal which would utterly blur a distinction far greater than that we just examined. Who are the people that you would trust to give you a knowledgeable and dispassionate overview of the stem-cell debate? Who are the people that you would trust to simply retype a newspaper article on the stem-cell debate without making changes to the text? Are we really proposing to enact a policy which would treat these groups as identical -- anyone not a "reliable source" for the harder task not a "reliable source" for the other?

And this is in addition to the absurdity that I pointed out elsewhere on this page, which is inherent in this proposal: namely, we will let a person we do not know except by IP address add material to an article and say "sure, this information I'm adding is well-supported! Trust me when I say it is supported by this particular text which I am giving a citation to." Anyone who wants to remove that information has to show some reason to question it. Yet some people are actually proposing -- in seriousness -- that if the person says, "In addition to the citation, here is the complete text which I am asserting supports the material being added," any editor can simply say "Nope, sorry, even though I have absolutely no indication that any such thing has happened, you might have accidentally misplaced a comma which in turn changed the entire meaning of the text, so even though we have exactly the same ability to check the accuracy of your citation, it's being removed. Sorry, we simply can't trust you to the same degree that we would trust someone who just says 'Yeah, it's in there, go and look it up for yourself.'" -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. Either a website is responsible or it is irresponsible and it is up to a concensus of editors to judge the site. If a website is irresponsible then none of it should be used as a secondary source. Quite right. However the reasoning which would disinclude an obviously responsible website for a misplaced comma is misleading because it implies such a website could be disincluded by any editor. That is not the situation. This is particularly vexing in the Scientology articles and I'll give you an example. Dave Touretzky and our own Chris Owen (on a personal website) are cited in this article to this personal website which talks about "three principles of study" whereas the primary source states a single principle of study. These sorts of slight misrepresentations creep constantly into the Scientology articles via unreliable personal websites, including personal websites which are contributed to by wikipedia administrators. If we simply disinclude such unreliable sites (especially personal and obviously partisan sites) we will have a better Encyclopedia. Terryeo 12:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this discussion a bit disengenous or at best naïve. The potential for abuse is too wide and obvious, and failing to accept that fact will only result in an Encyclopedia that is unreliable. If at all, WP:RS needs to be more tight, rather than not, in particular on articles which discuss controversial issues. If that is not possible as it may cast to wide a restriction, we will have to relay on editors' good judgement about specific cases and pursue dispute resolution when consensus is not achievable by involved editors. A royal waste of time, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Then I expect you will soon be making a proposal to ban all edits by anonymous users? As already noted, there is far more opportunity for error and malfeasance in letting editors say "If you looked up this text, you'd find that it matches the material I derived from it" than in letting them say "If you looked up this text, you'd find that my transcription does not change the text." The potential for abuse in putting any trust at all in editors that aren't extensively screened is too wide and obvious -- and yet it's been an operating principle of Wikipedia since the beginning, and probably why Wikipedia succeeded where Nupedia failed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - I think a local consensus of well-meaning editors can evaluate sources more accurately than a global consensus across all topics and disciplines could ever hope to. Phil Sandifer 15:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Jossi's position would extend not only to banning anonymous editors, but to ending the project as a Wiki. The sort of guaranteed reliability Jossi says we should offer doesn't ever fully exist, but it is best approximated by strict vetting of everything that is introduced into the encyclopedia. A staff of expert writers, closely supervised by a group of highly skilled editors, backed up by a large staff of competent fact checkers and proofreaders would seem to be the best approach. Better that it be in a fixed form, too, like print. But, obviously, this does not describe the Wikipedia project. While Jossi is accusing other editors here of being "disingenous," "irresponsible," and "naive," I would submit that if there is a naive viewpoint being expressed here, it is Jossi's unwillingness to accept that there is a measure of unreliablity built into the very premise of this project. BTfromLA 22:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I see nothing to be gained by this proposal that could also produce a worsening elsewhere.--Fahrenheit451 15:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines can never fully replace good judgment and common sense in assessing sources. Andries 15:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose to treating this issue in a poll/vote-like format - I agree with Andries and many others commenting above, that the proposal is a step in the wrong direction. --Francis Schonken 16:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose As long as at least on editor checked the original source, I don't think it matters if the hosting website is a reliable source. (Because, in that case, the convenience link is not a source, just a convenience link.) However, if no editor checked the original source, then I while I agree that if the non-original version is not hosted on a reliable website it should not be considered to meet WP:RS, I think this should be called an "indirect source" or an "intermediate source", not a "convenience link", in order to distinguish between situations where the original source was checked, and situations where the original source was not checked. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you forgetting WP:V? This is just a guideline provided to give some common sense direction. But WP:V can be used to enforce the need to have a source that is verifiable. So, If an editor sees a source hosted in a non-reliable website, such as a partisan website attempted to be used as a secondary source, the editor will be in his/her right to challenge it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A convenience link is not the source. The host of the convenience link is not the publisher being cited. The standards of WP:V are met (or not), regardless of whether a link is present. BTfromLA 17:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course I'm not forgetting WP:V. I am trying to emphasize a distiction. For example, how's this? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but if the dubious website hosting the purported source, is the only place in which that material is available, then WP:V fails, as readers will not be able to ascertain if the purported source is verifiable or not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case, you can argue that the citation fails to meet WP:V. That's the rule now--it doesn't require a sweeping ban on convenience links. BTfromLA 18:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fairly reasonable, but it's also not the only case this proposed addition to policy covers. For instance, it would be ludicrous to say that the only place an article from the July 17, 1989 New York Times is available is on a personal website, or that it cannot be ascertained whether a citation to a named article in that Times issue is verifiable or not. It's hardly common sense to demand that such a citation must be removed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus is exactly right--I hope my comment did not suggest otherwise. Just to be clear: if the only place where source appears is on an unreliable online site, that probably fails to meet WP:V. But if it is simply the only online transcription of a document from a reliable source that would be accessible through library archives, say, then there is no problem with WP:V. BTfromLA 22:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per many of the reasons above, but mainly because it's just wiki-lawyering. I appreciate we all want these things written down somewhere after we've argued about it for the fiftieth time, but at some point we've got to remember that we're writing an encyclopedia, not a set of rules to write an encyclopedia by. You know, part of me would support a policy which saw all policies reverted to their first instance on an annual basis, like a spring clean. The basic premise of Wikipedia is that information can't be biased and it can't be original research. Verifiability is the tool to achieve that, not the goal in and of itself. The golden thread is that if you can't get a consensus that the information is of value, it doesn't belong. Let's not lose that under a blanket of rules. Hiding Talk 19:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is fairly obvious that the consensus is against this idea... so let me bring up my next question: How does one deal with so called convenience links that point to unreliable copies ... (ie links to sites that claim to be presenting a true copy of an original but that, when checked against the original, are not true copies)? And who's responcibility is it to ensure that the copy is accurate to the original? Blueboar 21:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If the original has been checked and it's significantly different from the copy (i.e., more than a reasonable number of typos, or a mistake which changes the meaning) then obviously it's not a good convenience link. As for whose responsibility it is to ensure that a copy is accurate to the original... I'd say the same as to whose responsibility it is to make sure grammar and spelling are correct, which is to say that we always like it when it can be the original editor, but we don't discourage the exact sort of cooperation and collaboration that Wikipedia is built on by decreeing that it can be no one but that editor. I have a related question, though: how can we mark a copy that has been checked against the original, so that we don't have large amounts of editor time being wasted re-checking such things, or even worse, hasty removals based on jumped-to conclusions. That's not a theoretical objection: I have in fact had the experience of seeing a quote in an article that looked as if it was typo'ed, getting the original book it was cited from, checking the citation, correcting the typos in the quote -- and then watching that entire paragraph be removed by an editor who claimed to believe that, since there was a website he considered unreliable which happened to reprint that chapter of the book, obviously no one had checked the original. Note that he didn't ask whether the copy had been checked; he simply assumed that it had not been and that therefore he had the right to remove the material in question. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It all boils down to compliance with WP:V. It it is not verifiable, it is not verifiable, period. If the source is a respected publication, there must be more than one location online, so you can bypass a partisan website with an agenda to advocate a specific POV. If the source is not easily available, that is a different story and needs to be studied in a case by case basis, although in most circumstances, it will certainly fail WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jossi wrote: "If the source is a respected publication, there must be more than one location online..." Huh? This is far from true, and in many case where documents are reproduced several places online, all are hosted on "fan," or "partisan" or "special-interest" web sites that might not meet the same test of reliabilty that the original publication did. Most respected publications do not archive their entire contents online, some respected publications are now defunct and have no online presence, libraries do not usually archive such things online, most books are not reprinted online, etc. BTfromLA 22:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

When you say convenience link, are you referring to something like [10]? Personally I think archive.org is okay in general for linking to say a page that may have mysteriously disappeared but originally provided a credible source for information. Unless there is some evidence you can tamper with that kind of archive?--Crossmr 22:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, this discussion is about links to sites that show the contents of all or part of a cited reference from a reliable source. Say, for example, the cited source is a 1957 article from The Princeton Journal of Throat-Clearing, a peer-reviewed academic publication which is no longer in print. However, somebody has scanned or transcribed the article to their webpage about throat clearing, uvulanews.com. A link to that transcription is a "convenience link": a convenient way for web-surfing readers to find out more about the subject. The consensus here seems to be that the hosts of such links need not be subject to the identical "reliable source" guidelines that allows us to accept the article from the academic journal as a secondary source. BTfromLA 22:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You fail to see the problems related to partisan sites that add commentary (pro or con) after or before the copied material, or that are of dubious intentions. I have seen editors copying these scans to geocities, Blogger or other free homepage sites, in order to bypass partisan sites with an ax to grind. The result: convenience links that are completely impossible to verify. I would argue that in those cases, a convenience link is not any longer convenient, rather a liability as it pertains to the reliability of our articles. So the issue boils down to specific cases, mostly related to controversial topics, and the obvious exploit of some users adding links to their websites with the purpose of trying to garner reputation by getting linked from Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean impossible to verify? As long as the scan mentions the original publication date of the source then it can be verified. I do not see a problem with users trying to "exploit" Wikipedia when linking references to their websites if this means adding undistorted convenience links. I see this as mutually beneficial. Andries 04:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Has any of this suspected alteration of documents actually happened, or is this a case of WP:BEANS? Phil Sandifer 23:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes... I have seen it happen in two article groups so far... in Freemasonry related articles and in the September 11 article group. In the first case, the altered documents are hosted on anti-Masonic religious websites with an axe to grind (usually desinged to somehow prove that Masons are evil and worship satan or some such). In the later, it was to "prove" a particular conspiracy theory... that the US government knew about 9/11 before hand and allowed it to happen to further its global agenda. Blueboar 13:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not only about "alteration", Phil. But as said above, its is also about appropriateness of linking to sites with an ax to grind, in which the "source" is either cited out of context, selectively cited, or accompanied of POV commentary. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Then it violates the WP:NPOV policy. When a source is cited and it doesn't back up what the text that cites it claims it has failed the WP:V chain, the cite should be removed, at which point the information becomes either [[[WP:OR]] or WP:NPOV and should be removed. Hiding Talk 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, of course. I've seen examples of propagandistic sources modifying sources, and have wanted to use sources but been unable because they were hosted on inherently unreliable sites. For example, when I was helping write the Rudolf Vrba article, I would very much like to have used David Irving's website on him (http:-//www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/controversies/liars/Vrba/), but couldn't because Irving is untrustworthy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It has also happened, as far as I know in relation to documents about Freemasonry. And given the prominence our project is garnering, it is only a matter of time before we find more. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

David Irving is an extreme example. We should not build a paralyzing paranoia into our system. Andries 03:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Irving is actually much less extreme, and far more scholarly, than most of the propaganda sites out there. I fail to see what this has to do with "paralyzing paranoia". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A different proposed addition

Sometimes, links are used in citations that point to a web page hosting a transcription or copy of the document or statement being cited (often used when the original is not available on the web, or requires a subscription). These links fall into two categories:

1. Indirect sources (a.k.a. intermediate sources) - In this case, no editor has checked the original source. In this case, the hosting website should be listed as the publisher, with a note as to who the original publisher is. To ensure that the copies being linked are accurate to the original, an indirect source must be hosted on a website that is considered a reliable source in its own right.
2. Convenience links - In this case, at least one editor has checked the original source, and the transcription or copy is not a source. So long as the original source, which has been checked, satisfies WP:RS, the reliability of the convenience link is irrelevant. (However, if there are multiple freely-available convenience links to choose from, the most reliable one should be chosen.)

The citation should make it clear whether or not the link is an indirect source, or a convenience link. (Also see WP:CITE#Intermediate_sources:_State_where_you_got_it.)

Example citing an indirect source. Note that Xenu.net is not considered to meet WP:RS on this issue, since it is a partisan website. Therefore, this citation would not be considered to meet WP:RS

• Rawitch, Robert (1978-08-28). "Scientology Critics Assail Aggressiveness of Church". Xenu.net. Originally published by the Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2006-08-28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Example of a citation including a convenience link.

• Robert Rawitch, Robert Gillette (1978-08-28). "Scientology Critics Assail Aggressiveness of Church". Los Angeles Times. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link) Also see an unofficial online reproduction of this article.

Example of a citation including both a link to a non-free official online archive (which does meet WP:RS), and a convenience link.

• Robert Rawitch, Robert Gillette (1978-08-28). "Scientology Critics Assail Aggressiveness of Church". Los Angeles Times. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link) See official online archive (non-free), and unofficial online reproduction (free).

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good try, but this does not address many of the concerns expressed in the previous discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how the fact that an unreliable website copied something from the Los Angeles Times makes the Los Angeles Times itself any less reliable. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 04:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not the issue. What I am arguiing about is:

1. The addition of POV commentary before or after the purported source
2. Selective citing
3. Citing out of context
4. promotion of non-reliable source
5. linkspam to non reputable websites

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how those issues matter if the website is not being used as a source. If an editor who did in fact look at (for example) the Los Angeles Times verifies the material, and other editors understand that they should not make modifications without checked the Los Angeles Times or another reliable source, then the material has been verified by a reliable source. There just happens to be an (unreliable) online link that anyone who can see Wikipedia can look at. (At least until offline Wikipedia comes out.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 04:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well what about transcriptions that do not add anything to the quoted section at all? Would you still look with suspicion on these sorts of things even though they are on sites that are otherwise unreliable? And what about sites whose reliability is unknown ? Are they guilty until proven innocent? Or innocent until proven guilty? Wjhonson 04:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am just arguing that some contributors are exploiting this loophole, to promote what otherwise will be unacceptable websites to link to, and pushing certain POVs in controversial articles by linking to partisan websites. Links to these sites will as per policy, be not be acceptable, but suddenly it is acceptable if that site is used as a "convenience link". That is only convenient to POV pushers. For example, an anti-Semitic website can host a copy of a certain document or a excerpt from a newspaper article. Would we allow linking to that site on the Judaism article as a "convenience link"? Absolutely not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I don't agree that your hypothetical example about linking to an anti-semitic site on a Judiasm article is as open-and-shut as you seem to think it is. The Judiasm article might, quite reasonably, have a section on the historical persecution of Jews, including the status of anti-semitic movements today. A white supremitist or anti-semitic website might turn out to be a relevant host of a convenience link in that context (and it might be a relevant primary source for the article, too). On the other hand, it would obviously be an inappropropriate, bias-loaded, choice to use a KKK page that quotes from the book of Genesis as the convenience link to a Torah passage. (The bias in question is one that I, and most of us here, I assume, find particularly ugly. But I'm not sure how much bearing that has on our editing.) As usual, it requires a context-specific judgement call. As to exploiting loopholes, please consider that editors can--and do, regularly--exploit rules in order to advance a bias or to disrupt the editorial process in articles where their advocacy has been rejected by editorial concensus--in the vernacular, "Wikilawyering." This is a consistent problem at Wikpedia; I've seen it happening extensively in the scientology articles, for example. By contrast, the use of false or misleading links seems to be rare. BTfromLA 15:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

BT, it may be rare, but it does happen (and from my experience, more often than you seem to think) ... so what are editors to do when such false or misleading "convenience links" are used? Blueboar 19:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can show sound reason for believing the links are false or misleading, I would present your reasoning on the talk page. You, or other editors, might want to search for a faithful version of the source to replace the bad links. In most cases, you should be able to remove them immediately, though the editorial climate at a given article may require some consensus first: if you are editing under an anonymous IP, or if you have been sanctioned for inappropriate editing, I'd hold off on deleting; if you have established credibility within the community that edits there, chop them right out. If you have good reason to believe that a link is inaccurate, all good faith editors should agree to remove it--nobody is going to go on record that falsified documents, or ones that are edited in a fashion that grossly distorts their meaning, should be offered, even off-site. If they don't agree, we've got the dispute resolution procedures, and I would presume that in most cases a request for comments by disinterested editors will quickly produce a consensus in your favor if the documents appear dubious. There are arguments to be had about just what it means for a link to be tainted, of course--some would argue that any addition, even the name of a website or a "home" button that wasn't part of the original, is going too far. I don't think that view is likely to prevail. But I am confident that if editors are convinced that there is good reason to believe the information is being significantly misrepresented, pretty much everyone would agree to giving that the heave-ho. And if an editor frequently traffics in such links and refuses to stop, I suspect that administrators, and--if it comes to it--an arbitration committee, would take action to stop them. BTfromLA 20:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

edit conflict with BT aboveUse their best judgement and build a consensus around that judgement if the issue becomes contentious. If something is presented in a manner which violates WP:NPOV, rewrite it so that it is in line with that policy. If someone cites the LA Times, they cite the LA Times, not the convenience link and that link should best be removed, we have people on Wikipedia with news library access who can verify what the LA Times said. Otherwise, we have to cite that the website records the LA Times as saying, and the website becomes the source and is quantified per WP:RS. To me it seems common sense. The source is always what we are pointing people to. Let's not forget a lot of convenience links are copyright violations anyway, and shouldn't be linked to. However, let's also appreciate this is a grey area and an argument that can't be settled by a blanket rule. It has to be settled by a consensus decision on the source and the information citing that source. Hiding Talk 20:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems sensible. Editors can and should raise concerns when the convenience links are dubious, when the convenience link contains a copyvio, or when the convenience linbk is used as a subterfuge to push the POV of the site hosting the copy of the source. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support with the qualification that the guideline should remind editors that Wikipedia won't link to off-WP material if it's a probable copyright violation. This seems like a fair compromise - if the editor adding the cite has seen the material in its verifiable and reliable form, then a non-RS "convenience link" isn't any worse than putting the link in the "See also" box. If the editor hasn't verified the original, then the posting site must itself be reliable. I think this guideline would be an improvement over the current ambiguity. TheronJ 13:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. However, while it's a good idea to mention it, WP:RS should not try to explain public domain and fair use laws, which are very complex, vary by country, and often probably depend on how good your lawyer is, and which judge you get. If you think the convenience link in the example I provided might a copyright violation, I can find another example, although I might have trouble finding one that has online links to one non-free official archive, and one free unofficial reproduction.

Ironically, some of the things Jossi is woried about (partial reproductions, additional commentary, just a summary) are things that might make the "convenience link" more likely to fall under fair use. Perhaps, since these things are less likely to be copyright violations, we should allow them as convenience links? But we are unlikely to agree on that, so we may as well just put such links in the "external links" section, not following a citation.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Tend to support except that I think that if a convenience link has issues, then we should explain overtly what those issues are. (And if we have good reason to think it is a copyvio then, no, we shouldn't be pointing to it.)

On Jossi's specific question of an anti-Semitic site (full disclosure, I'm a Jew): I think the question is the intellectual honesty of the site, not the opinions held by its proprietor. I may despise them, but, you know what? I'd rather be dealing with an out-in-the-open anti-Semite who means what he says and says what he means than with someone who twists people's words. Example: recently in the article Lăutari, I had occasion, after discussion on the talk page, to cite a work by Sir Richard Francis Burton, where the only available copy was on a white nationalist web site. I have every reason to believe that the transcription of the book is letter-perfect. Indeed, the owner of the site is clearly none too thrilled with the fact that Burton's anti-Semitism does not extend to some of his (the owner's) other views ("However Jew-wise Burton may have been, he had a strange bias favoring Islamic practitioners and Gypsies." Charming), but he equally clearly has the intellectual honesty to present Burton's book entire and let the reader form his or her own judgment. So here is how I cited it:

• Sir Richard F. Burton, "A review of M. Paul Bataillard's Reviews" in The Gypsy, collected in The Jew, the Gypsy and El Islam, Herbert S. Stone & Co. (Chicago and New York, 1898). Available on line, on the white nationalist web site JRBooksOnline.

- Jmabel | Talk 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a good idea. But it may sometimes be difficult to overtly explain what is wrong with a partisan website without being biased. (The example you used is good because the site self-identifies as white nationalist.) However, when in doubt, I would reccomend just saying "unofficial". Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Not workable, the "Indirect sources"/"Convenience links" distinction as proposed is already more complex than needed, and then (for instance) it doesn't cover:

• links to articles of the NYT (or other generally reliable newspapers/publications, including on-line Brittanica): whether or not the one who links to such website has actually read the paper version is irrelevant. The mistrust introduced by "having to check" whether the website of the NYT "has not lied" when it declares something has been published in their newspaper as it is on their website is inappropriate, to say the least. And it would be mischievous to remove the web-link and replace it by a non-linking reference description to the paper version, once a Wikipedian has read the paper version.
• links to "book" websites like Gutenberg, Google books, Perseus, etc; links to websites with music scores/sheet music of classical compositions (like Mutopia), etc.: for these websites also the fact whether or not the "original" source has been read is usually quite irrelevant: for Google books I don't think we need to go to a system that we would basically mistrust that "what-you-see" on the website (facsimile!) would not be "what-you-get" when actually purchasing the book (or going to a library to lend it); Similarly for respected websites like Gutenberg or Perseus: when they say that they offer an early 20th century translation of an ancient Roman author, there's no reason for mistrust that that would not be the specified translation of the specified author: the "original" books where these webversions are based upon would often be not that easy to obtain (which library/bookshop would still have pre-copyright versions of translations, where more recent editions are available?) - but I'm shocked that a mistrust towards these websites is now proposed to be built in to Wikipedia. For the music scores of classical music websites, most often it *would even not be indicated* which of the various paper editions of the music was used, so comparison with a *specific* publication of the music in question would even not be possible (and frankly said, usually irrelevant). Also here the "Indirect sources"/"Convenience links" distinction is completely and utterly irrelevant, and the kind of "mistrust" that is proposed to be introduced in WP:RS not on its place. --Francis Schonken 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The NYT website is published by the New York Times, and is therefore not even an indirect source. Google books isn't a problem either, at least not as far as reliability is concerned, since they are a reliable publisher in their own right (since they do scan the documents in, and have no motivation to falisfy them). (Note that some editors are against linking sites like Google books for other reasons, see this conversation.) We are more concerned about reproductions hosted on mailing lists, message boards, partisan websites, and other websites that are not suitable as secondary sources. I know you probably still disagree with this addition, but I hope that addresses some of your concerns. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Re. "We are more concerned about reproductions hosted on mailing lists, message boards, partisan websites, and other websites that are not suitable as secondary sources." – noble goals, but I'm getting very tired of all these attempts that try to change important policies and guidelines without being able to think outside their frame, and then making these guidelines and policies even more unworkable than they are already for tenthousands of other articles. So, no, if you can't write something that is *generally* usable, nor something that isn't losing itself in complexity regarding mentioned and non-mentioned "special cases" (that are fairly standard for truckloads of articles), then no, this would not be an improvement of the guideline. To me, these look like attempts to solve traffic problems by casting a 20 cm thick concrete layer around 10% of the cars: a lot of work, completely missing the point, and basically random for their possible effects on an improvement of the situation. --Francis Schonken 22:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources on military tactics and doctrine

There is a bit of an issue at the moment on some of the UK military related articles, it may in part be vexacious but the point raised is valid. The main source for some editors on these topics are the [www.army.mod.uk Army] and [www.Royal-Navy.mod.uk Navy] wesbites, both of which are woefully out of date with respect to organisational issues and are clearly marketing documents aimed at the recruiting market.

Military tactical doctrine moves very fast, far faster than the official publications can keep up, in fact as the author of some of it in the past I can say it's well nigh impossible to reflect current thinking in an official document.

However, what is accurate is that which in the Harvard reference system would be described as unpublished; namely internal documents and most pertinent the course notes for students at the various military schools and the Defence Academy. The documents I'm on about are from my own course at Joint Service Command and Staff College where the mid seniority officers and warrant officers in all three services conduct their post-graduate training. Is there any way to factor these in as acceptable sources? The ones I'm thinking of are not themselves protectively marked but are clearly not on general release. Some are available on the www.mod.uk site but they are at a very strategic level and don't go into the detail needed on individual tactical concepts. The MA on the course is certified by Kings College London so the notes have been through their vetting process.

Is there any way to consider course books published by an academic institution for internal use as acceptable sources? ALR 20:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

They sound reliable to me... properly vetted and approved by a governmental agency and an accademic institution. Blueboar 14:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a guideline and not policy?

Something I've often wondered, and was recently reminded of by another editor. If Wikipedia is to be a serious reference work, I would think that WP:RS should be firm policy, not a guideline. It is often treated as though it were policy; sources deemed unreliable are often removed from articles. Policies may have exceptions, so the occasional exceptional case shouldn't be a reason for keeping this as a guideline.

If this particular dead horse has been thoroughly flogged recently before, I apologize. If the dead horse was last beaten several years ago, I would suggest that it's now time to exhume the corpse and get out the buggy-whip. Now that we have over a million articles, a top-20 web ranking, and significant attention from the outside world; cementing professional editorial standards is something we ought to do. --EngineerScotty 17:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this being a policy until we a) iron out details concerning use of non-paper sources, and b) solve the contradictions between this and WP:V, which there are many. I understand why this is a guideline, albeit a poor one considering its relationship to WP:V, but if it's going to be policy, it has to be as clean and fitting as possible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I oppose making this policy at the present time, because it is still undergoing too much evolution. Stirling Newberry 19:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as it stays unofficial, it allows libs to backdoor in totally unreliable sources into articles. I imagine they'll never want that to change--RCT 19:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Libs"? Is that supposed to mean liberals? As against, say, conservatives, fascists, and communists, who are always intellectually honest? Or have I misread you? - Jmabel | Talk 19:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In this context, such partisan remarks are uncalled-for. It would be patently unwise to assume that adherents to a particular political ideology, whatever it is, are immune from intellectual dishonesty, POV-pushing, or other such vices. Such comments are thoroughly unhelpful.--EngineerScotty 20:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well... I suppose you could define some editors as "liberal" (with a small el), in that they support a broad, open interpretation of the guideline... as opposed to conservative (small cee), those who back a more restricted interpretation. Not everything has to do with politics you know. That said... I do suspect that RCT is not using the term "libs" to mean liberal in this dictionary definition sense, and as one of those who seeks a more conservative approach I do not agree with his sentiments. Right Wing POV pushers can misuse the liberal aproach just as much as Left Wing POV pushers. Blueboar 21:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how many articles we might have to delete, or severely shorten, if this policy was to be followed strictly? Try clicking on Random article a bunch of times. A lot of articles don't even have external links, and even fewer have references. And if you wanted to police through the articles that were referenced to see if those references were reliable? Well, you might be able to catch obvious problems (blogs, message boards, and personal websites being used as secondary sources), but can you always tell if they are an authority on the field they are speaking of, even if you know nothing of that field? Probably not, it would probably be best to trust the editors who do know something of that field to figure out what the most reliable sources in that field are. (This is why when I am trying to help an article in a subject I know little or nothing about become better verified, I usually add external links, not references, and let the people who do know something on the subject figure out if they're reliable or not.) I think this should a strong guideline, in the sense that it is something all editors should strive for. However, expecting all articles to meet high standards of WP:V and WP:RS is unrealistic. Instead, we should reward articles that do by considering them at WP:FAC or WP:GA (although being a featured article or good article isn't all about being well-referenced). Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Armedblowfish, you are basically saying that because past editors were lazy, and used unreliable sources or no sources at all, we should continue to be lazy and not bother to try and improve our encyclopedia. I can not accept that. Yes, there are a TON of articles that are poorly referenced; yes, there are a even more that are not referenced at all. That is one of Wikipedia's current faults. Is fixing this a huge task... you bet. It will probably take years to have all articles properly cited and referenced. But I think that is a worthy goal.

I do think that this guideline should become a RULE (and be followed strictly)... eventually. However, I would agree that it is not yet ready for that transition and, until it is, it should stay as a "work in progress" guideline. Blueboar 14:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to improve the encylopedia. However, the only way to efficiently make Wikipedia well-verified, so far as I know, is to go on a deletionist campaign removing unverified material. I don't think this is the solution, since there is a lot of material that is unverified, but verifiable. And when Wikipedia is sufficiently well-verified that we could make this a policy without suggesting a mass deletion campaign, if that ever happens considering the constant influx of new contributors unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards, we will probably have to modify WP:VAND to specifically state that adding unverified material or poorly verified material is misguided, not vandalism. Besides verifying articles on one's own (or providing external links that could eventually be used as sources after screening), it would help to attempt to increase general awareness of WP:RS in the hopes that more editors will try to source their contributions, but there's no garantee. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If our three guiding policies were understood by ever editor who read them, questions like this one wouldn't arise. If our policy / guideline relationship were understood throughly by every editor, questions like this one wouldn't require extensive comment. Please understand, I am not saying "no one understands" , but am pointing to the obvious, the descriptions which lead to this very discussion are not written clearly enough or this discussion would not take place. Terryeo 07:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think one answer to that is to accept that fact tagging doesn't imply deleting material shortly afterwards. the fact tags should demonstrate that there is a degree of doubt about the statement and it should be corroborated if at all possible. Of course one must apply some common sense, it's reasonable to fact tag something that is 'probably' correct but remove something that is clearly incorrect, perhaps after discussion, should one not be a specialist. There is a cultural issue here because the current WP mechanisms aren't particularly robust where subtlety and understanding are required in a debate. The numeric votes in AfD are blunt instruments.ALR 12:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

IMDb and fan-submitted trivia sites again

Could this guideline mention some sites specifically? (This was requested before) Many editors seem to think IMDb is an authoritative source. IMDb and NNDb are unreliable sources - they are essentially fan-submitted trivia sites that function like a wiki, and we use them more as convenience links. However, I was recently told that this is just my personal opinion. The context is some confusion over the year of birth of a celebrity, where a TimesOnline.co.uk article has 1973 but IMDb has 1968. Would it be possible to add something to WP:RS/Bulletin boards to the effect that: Trivia sites such as IMDb and FunTrivia.com may only be used as citations for undisputed trivia. On a related issue, is a "citation" to an broadcast interview verifiable? Should the date and media be specified? Gimmetrow 11:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the IMDB user-contributed? I know it has user ratings and user comments, but I thought the rest of it was done by trusted IMDB editors (probably paid). Or is this just because I don't have an account? In any case, if you're right, the problem isn't that it's a trivia site, but the lack of editing controls (allowing anyone to contribute without going through an editing/fact-checking process).

The broadcast interview is a tough question. Did you record it on VCR or whatever and rewatch pieces of it to get the facts right (rather than writing, and possible misquoting, from memory)? If not, was your writing any more specific than the accuracy of your memory? Did it air just once, or is it airing multiple times? Is it available from someplace for anyone to access at any time (even an inconvenient location)? Did another reliable source write about the interview? Assuming the broadcast interview was reliable, the answer would probably be yes, but if others had trouble checking it (i.e. if it wasn't in even the most inconvenient public library or reasonably cheap archive, there were no forseeable further opportunities to watch it, and no reliable source that had written about it mentioned what you mentioned) it would be perfectly reasonable for others to remove, or comment out, the material, especially if the material was of a controversial nature.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 07:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The process of changing information on IMDb is not transparent. Information is user-contributed by registered users. An explanation for new information is optional, but sometimes an explanation is required. The conditions for requiring an explanation are not disclosed, but it seems to be required when the same data has been changed recently. One would assume explanations are checked by staff before the change goes through. However, some data is marked "verified" and "locked" - for these, regular registered users cannot even submit new information for review. The source or degree of the "verification" is not specified anywhere I have found, and even the fact that some data is "verified" is not knowable by unregistered users, AFAIK.

In the case of Anastacia, most "reliable sources" (newspaper articles) say she was born in 1973; Early in her career she (and her promotion manager) said 1973, and the Reuters feed in 2003 said she was 29 then. IMDb says 1968, no source given. While 1968 is possible (and perhaps even likely), I think IMDb fails WP:RS here.

Another editor here (not I) supplied that "she said to Howard Stern in 2001 that she was 33". In fact, I find that rather dubious, given contrary information from 2003.

I would really like some text here saying under what conditions IMDb can be used as a source on wikipedia. IMDb seems generally OK for film credits, but since it lists no sources, I think IMDb is more a convenience link than a reference. Gimmetrow 03:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

From a specific personal experience, I consider IMDb trivia information as unreliable:

This page contains marriage dates for Ingrid Bergman. About a year ago, I noticed that the date given for the divorce from her first husband was sometime in mid-June 1950, while the date given for her second wedding was end of May 1950. This overlap seemed unlikely to me, so I googled for a while and read several biography pages containing descriptions of the events that led to the divorce and remarriage. While several of these confirmed the wedding date, none of them had a precise divorce date, just some vague statements that, put together, make "sometime in March 1950" seem a best guess.

Under the impression that IMDb editors would be able to check and specify an exact date, I submitted an update form, giving 1 March 1950 as the divorce date (required by the input mask) and a lengthy explanation why the current date was likely wrong and why I thought March sounded reasonable.

What happened was that they simply changed the date to the one I had clearly labelled as a complete speculation, and it's still the one given today. This for me left the distinct impression that their editorial procedures are intended merely to screen out vandalism and the most obvious deliberate misinformation, and not to assure accuracy.

As said in a previous post, some information on IMDb is however not user-contributed but directly submitted by the motion picture industry, e.g. as described here.

Two problems with using non-English sources that I do not know how to solve

I have encountered two problems with non-English sources that I do not know how to solve.

1. Only contributors who speak the language can assess the reputability of non-English sources. Other contributors cannot have an informed opinion about this. One could say that the burden of proof is on the contributor adding it, but this is in practice at best tedious and at worst impossible because the proof is non-English too
2. Citations get very long see e.g. Techniques of Knowledge

Any comments? Andries 13:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the English version of Wikipedia, and so things should be in English where possible. However, I don't think we want to omit reliable information just because we can not find a citation in English. I would say that, if the only cite supporting a statement is in another language, the editor contributing it should provide a translation of relevant sections after the cite. If that makes the cite or footnote overly long... then perhaps the citation or foot note needs to be re-worked to shorten it. Blueboar 14:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

How can the citation be made shorter with such strict demands to meet verifiability? Andries 14:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

See also here for more or less the same discussion Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Removal_of_text_from_citations. Andries 14:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to do the work, but yes, definitely many of the quotes are much and much too long (even to the point of maybe infringing on Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources). For instance (from the Sathya Sai Baba page):

• note 61 could be maybe reduced to this essence "Hij raadt zieken af hun medicijnen te nemen. En hij nodigt knappe jonge jongens uit voor een privé-interview, om vervolgens in hun onderbroek te graaien en hen uit te nodigen hem oraal te bevredigen." - well, because if quoting only those two sentences, you don't know who the author is talking about, that can be converted to "[Sai Baba] raadt zieken af hun medicijnen te nemen. En hij nodigt knappe jonge jongens uit voor een privé-interview, om vervolgens in hun onderbroek te graaien en hen uit te nodigen hem oraal te bevredigen." So translate that, and you're set for what the quote needs to illustrate. His style of hair is completely irrelevant, yet this was kept it in the quote for I don't know what reason (the photo at the top of the page illustrates that, doesn't it?). Similarly, remarks on Indian gurus in general (that are maybe not even particularly relevant for Sai Baba), could be pruned out of such quotes... See ellipsis for the most common "pruning" technique.
• Don't copy the text of books that are available in English, like someone did in note 19 – the whole English text from that footnote should be removed. Name the book, preferably give the ISBN number for a post-1970s book (which isn't there), and then the page number is a great help (which is in that footnote). --Francis Schonken 15:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks will try, but the long citations are partially a result of repeated accusations against me of serious misrepresentations of sources. Andries 15:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Another reason for the long citations is because convenience links in that article are at best suspect if not forbidden as per the arbcom decision regarding this article. Andries 15:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

One option is to shift the quotation into the main text of the article instead of placing it in a foot note or citation. It really depends on what is being said and the writing style being used. That said, if several sentences are needed to illustrate the point in a footnote or citation, then include them (While short quotes are encouraged, longer footnotes and citations are not always a bad thing.) But however long they are, a translation is a must (One of the sad things about many native english speakers is that they often don't learn other languages... also, increasingly english is the one common language that people of different nationalities have.) Blueboar 17:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Request Comment

I have a dispute with an editor who wishes to keep a passage that is cited as a short article written by one person on a personal website, belonging to a person other than the one who wrote the article. My point is that the website is personal and the cited content is a short article. It is not an affidavit, court deposition, or a scholarly article that cites references. I contend that the passage fails WP:RS.--Fahrenheit451 09:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The way you discribe it, it certainly seems to fail. However, I think we would have to see it to make a firm decision. Could you provide a link? Blueboar 13:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources in poker articles

Hi. I have been working on getting numerous articles on poker players up to the Good Article standard. Part of doing so has required me to reference much of the content of the article, including specific tournaments won.

I have been using The Hendon Mob poker database to do so, and 3 articles using this as a reference have been agreed to meet GA status. However, the reviewer of a recent GA-candidate poker article disagrees with the validity of those having already been granted GA status due to the references to the database, and has asked me to seek advice here on its inclusion.

The database works in the following way:

1. Results are sent to the person that manages the database by an observer of the tournament (the primary source), i.e.: the tournament director, tournament reporter, or an assigned delegate.
2. The Database administrator (a poker expert himself), performs a baseline check on the content itself, to ensure there is nothing glaringly incorrect, inappropriate, inconsistant, etc. This also prevents the inclusion of non-significant tournaments (e.g.: I couldn't play a home game with friends and have it entered in; it needs to be a casino tournament/ televised event, etc.)
3. That information is then entered into the system by the DBA.

As the database does not directly collate information on the results of an event, I believe that this makes it a secondary source and therefore a suitable reference point for Wikipedia articles.

A bit more information on the credibility of the database: the contents of the Hendon Mob DB are recognised as the most complete and accurate poker results database on the internet, as they are the only one to include the bulk of European tournament results - the majority of which are ignored by the databases at www.cardplayer.com and www.pokerpages.com. They have since been used by the majority of poker professionals in both America and Europe; by ESPN, Challenge, FSN, Five, Sky Sports and GSN television broadcasts; and by Poker Player Magazine. Furthermore, due to the number of poker tournaments that happen on a regular basis, there is unlikely to ever be a print alternative to use as a reference to them.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts as to whether links to this database meet the Reliable Sources criteria. Thanks. Essexmutant 10:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this clearly meets the conditions established for a reliable source. It is as reviewed as any newspaper article on many local political/sports issues, which we regularly rely on for such results. For many results, it can be compared to other sources, making its claims independently verifiable. In particular, it clearly meets criteria 3 and 4 (in the "establishing reliability of online sources"). --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The article in particular question is Ram Vaswani with the related articles being Joe Beevers, Barny Boatman and Mike Matusow. The concern is not really tied into the personal website being used for verifiying poker results but rather that they constitute the majority of the article's reference including for personal details. Considering that all these individuals all belong to this Hendon Mob when I review these references in light of WP:RS, I don't think this self-published site stacks up to be the primary source. From WP:RS...
A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
In a similar way, publishers will always verify an autobiography rather then just take the author's word for. (Well a smart one anyways --cough James Frey cough -- :p). My contention is simply that this reference is not reliable enough to be the primary reference for a Good Article. Agne 01:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the database has not been used to reference any personal details - just tournament results and the total winnings line. I would also add that Mike Matusow is not related in any way to the group or database. Essexmutant 06:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment. I took a look at the article in question, and while no direct facts are being taken from the Hendon Mob page, it certainly looks like it's being used to support some. For example: "Vaswani's first major tournament win happened at the HFl 5,000 LIDO tournament at the Master Classics of Poker tournament in Amsterdam in 1999." The page cites the Hendon Mob for that. I click on the link and see the results for that tournament. Nowhere on the page does it say it was his first win. There's a similar situation where Hendon Mob information is being used to support Vaswani being the first to sit at three final tables, none of the following cites specify that he was the first. It may not be the intent of the article's authors, but without following each and every reference down, it's impossible not to know that important fact of the sentence is not what's being substantiated. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 04:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to clarify that I do not believe the Hendon Mob's website is a personal website. A personal website would be a website belonging to a person, such as Ram Vaswani. In fact, the Wikipedia article on personal website indicates that it cannot be for commercial purposes, whereas The Hendon Mob site is. The primary source is the results submitted from the tournament director as described above. As a result of this, the database becomes a secondary source as it has gone through a check in the interim. As secondary sources meet the criteria, I think this should be okay. Essexmutant 17:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not meant as an attack or critique of the information in the database, but how does the Hendon Mob's site differ from, say the Drudge Report. There people send him information about an event, he checks to see if the event seems plausible, and then publishes the information. He's not the one doing the investigating, which makes him a secondary source - one that's used often in certain political circles. Yet, from what I've seen in the RS archives, he's not considered a RS from Wikipedia standards. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 04:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Blogs again

Over ar Adnan Hajj photographs controversy blogs are wideley used as sources as the matter was discussed much in various blogs. As far as I can tell blogs (especially blogs with a strong bias) are not to be used as sources except for about themselves in articles about themselves or their views. Please advice. // Liftarn 18:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the citations are being used as a PRIMARY source to show that the blogs themselves says something... ie the use of a given blog as a source is supporting a statement about what the blog itself says and is acceptable. Blueboar 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources in articles about themselves technically says "in articles about themselves" not "as primary sources". However, it seems to me that everyone on this talk page supports the primary source exception, rather than the "in articles about themselves" exception. Should we change the wording of the guideline, or am I wrong? (For that matter, it seems like a very small percentage of the reliable source guideline actually applies to primary sources. Perhaps we should go so far as to note this on top?)

Also, note that since the blogs are being used as sources for the opinions of bloggers, not for facts, WP:NPOV becomes important here. You should be careful not to say that anything the bloggers say is actually correct, unless Reuters has confessed that the bloggers are correct, in which case you should specifically state that Reuters confessed this. Even then, if there are any significant opposing points of view, e.g. anything Adnan Hajj has to say on the subject, you should still treat these these as opinions, not facts. Also remember that because blogs are considered unreliable sources, except as primary sources, their opinions count for less (try not to give them "undue weight").

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The line between "Harmil is a great guy.<ref>[http://example.com/ my page says so!]</ref>" and "Harmil self-published an article.<ref>[http://example.com/ Harmil's article]</ref>" can be confusing at times, but it is critical. In the former case, the self-published source is being used to cite an assertion that is not about the self-published source itself. In the latter case, the self-published source is being used to cite only its own existence. Citing an autobiography to support the assertion that a person wrote an autobiography is fine. Citing it to support the assertion that the person was President of the United States is not. -Harmil 02:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Armedblowfish, we do need to clarify the self-published sources section to make it clear that these can be used to cite a statement ABOUT the source in other articles ...

A lot of people read the sub-section Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources in articles about themselves and think it means that self-published sources can ONLY be used in articles about themselves... I don't think this is the intent of the sub-section. If you read the text right above it (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources) it discusses the use of self-published sources in more general terms... thus, to my thinking, the "in articles about themselves" sub-section is simply a sub set of the general guideline... referring to how to use such sources WHEN doing so in articles about themselves. Perhaps a sub-section on "Self-published sources as primary sources" is called for, just to clarify. Blueboar 12:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would the views expressed on some blog, say MySite.com, be notable for an encyclopedia article about anything other than MySite.com? If the blog is notable in relation to MajorScandal, the blog will be referenced in other reliable sources, eg as the site that broke the news. Otherwise, why would you want to quote MySite.com as a reference? In rare cases it might fall under the "well known researcher" exception. As a secondary source, if the information is notable, it will usually be stated in a more reliable source than a blog. If not, and the blog content is based on genuine reliable sources, you would quote those sources rather than the blog. If the blog content has no reliable source behind it, the blog content seems worthless. Gimmetrow 14:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never been crazy about the argument that runs "I cited the blogs stating that John Kerry is a war criminal in order to demonstrate that some blogs say that John Kerry is a war criminal." Yes, but all you've shown me is that some nut on DailyKos or the FreeRepublic thinks so. If the blogs haven't gotten enough momentum to be covered in a reliable source, I don't see that they're notable, and letting them in buries all of the current event political pages under blogcruft. TheronJ 14:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. If it is really notable that "some blogs say XYZ", then a reliable source other than the blog will have reported the fact that blogs or a specific blog said it. Gimmetrow 14:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In gerneral I would agree ... blogs are not reliable. However, in some cases the fact that a specific blog says something is a key (and notable) element in the article. In the case above, the article is about a particular controversy... the controversy is centered on the fact that a blog exposed certain photographs as being doctored. While the article is not about the blog, it is about something said on the blog. To not be able to use the blog as a primary source is a bit rediculous.

However, I was really thinking of other forms of Self-published sources. Say a personal web or self published book that has a unique claim. If that claim is notable in discussing an aspect of an article, to bar citing the website or self published book (or even blog) where that claim is made is a bit overly restrictive. The key is to use it correctly. It can not be used as a secondary source for statement of fact about the article's topic... but it should acceptable as a primary source for what is said on the webpage itself.

In other words saying: "some people think Kerry is a war criminal <ref>Swiftboat.com</ref>" is NOT acceptable... while saying: "According to the anti-Kerry website swiftboat.com, 'Kerry is a war criminal' <ref>Swiftboat.com</ref>" should be acceptable. The first is being used as a secondary source for what "some people" say... while the other is being used as a primary citation for a direct quote from a specific site. Blueboar 15:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is notable that a blog exposed the doctoring of those photos, then that fact will be reported elsewhere, saying that "blog XYZ.com first broke the news that photo A was doctored" or that R pulled the photo because of "blog XYZ.com". Until then, wouldn't either of those statements seem to be WP:OR? I wouldn't trust blog XYZ.com's word that it had a significant part to play in the story, if this is not mentioned elsewhere. If that significance is established by external, reliable sources, then it's not just the random ravings of some blogger. Gimmetrow 15:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

To me there are two key ingredients to using a blog as a primary source. 1) How notable is the blogger, and 2) How notable the blog is in relation to the article's topic. I would agree that any old blog run by "some blogger" is out. But when the blogger does something note worthy (such as causing a major news agency to admit to using doctored photographs) he or she stops being some random blogger, and becomes part of the story. As to WP:OR... to simply state that a blog says something is not OR... drawing conclusions from that statement could be. Blueboar 18:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that blogger XYZ caused a major news agency to admit to using doctored photos? If the blogger "does something note worthy" then that fact (that the blogger did something noteworthy) will be reported in an external reliable source. Without an independent source saying so, it's hard to avoid OR on that fact, and without that fact, what the blogger says seems irrelevant. Gimmetrow 21:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is that quoting something, or closely paraphrasing it, is not Original Research ... But I really have not looked into whether that particular article contains original research. Nor do I really care. This page is for discussing issues relating to reliablility. I have no idea if the article contains OR or not... all I know is that the article says that a controversy started due to statements on a blog and that these statements caused Reuters to admit using doctored photos ... IF this is a true statement, then the blogs that started the controversy are central to the article's topic ... and are thus reliable primary sources. There may be OR and other problems with that particluar article, but these fall outside the scope of this page. Blueboar 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also discussing this in general, replying specifically to this statement: A lot of people read the sub-section ... and think it means that self-published sources can ONLY be used in articles about themselves. My point is to defend this restriction: a blog is not per se a quotable source except in regard to itself. It only becomes a quotable source on other topics if external reliable sources say it is - in most cases I can think of, this situation would appear to be covered under the "recognized expert" exception. Gimmetrow 15:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As a genaral rule... we agree. The difference, I think, is that I feel a blog (or other unreliable source), can be "quotable in reguard to itself" in more than just articles specificly about the blog. I would extend the exception to articles where the blog (or other unreliable source) is a central component of the article topic or a particular section of the article. It really depends on the article, what is being said, and how it is being used. I see this as a logical extention of the "articles about themselves" clause. If others agree, then perhaps we should amend the guideline to clarify this. Blueboar 16:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm, hang on. We don't use primary sources that aren't reliable. In Blueboar's example, you need to find a secondary source reporting what blah.com says about John Kerry. If an article is about blah.com's comments about John Kerry, it will be sourced to reliable sources that report on it. Blueboar, I urge you to think a bit more on this subject because it should be clear that anything blah.com presents that is worth writing an article about will have been covered in other sources, so that it cannot be a "source" for an article in this context. Grace Note 01:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously a reliable secondary source is preferred. And you should never use a blog as a secondary source. However, if you quote something in an article, you should cite to it, even if it is a blog. The question then becomes: when is a quotation to a blog appropriate. In the vast majority of articles, it would never be. But if the article is about the blog, or about what is said on the blog, then it is appropriate to quote it and cite the blog as the source of the quote. Let me use the Kerry example to illustrate the difference... A blog or personal web site, etc. would never be quotable or citable in the article [[John Kerry]]. It might be citable on the article [[Swiftboat controversy]] depending on what is said in the article, and how central a role the blog in question played in that controversy (I would set the bar very high... you are correct that reliable sources are preferred). A blog would a quotable and reliable source for [[Blog's role in the swiftboat controversy]]. It definitely should not be the ONLY source (and the others should all be reliable sources)... and it should not be used to cite general statements or conclusions (it should only be used to cite a clearly identified quote from the blog itself) but you have to be able to quote and cite the blog in such an article. Blueboar 12:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but what about the initial example with the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy where there are phrases like "After blogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs asserted that the first image was an obvious forgery" and the only source is the blog itself. I wonder about the use of words like "asserted" (rather than "said", "claimed" or "stated") and "an obvious forgery". It also continues with "The second manipulated image was reported" and the only reports came from an anonymous blogger. And it continues in the same way. Many blogs and fre real sources. // Liftarn

What to do when all your sources are less than reliable?

I've seen this problem occur a lot, especially with current events. See Ukrainian_pyramids for a recent example: There are few sources available and the available sources are very poor. The obvious impulse of any editor is to correct the information from the sources when it is used to write the wiki article. The problem with making these corrections is that it now makes the article to appear to be derived from better sources than it actually is. Any suggestions besides keeping track of the sources and noting the quality level in the Talk page? --Ronz 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Your sample article appears fairly well (appropriately) written, given the sources. I find myself with similar reservations when I read either. If this is a serious archeological find, the literature will reflect it in a year or two. If it is tourism promotion, the literature will be negligible & this can be appropriately dispositioned (deleted or moved to hoax) later. Seems to be a good example of what one should do when your sources are not impeccable; cite them honestly. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Usenet describing Usenet

Is it acceptable to use a Usenet post as a reference, when you're discussing events that take place on Usenet?

There's been an edit war taking place on Derek Smart for quite a while, over the inclusion of an external link that documents Derek's participation in flamewars. It's my opinion (Shared with several others) that it's the flamewars more than his status as a game developer that makes Smart notable enough to be in the encyclopedia. The problem is that the external link is quite biased in it's commentary. I think we could work out some neutral wording and just describe the flamewar ourselves, if we could just use the Usenet postings as primary sources.

It's my opinion that Usenet can safely be used to document things that happen on Usenet. But when very similar situations have arisen on other articles, I've seen people argue vociferously that Usenet references are never appropriate under any circumstances. Thoughts? Would it be possible to get consensus to add an exception for Usenet referencing Usenet to this guideline? - Ehheh 18:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that Derek Smart really wrote the Usenet posts that have his name on them, or that it is the same Derek Smart that the Wikipedia article is about? You shouldn't believe the signatures in Usenet posts. --Gerry Ashton 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Smart has never disputed that the posts are his, and he's commented on the flamewar a couple of times in interviews and such. A few times his replies have even incorporated photographs of himself. - Ehheh 18:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, how do you know. What source published the interviews? Was it a reliable source? Is it possible there are flamewar posts from him, and also flamewar posts from imposters trying to make him look bad? --Gerry Ashton 19:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Interview. - Ehheh 19:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC).

Post only what you can source from the interview. Repeating libels from the Uselessnet is not going to be good for the encyclopaedia. Grace Note 00:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that a point has been missed in some replies: the question is really, when documenting a usenet phenomenon or event then usenet must be a reliable source. Usenet as a source about an individual is not reliable, but usenet as a source about itself certainly must be. Mikademus 22:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary

Is the Urban Dictionary a reliable source? Thinking of general slang, such as [11]. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally, no; anyone can edit the Urban Dictionary. Which is also true of Wikipedia; but here we try to have some authority. I have no idea of the editorial practices at UD. --EngineerScotty 23:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Which raises an interesting question - where does one find reliable sources for colloquialisms/slang? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The same place you would for anything else. Basically, if a columnist for the Times has noticed that a word is in use, then it must be very widely used. Grace Note 01:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. However, if a Times sports reporter happens to use a non-sports-related slang word, it could be argued that it is outside the reporter's area of expertise, since the reporter is neither a linguist nor an expert in the field in which the slang word is used. (Of course, a Times reporter reporting outside his or her area of expertise is still better than some forum.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting question, however, as Urban Dictionary has had a published book. One would think that the book might be considered reliable, which might also open a rather large can of worms. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You just have to use your common sense, Jeff. Ask what lengths UD went to to verify its content. It's not book=reliable. It's likely to be reliable=reliable. The likeliness increases with publication by a major publisher, that's all. Grace Note 01:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Article tranlation

At the language reference desk someone asked about translating a Wikipedia page to another language and putting that translation in the Wikipedia in that language. But this article says Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source, s ois that allowed? She (I think) plans to specify that it is a translation, but does that solve it? DirkvdM 06:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think mearly translating an article and posting it on a different language version of Wikipedia should be considered using the original as a source. It is the same article, just in a differnt language. One would not cite the original. However, any citations, sources or footnotes that appeared in the original english article should be included in the translation (in both the original english and with a translation provided). Blueboar 12:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Depending on various things, a full translation of a foreign language source could be a copyright violation. In general, it would probably be safer to only translate a small, key portion. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sites relying upon strawman/ad hom arguments

I think there needs to be some regulation of POV sites that do not provide citations for their arguments and rely upon ad hominem arguments or strawman arguments. In my opinion, it weakens Wikipedia's overall credibility and continues the propaganda or distortions of the underlying source. Reliability in my book means having a shred of underlying verifiable truth.--68.45.161.241 18:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Since most extreme POV sites are personal websites, we already regulate them. Blueboar 19:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pointers on indentifing vantiy presses

I would appreciate if everyone could give me some concrete points I could use to evaluate a "vanity press"--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Transcriptions on site with extreme points-of-view

Let's say a site, otherwise dedicated to say Bush-bashing, also has a page, which is nothing but a transcription of a speech he made. The page gives no commentary, its just a full-quote of the speech typed out. That the transcription is accurate, and verifiable, is not in question, but merely that the site itself is questionable as a reliable source for its own research. Can the page be used as a source ? Wjhonson 23:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the site is too partisan to be considered reliable as a secondary source. However, if you actually found a transcript from a reliable publisher, but it was less than easy to access (e.g. offline, requires subscription), then, as long as you verified the material based on the reliable version, you might be able to include a link to the online version as a "convenience link". (By "might", I mean there isn't really a consensus about whether or not that would be acceptable.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

However in the case of a transcript, the site is not a secondary source. What they are instead is a publisher. That is, a transcript is not commentary upon a primary source, its merely the republication in another form, of a primary source. Republishing does not constitute the making of a secondary source, in my opinion. Wjhonson 00:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The speech itself is the primary source. A transcript is a secondary source. (Tapings and videos are more debatable, but with all of the technology available to tamper with them, should probably be considered secondary sources.) In any case, the publisher (the partisan website) is providing information other than information about itself (e.g. their own opinions). Since they are providing information other than information about themselves (their own opinions), it is necessary for them to be a reliable/reputable publisher, which is not the case if they are partisan. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing this here, Wjhonson; the discussion could use more participants. The actual problem in question has to do with the transcription of a speech. Whjhonson asserts the transcription is accurate (having, I assumed, listened to it himself). However, the transcription appears to be only available on an utterly unreliable, disreputable site (in my opinion, anyway; take a gander at jahtruth.net and draw your own conclusions.) I don't think we could trust so much as the time of day from that site. (The transcription might be accurate today. How do you know it will be tomorrow? That's part of what "reliable" means.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I distrust "convenience links" hosted on otherwise unrliable sites ... unless hosted on a reliable site, there is too great a chance that the text quoted is not accurate. But this is an old arugument, and one that the majority dissagrees with me about. As to the question of the specific site in the querry... I would see if the speach is available on some other (reliable) site before I used the unreliable one as a link. If you do link to the unreliable source, make it clear in your citation that you are using it as a convenience link for the speach only. Blueboar 12:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The transcription of the speech is available in whole or in part on multiple sites. However I have the feeling the jpgordon would not accept any of those transcriptions as "reliable" simply because they are hosted on sites with extreme points-of-view. I on the other hand, feel that a transcription, which is verifiable simply by listening to the audio, is a fairly simple case where the site hosting it is irrelevant. If there is a question about whether they transcribed it accurately, you can listen to the MP3 of the speech (which is also linked) yourself. In that sort of case, the bar is lowered awfully low, and if the only sites available to read the text are objectionable to one person, we are still better served by having something rather than having a gaping hole in the process. Would jpgordon be satisfied, if I transcribe the speech myself and post it to wikisource? Wjhonson 06:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think so -- but I'm not sure it wouldn't run afoul of WP:NOR. That's a whole different issue, though. We do not link to nutcase sites as sources except in articles about those nutcase sites. This has been discussed and argued before. Please attempt to gain consensus before using those sites as sources; repeatedly asserting that you are correct is not consensus. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly "transcribing" is not research in any case. Transcribing is a purely mechanical process of turning audio into text, there is no research involved. A court stenographer is not conducting research when they type what goes on in a courtroom. The question really turns on whether you, jpgordon, who are the only person with the issue, are going to pursue it further, should I, take the time to re-transcribe the speech and post it to wikisource. If you are, then it's pointless for me to go through that effort. The second issue, is that a transcription has nothing whatever to do with the site it's posted on. If you can verify that the transcription is accurate, which you can, it could be posted to werecompleteloons.com and it's still a reliable transcription. This is completely different from a page on werecompleteloons.com speaking about something that have experience in. The issue of transcriptions falls outside the scope of an-issue-based-on-the-sites-reliability. To treat every case identically is a pedestrian reading of the spirit of the policy. Wjhonson 05:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion the relationship transcriptions (or translations, a similar issue) and WP:NOR. That's why I said "I'm not sure", because I'm really not sure; I could make a strong argument in either direction. It's not an important issue to me. What is an important issue is keeping totally unreliable sources -- in particular, holocaust denial websites -- from being used as sources for any information whatsoever. Even if vho.org (for example) has a page correctly asserting a fact, that fact cannot be used in Wikipedia unless a reliable source provides the same information (and, hence, renders using vho.org unnecessary.) I'll admit this makes the task difficult; in the case of Benjamin H. Freedman, very little biographical information appears to be available, at least online, other than from otherwise unacceptable sources. Perhaps in a case like this, some sort of header could be plugged onto the article saying that critical information in the article is from unreliable sources, but they are the only sources of information found so far? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

problem with self-published info

In "Self-published sources in articles about themselves", it is claimed that the text should be, among other things, "subject to verification by other sources".

However, that can't be correct. Probably those rules are intended to be about assertions-of-fact and not about opinions. The information of a notable author about his/her opinion from that person firsthand is certainly useful with correct attribution, while it just as certainly can't be verified by other sources. Thus I propose to improve the text accordingly. Harald88 00:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, mostly. But we should also note that the lack of discussion by a secondary source may be an indication of lack of importance, and that we should be careful not to give minority views undue weight (except of course in articles dedicated to those minority views). The only problem is that that section of WP:NPOV links to WP:RS, so if we linked to it, we would be begging the question. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a problem: the linking is not circular, and this guideline doesn't need to elaborate on NPOV issues - we already have a guideline for that. Harald88 01:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are correct that the guideline is focused on assertions of fact. The difficulty comes when statements of opinion are phrased as statements of fact. When discussing opinions (assuming that inclusion of the opinion meets other guidelines such as discussed above) it is vital that it be made clear in the article that you are stating a particular opinion, and not stating that this opinion is fact. Your best bet is to include a direct quote from that person or persons who hold the opinion and then cite a reliable source where they state it. A personal website can (in some cases) be a reliable PRIMARY source for such quotations. However, care should be used if the opinion is at all controvercial. Only use the primary source if there is no reliable secondary source that discusses it. Blueboar 12:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Right - and all that is policy anyway. Except for the last point: primary sources must be used to verify the reliablilty of secondary sources which usually are less reliable for primary information - the copy-error problem. Harald88 13:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think quoting everything is necessary (we aren't Wikiquote, after all) — the important part is that we a) state it as being someone's opinion and b) attribute it specifically to who said it (see WP:AWW). And then of course there's WP:NPOV, with a very long discussion about how to be neutral, such as avoiding undue weight. I don't think we need to avoid primary sources in every instance where there's a reliable secondary source. The secondary source does give some indication of how important the view is, but it may also go into less detail, and, if they are against the view (which is probable in the case of extremist views), could be guilty of the straw man fallacy. There are certainly different degrees of reliability in primary sources, though. A large partisan website that represents a large number of adherents to an opinion can be used as a source for more general statements than the personal website of a single adherent. ("Many Xists on site Y say..." rather than "Z, and Xist, says...") Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we are agreeing as to the general issue here and only arguing the details... so to sum up... it is better to find a reliable secondary source, but when discussing an opinion a personal website is (sometimes) acceptable. As this is not the first time we have had this discussion... I have a proposal to make (see below)... Blueboar 18:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have found a good use for personal websites that I think should be considered if any changes are made to the guideline. Some reliable books have a great deal of technical information in them, and it is not unusual for important typographical information to creep into these books; a case in point is Anchell and Troop's The Film Developing Cookbook published by Focal Press. One of the authors (Troop) maintains a personal website ([http:www.graphos.org]) that contains corrections for the typographical errors. Of course, it would be a bit better if the site were maintained by the publisher, but sometimes that is not the case. I can't see any reason not to accept the author's corrections of typographical errors. --Gerry Ashton 19:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Self Published - a proposal

Many editors seem to feel that "Self-published sources in articles about themselves" is restrictive... In the discussion immediately above, we talk about a good example of when a personal website might be used in an article that is not "about itself". Should we add a section that reads something more along the lines of:

• Self-published sources in articles not about themselves
  • A self-published source may, in rare circumstances, be used as a primary source in an article related to, but not directly about the source itself. For example, they can be used to cite direct quotations by the creator of the source, or to cite the opinions of the person or group publishing the source. Note that when citing to a primary source to back an opinion it is important that the article is phrased in such a way as to make it clear that the underlying statements are the author's opinion and not nescessarily statements of fact.

OK... you can start ripping it to shreds now... Blueboar 19:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a new section titled Self-published sources in articles not about themselves will build on a weak foundation. There are already three sections about self-published sources

• • Self-published sources (level 3 heading)
    • Self-published sources in articles about themselves (level 4 heading)
    • Self-published sources as secondary sources (level 4 heading)

Unfortunately, the difference between level 3 and level 4 headings is so subtle that many readers will not notice it, so the level 4 sections need to be reworded to make it clear they are subsurvient to the level 3 heading.

A brief summary of the intent, as I read it, is that a personal website that clearly is under the control of a recognized professional reasearcher or journalist can be treated as a reliable primary source for the subject in which the professional has established his/her expertise. These web sites may be used in the same way as other reliable primary sources.

The section about self-published sources in articles about themselves only applies to sources that fail the professional researcher or journalist test; these sources can only be used for articles about themselves, and even then, with care.

The section Self-published sources as secondary sources starts out OK, saying that self-published sources are not secondary sources. But then it states "that is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book." This falsly implies that anything other than a secondary sources should should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. This is wrong. Reliable primary sources can be used for any kind of information. That means that self-published sources that have been establised as reliable for a certain subject can be used for any kind of information within that subject area. --Gerry Ashton 19:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it. But it would be a good idea to link to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, to remind editors that just because there is an acceptable source for something doesn't necessarily mean we should say much about it, except in the article(s) dedicated to it. And perhaps the primary source part could be made more obvious, such as calling it "Self-published sources as primary sources", and putting the section between "Self-published sources in articles about themselves" and "Self-published sources as secondary sources". Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources are by nature, not reliable sources, for any article other than articles about the author. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• No, don't buy that. Self-published sources are reliable sources for opinion, where that opinion is of value. So you can cite Neil Gaiman's opinion on the latest moves at Marvel Comics, but not on the London Stock Exchange, and you can't cite my opinion anywhere. Hiding Talk 20:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not so sure.... There are self-published sources, and there are self-published sources. In principle, no self-published sources are to be used. If there is a specific case, in which citing a self published source may be a good idea, you will need to convince involved editors of that. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources may be used as primary sources about themselves, if used with care. Now, in addition, is it being proposed that self published sources may be used as secondary sources, used as substantiation for the topics which they comment on ? For example, John Smith publishes a website telling his opinion about apples (www.JohnApples.com), and his website can be used as a cite and reference in the Apples article ? Terryeo 21:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe John Smith's website can be used for his opinion on apples; suppose John Smith has a PhD in genetics, his doctoral dissertation was on genetic engineering of apples, and his web site was recommended by the USDA and the agriculture departments of Washington and Oregon. If you say no self-published source should be used as primary or secondary sources about the subject they cover, rather than just about the web sites themselves, you are excluding the best self-published sources as well as the worst. --Gerry Ashton 22:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources as secondary sources used to say "Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material within the area of their established expertise. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, or known pen names." I'm not sure when or why that was taken out. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Sources

Template: Further explanation of how sources in science, medicine or history articles work. Perhaps this could be an educational talk page template, as opposed to simply a WP:RS or WP:OR warning.

So far it is pretty science specific. Please comment and fact check me. Thanks. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 22:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

These notes apply to Science and Medicine only

Primary Sources

In science and medicine, primary sources are created by researchers. Primary sources can refer to raw data or research papers. The papers usually describe a hypothesis and the scientists' efforts to validate or invalidate the hypothesis via testing or data collection. This may include a summary of what the scientist believes the results mean, (his theory). This is usually published in a field specific journal, after being reviewed by fellow scientists. This review is called peer review, and is a minimum requirement which is primarily intended to validate methodology and variables of the data collection. This is not validation of the theory itself, if one is given.

Other scientists may then attempt to replicate or refute the data of the original research scientist. These additional Primary Sources are also printed in peer reviewed journals. They may consist of a rebuttal to the previous article, a conflicting set of data or a reintepretation of the original data, in an attempt to validate or invalidate the previous work.

At this point there may be many competing theories, each with their own adherent/s. In this context, citations between papers are references to the ongoing debate. Under these circumstances papers or results from a single study should not be considered reliable on their own.

Secondary Sources

Secondary sources are also peer reviewed articles, although they are reviewed to a harsher standard. Secondary sources attempt to combine the data produced by previous primary sources, analyzing, sythesizing and attempting to produce a clear interpretation of what the previous work means. These papers often find their way out of the scientific community into more mainstream magazines and journals. While there may still be some contention (see string theory), by this point, more than a few scientists should agree on the same general concept. Secondary sources are considered strong evidence, and citing in wikipedia is encouraged.

Tertiary Sources

Tertiary Sources are a compilation of secondary sources, and in some cases where the original data is relevant, primary sources. These include textbooks and encyclopedias, like Wikipedia. Because of the long lifetime of tertiary sources, they only include stable information, where much of the debate has ended, or stabilized into a small set of definable theories. New and fringe theories are rarely mentioned and must usually reach the level of secondary source before receiving even a sidebar mention.

My suggestions

Some mods made by me. New words in italics. Old words struck out. Some Spelling corrected . Links added--Light current 23:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, all great suggestions, I have incorporated them into the version above. I have removed your strikeouts/italics, and left my own where I made new changes. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 23:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In History it works both similarly and a little differently. A primary source is usually a document from a given era (examples would include annals written by monks, legal documents, or letters witten by eye witnesses) ... ie something that is written at the time and is used by secondary source authors (historians) as citations in their works. The secondary source is the book, essay, discertation, etc. written by the historian who is compiling and drawing conclusions from the primary sources. A tertiary source is a compelation of secondary sources, such as a high school text book and is rarely cited. In writing history articles, a blend of primary and secondary sources is usually required.

However, in much of the current debate over sources, we are talking about something different. we are not talking about academic subjects... Much of the objection to citing personal webpages, blogs, etc. occurs in discussions of current events. Here, such sources are certainly primary (in that they are a particular person's or group's view of the topic). The objections come from editors using such primary sources as proof of fact, as opposed to proof of opinion. Far too often someone will state that something is true, simply because someone said it... as opposed to stating that an opinion exists (cite to where the opinion exists), but not drawing conclusions from it. Blueboar 02:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This refers specifically to scientific sources, and for those who do not understand the publishing process. eg: posting links to new study data as definitive sources. Without this background they wouldn't understand WP:RS and other policy docs in this context anyway. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 06:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is that? If this is a template to put on people's user talk pages then it's far too long. Stick to talking about Wikipedia's policies and let the user find out what a primary/secondary source means for him or herself (that is, link to the articles on primary source, etc). It's far too long for anyone to bother reading. And there's no way for a user to tell why this blob of text has appeared on their talk page without reading the whole thing. In fact after skimming it (I'm not reading it all) I'm still not sure what it's trying to tell the user receiving it. Even after trimming it down, an introduction and conclusion are also needed. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If they won't bother reading a message as long as this, then there's no hope of them reading the entire article. It's a good idea.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Pengo: Yeah it needs trimmed and emphasized more specifically. But I especially love how you begin constructive criticism with WHAT THE HELL? Brilliant, that will show me! Personally I try to explain things to newbies rather than posting policy links and threatening to rv or ban them, but thats just me, and I can see you've got your own style. :) --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 06:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The beginning of my comment was to summarise/introduce it in case you didn't feel like reading the rest :) No, really! Sorry if it was too strong. Trimming it would mean the reader could click on just those parts they don't understand to have it expanded, but the central message would be easy to distinguish. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 13:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Anything that tries to explain the present (confused) policy is, IMO, a good thing. Obviously this notice needs more work, but its a good start.--Light current 13:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

moved forking comments below to their own heading for general comment, hope you don't mind --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I like seperate headings!--Light current 15:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Block layout

I like it! --Light current 00:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Beware false authority

"Look out for false claims of authority. Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. ... Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions." I would add here: "Look out for people with advanced degrees affiliated with academic institutions who say things in pop articles, speeches, etc. that they have not written in peer reviewed journals." That means they cannot defend their positions by academic standards. Fourtildas 01:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D.)

I thought I added something to this effect, but I don't see it. Perhaps I forgot to click on "Save Page"? Fourtildas 06:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Forking

Moved from Proposal: Sources above to its own heading for general comment... -darkfred

It might be nice to have something like this in wikipedia space article form. I think the primary problem now with WP:RS is a lack of focus, and confusion between different types of information. Personally I would fork it into the different types of sources, scientific, biographical, historical, news, popular culture etc. Everyone seems to be arguing from a completely different definition, so it will never get resolved as it is. But in some case (science) there is already a concensus. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with 'forking'. Present policy is confusing. Sounds sensible idea to me. 8-)--Light current 14:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record WP:RS would still be the main policy page, but it could be more concise and simply point to the policy sub page on each source type. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes this sounds a good idea. THen depending on the sort of article one is writing, one could easily find the pertinent info rather than try to interpret whats there ATM. Clearly, each filed should have its own notice based on what you have done above.--Light current 15:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the benefit of this "forking" idea. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, multiple policies covering the same topic, sources, the application and relevancy of each depending on the article's subject, is simply a not a good idea. FeloniousMonk 18:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that "forking"" is not a good idea. Since different editors would probably participate in the development of the various forks, the forks would tend to be come contradictory. --Gerry Ashton 20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The policy is already contradictory, just look at the arguments above. Plus how could a rule which is applied to claims of scientific authority contradict a rule which is only applied to biographical sources? --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture and fiction

I don't understand this: " Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources."

Surely that should be "primary" sources, should it not? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No... it means what it says. Such sites are not considered reliable for use as a secondary source. While such are considered generally unreliable for use as both primary and secondary sources, they can (in some cicumstances) be used as primary sources. For example, a blog can be used as a primary source in an article about the blog itself. The same would be true for a personal website... it might be used as a primary source for citing the opinion of the person who owns the website, in an article about that person, but should not be used as a secondary source. Blueboar 14:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

With a Grain of Salt?

Would a local newspaper be a reliable source according to this policy if their country was at war or about to go to war? I've just been told as much at Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, but I can't honestly believe that's the policy of this encyclopedia. My opinion was that such a source must be taken cum grano salis, am I wrong? This person implies that once a reliable source, always a reliable source, no matter the cricumstances. If that's really the case, I'll give up on this project immediately. -- Kendrick7 07:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

To some degree, this depends on the reputation of the local newspaper. I would say that a local newspaper could be a reliable published source under our guidelines. If it has a reputation for accurate reporting in general and, more importantly, for fact checking and editorial oversight, I would allow it (this relates to the "once reliable, always reliable" concept)... however, in a war time situation, it may also become a biased source (which is a different issue all-together). Remember, bias does not automatically rule out reliablility. Reliablility does not always mean "true". It simply means that the source has a reputation for a certain degree fact checking and accountability. A biased source may be reliable in that it accurately reflects a particular view or oppinion. Of course using such a source may also lead to violations of WP:NPOV if the bias is extreme, and if the article is worded improperly. Blueboar 14:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You can be within NPOV if you attribute the statememt to the source and give context, as in "The Jerusalem Post, in an article published during the Lebanon war, reported that...." ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Firstly, a reliable source may only be a reliable source on the topic(s) on which it has expertise. Secondly, a fact is only a fact, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, if all of the experts and scholars working on it agree. If not, it becomes an opinion, and should be stated and attributed as such, and the article should strive for the neutral point of view. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

One additional comment here... looking at the talk page of the article in question, you are discussing Haaretz... I am not sure you can really call this a "local" newspaper. It seems to be affiliated with the International Herald Tribune... this leans me towards saying that it is solidly reliable under wikipedia rules. Blueboar 12:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

One Can Be Reputable only in Area of Established Expertise

Since last I looked in this page, it became bloated with various "yes you can". I have a strong suspicion that various POV pushers are trying to squeeze their favorite sources here.

IMO is is time to revamp the guideline starting from some sound assertions: reputable is reputable is reputable when it is proven to be reputable in some way or another. The rest should be a corollary and elaboration. Now the page is a sectioned chaos.

The first and foremost filter to be applied to the whole current text is the title of this section.

• One Can Be Reputable only in the Area of One's Established Expertise

• Corollary: Being a rocket scientist does not automatically grant the person an authority in gay rights.

I fixed two sentences in the text in this respect. Please think more. `'mikka (t) 17:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have one question on your comments... How does "reputable" relate to "reliable"? In your opinion, are they the same or different, and if the latter how so? Blueboar 18:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK the term reliable. is secondary to reputable in the context of our topic here. How do we know a source is reliable? Because it has a reputation of not cheating, rarely making mistakes and readily admitting/correcting their mistakes. `'mikka (t) 00:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if you are "reliable" or "reputable". What matters is that you have published in a forum where you are subject to fact-checking and logic-checking. And where readers have a way of verifying or disputing your stuff. This is more or less the definition of "Peer Reviewed Literature". But WP seems to be about what "Some people believe". Fourtildas 07:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (B.Sc., M.S., Ph.D.) (BTW, I'm a rocket scientist, so I trump you guys).

the vs. their

GeorgeLouis just changed the guideline to read

For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material within the area of their established expertise. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, or known pen names. + Exceptions to this may occur when a well-known, professional researcher writes within his field of expertise or a well-known professional journalist produces self-published material within the area of his established expertise. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as the work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications [emphasis added]

The boldface word in the phrase "so long as the work" used to say their. In this context, their means that the researcher or journalist has been published by reputable publishers in the same field as the material to be cited in WP, but the material to be cited was self-published. The, on the other hand, means the exact same material that is to be cited in WP was not only self-published, but also published by a reputable publisher. So if we use the word the we effectively ban self-published material by professional researchers and journalists in their field of expertise. --Gerry Ashton 21:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I replaced "his" with "their", a common gender-neutral usage. `'mikka (t) 00:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not my point. If you say a researcher's self-published writing may be acceptable as long as their work has been published by a reputable publisher, it means that the researcher should have established his or her reputation in the field by publishing something through a reputable publisher. If you say a research's self-published writing may be acceptable as long as the work has been published by a reputable publisher, the work refers to the self-published writing. But if the self-published writing were also published by a reputable publisher, we could just cite the edition by the reputable publisher, and we would not even need this passage. --Gerry Ashton 00:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you seem to miss the reason of the addition: It seems to be including the "formally unpublished" and only self-published works of a reputable person. Still, I have to agree that you have some point here. I don't know about journalists, but in scientific community self-publishing often serves as a means of inviting of peer review, for scrutiny before serious publishing. As you imply, a reputable person should have no troubles in finding a reputable publisher. Therefore self-published sources must be somehow restricted. For example, if someone announces a break-through, then it IMO is deserving. But if someone discusses some old stuff, I agree, there should be no difficulty in finding "solid" references. `'mikka (t) 22:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, then I would take the opposite view of what self-published material should be acceptable. I don't think new breakthroughs in science and technology that are announced only in self-published sources should be in Wikipedia. On the other hand, self-published material about older work by established professionals can sometimes be included; it man not be possible to publish the material because publishers usually prefer to concentrate on new material. --Gerry Ashton 01:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia linking

I changed the following weasely phrasing

Note that Wikipedia itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines; however, nothing in this guideline is meant to contravene the associated guideline: Wikipedia:Build the web. Wikilink freely.

to a more concrete:

Note that Wikipedia itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines. However the purpose of wikilinks is to build the web of knowledge within wikipedia, i.e., to interconnect various pieces of information, rather than to verify it. Wikilink freely.

Any objections? `'mikka (t) 00:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I object to these rapid changes, without even thinking about the merit of the proposed change. --Gerry Ashton 00:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I object to trolling and policing. If you have to say something, spell it, otherwise buf off. You are not the owb]ner of the page. `'mikka (t) 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverted though your idea may now be, you are essentially right. I don't think your wording is perfect at all, but the existing wording is terrible. It is the single most obtuse passage on the page and fails to give the blindingly obvious reason why Wikipedia doesn't meet the reliability guidelines, which is that it largely links to itself. I think we could refine Mikka's proposed wording and improve the existing passage drastically, starting by making it actually mean something to the reader.qp10qp 02:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Self-Published Sources -- Again

Sorry to bring us back to this issue, but I've just had a slow reaction to the "Professional researcher exception" in Self-published sources.

Exceptions to this may occur when a well-known, professional researcher writes within their field of expertise or a well-known professional journalist produces self-published material within the area of their established expertise. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as the work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications and the writer is using their own name or a known pen name.

I don't see the need for this exception. If Jane Doe has published her work in a credible third-party publication, and then summarized the same results in her web page or some other self-published source, there is no good reason why an editor shouldn't do a bit more research and cite the proper third-party publication. I suggest deleting the whole exception and the parts of the subsequent paragraphs that relate to it. --SteveMcCluskey 00:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You are being confused by a very recent change that was not discussed on the talk page before the change was made. See the section "the vs. their". --Gerry Ashton 00:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides objecting to the lack of discussion about a change, let me point out a concrete case where self-published sources by professional researchers may be useful. Errata are often provided; ideally the errata is on the web site of the publisher, but sometimes it is only available on the web site of the author. A case in point is Anchel and Troop's The Film Developing Cookbook published by Focal Press. --Gerry Ashton 00:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Review request PA Consulting Group

Can someone take a look at this discussion in the PA Consulting Group article. The PA marketing department are currently driving it and citing an internal approval to release copyright on their website.

I'll ask the question at copyright as well, but would be grateful for a view regarding reliabaility of the source, which is the direction I'm coming in from, not being a copyright geek.

TIAALR 07:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume that what you are getting at is that quite apart from the copyright issue, what about the reliable sources issue? It reads like the entire article was written by their marketting department, and as sources, it quotes self-published material i.e. its own annual report and press-releases! Definately not WP:NPOV. Is there a template to flag unreliable sources? Viv Hamilton 15:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear why Viv Hamilton has coloured the above comment with an exclamation mark. The implication seems to be that PA's Report and Accounts 2005 are unreliable

Summilux 11:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note:

Company and organization websites

Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias. The American Association of Widget Manufacturers is interested in promoting widgets, so be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one.

I would say that the same caution should apply to annual reports and press releases issued by the company. While they can be reliable for what the company says about itself (ie as a primary source), they should be treated with caution and a degree of scepticism. Blueboar 12:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion appears to have lost sight of the legal stature and integrity of a Report and Accounts published by a company headquartered in the UK. If its contents are inaccurate or misleading its Directors risk imprisonment and its Auditors a heavy fine and professional disgrace. So the question that those who impugn the PA Reports and Accounts 2005 have to ask themselves is this: does every other document quoted on Wikipedia as a source attain the same level of integrity and assurance as a UK Report and Accounts? If the answer is 'no' then I respectfully suggest that this debate is concluded.

Summilux 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The accounts, and supporting notes, have a clear level of integrity (subject to any conditions or caveats applied by the auditors) but the rest of an annual report is not bound by the same levels of integrity. Discussion of previous activities and exceptions does of course have to contain sufficient material and congruence with the accounts, but the future direction, mission/ vision type things are essentially marketing feel-good for the investors. I appreciate that PA is a private limited company rather than public limited company, but that just means that the investors who are targetted by the report are internal staff, and clearly are looking for different things from it that corporate investors et al.

I think the distinction is clearly appropriate at this time however I'd caution getting too carried away about the annual report, Viv Hamilton also highlighted questions about the nature of press releases. Personally I'd see them as reliable indicators of an organisations view of itself, they'll generally be biased in favour of the originator and it would be useful to independently corroborate them, for example the MCA comments are quite useful in that sense.

As it stands the article is heavily biased towards the company ie it doesn't mention anything about the criticism of over-reliance on government work which I've seen a few times in the past.ALR 20:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd second that. Summilux, I appreciate that you're fond of your company, but I'd encourage you to consider topics like WP:SPA, WP:AUTO and WP:VAIN. I think you have only good intentions, but you're bumping up against something that's a regular problem on Wikipedia: WP:NPOV is hard to achieve for people with an involvement in the subject, especially when they haven't spent time editing a variety of articles on Wikipedia. William Pietri 01:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification regarding interwiki citing

"Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source"

Does this include other-language Wikipedia articles? What about the non-normative information in Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Other-language_wikipedias? —Philip N.✉ 19:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikis in general are not considered reliable, as they are subject to change at any time Blueboar 19:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this site reliable?

Could http://www.discoverychannelasia.com/martial_arts/south_asia/muay_thai/index.shtml be described as reliable? I've been arguing with people that claim that there's never been glasses in rope gloves in Muay Thai, and that it was just invented by the Jean Claude van Damme movie, Bloodsport. Shouldn't discovery channel be pretty reliable, or?--NoNo 20:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this subject, by I would argue that the site is a reliable source. You can attribute a statement to that site, rather than make an assertion of fact, in particular if the statement is disputed by other reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Policing intolerable

I described my changes in talk page. I see no objections. I see reversals only. This is absolutely inadmissible. If this will continue, I will be reporting blatant abuse. `'mikka (t) 22:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In looking at the change, I am personally incline towards your version. However, the nutshell box on the top of every guideline notes that changes should be made on the basis of consensus. I don't think we should "change first, wait for objection" when it comes to something that is quoted as a guideline. I recomend discussing it fully here to garner a solid consensus before implementing it into the guideline. Agne 00:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct. This is not about "if there are no objections, I'll proceed", but about reaching consensus first, for any substantial changes to official guidelines and policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The proposed changes are on the table. I don't see any objections. How long have I wait? Thank you, Agne for talking in a civilized way. And you Jossi have the word "bull" within your sig probably for a good reason. `'mikka (t) 00:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai, try to stay polite; it's essential. For the record, I thought the majority of your changes made the wording better; and so in effect the reverts are making the article worse again. Editors shouldn't be using reverts for good-faith edits, they should act like editors not administrators and go through your changes patiently, either leaving them, changing them to something better, or changing back to the original in cases where they feel that is right. That's the wiki process, not reverting groups of good-faith edits; and it will ultimately produce improvement.

I do agree with Gerry Ashton's comments here about the text, and he's the sort of person that will usually thrash it out with your here properly until a good result is found. I don't agree with him about consensus; consensus isn't wikipedia policy, just a convention among people who work on a page or policy, and you are quite free to edit without it, though I believe it is largely a good principle (many of the worst edits come about that way, but also some of the best). All the same, consensus can't be stored; this week's consensus trumps last week's consensus on wikipedia, which keeps it dynamic.

Never take seriously reverters who do not explain their reverts on the Talk page, especially those who tell you they are reverting you because you haven't proposed your changes on the Talk page. But be patient; you have had changes reverted mainly because they weren't backed by consensus, not because of their merit: as such, you suffered from a dysfunctional mechanism that restores bad expression in the policy, the exact opposite of what is required (Gerry Ashton's words earlier in the page encapsulate this mechanism perfectly: "I object to these rapid changes, without even thinking about the merit of the proposed change"). But if you care about the edits, keep trying again, and talking again. I back you to win at least half your points, if not more; and I'll come here and help you towards consensus, if you like.qp10qp 01:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

When I wrote "I object to these rapid changes, without even thinking about the merit of the proposed change" I was thinking that changes were happening so fast that by the time I finished thinking about whether a change was good or bad, the text had changed so much that the text I was thinking about wasn't there anymore. Therefore, there was no point in thinking about whether text was good or bad. If the text changes as fast as the objects in a video game, you stop thinking and just shoot at everything that moves, which is no way to edit a guideline.--Gerry Ashton 02:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you tired of ruling the world yet? Why don't you take a wikibreak? This is wikipedia, not your moderated bulletin board. If something goes wrong, may be it is you who makes it wrong. `'mikka (t) 14:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we actually having an edit war on a guideline? That makes me sad. Behavior aside, I was wondering about the edit resulting in "For example, the blog of an academic department is a valid reference within the respective domain of expertise." Was that discussed above? I couldn't find it. Personally, I disagree that is necessarily a reliable source. To me, formal academic writing meets a higher standard in that it's either peer reviewed or goes through the process of publication. Further, published acaemic writing is part of a permanent record of ongoing dialog between people in the field. Blogs might become that one day, but I don't think they're there yet and probably won't be for decades. I think a blog can be a reliable source for quotes on the opinion of the author, but I'm not seeing the merits of this new, stronger statement. William Pietri 09:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be right here, but rght now the whole so-called "guideline" has so many holes as if burrowed by moth. So much for your "consensus". I plugged the most gaping backdoors by this "new, stronger statement". If you disagree with the whole sentense (I tend to second this disagreement, but I was naive to assume it was added with the same scrutiny by this pack of watchdogs) where has our "consensus" been when all this bullshit was added in the first place? Good luck in "ruling the world". Have fun. `'mikka (t) 14:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you really feel that's a productive way to work with other editors? It's sure not doing much for me. William Pietri 16:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, I thought your changes were good, but it takes a while to change a guideline, and appropriately so. Is it possible to step back and see if you can draw out people's objections, then respond to them. For example, William's objection -- that the rewritten guideline suggested that academic blogs were necessarily reliable within their area of expertise -- seems like one you could address by proposing new wording. TheronJ 16:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

primary sources must be published?

I just recently became aware of this line on this page: Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher -- I've been using letters, journals, memoirs available at archives (Duke University or National Archives) to contribute to articles (See John W. Johnston) as I thought it was allowed, since it is verifiable (it's not a document in my own possession or in my great aunt's attic); a reputable repository has approved its provenance, etc. (I'm not using documents deposited at a small local history museum, for instance). I'm not doing any OR as I'm only reiterating events chronicled in there and am not generating any interpretations or assumptions. What is the reasoning for this line in the guideline? --plange 23:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It is too close to original research, which consists of creating a narratibve from primary sources. Better use scholarly secondary sources that other users can evaluate The use of archival sources that very few readers can get access to are inherently suspect--they have not been edited by professional editors for example, and may have been selected primarily by the POV of the researcher. Wiki is NOT a place for original publication of research findings. I don't see any problem with OR in John W. Johnston so keep it up. Rjensen 23:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but this just confuses me further. If I didn't violate OR, then is it okay that I used an unpublished document? I also don't see the difference between a letter accessible from a reputable archives and one that's published - they're identical and will not prevent someone doing OR. In fact OR can occur from use of secondary sources. Edited letters and memoirs actually becomes a secondary source since it's now passed through the lens of the editor who published them and could have edited out parts that didn't fit with their POV. That's why primary sources are so important in historical research. Believe me, I'm definitely on the "no OR" bandwagon, I just don't see how this prevents it from happening? The 'no OR' rule should stand on its own regardless of whether a person uses primary or secondary sources. It doesn't belong here period, I agree. --plange 23:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that documents that are housed and listed (cataloged) in a publicly accessible archive are verifiable, and thus reliable primary sources. You could even argue that by cataloging them the archive has "published" them. I would equate citing such documents to citing a rare, out of print, (but published) book ... of the type that can only be found at a large public library. The real issue is how you use them. It is that use that may or may not constitute Original Research. The document by itself is not. Blueboar 12:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The use is subject to the same rules as usage of secondary sources: No OR. But the main page of this guideline explicitly states it must be published, hence my question. Should we clarify that documents housed in a reputable public repository are allowed? --plange 15:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think what Rjensen and Blueboar are saying is that, although you are not violating WP:OR, it is very easy to accidentally do so when using primary sources. But I would say that yes, your sources are reliable. As for editors who don't have access to said documents, I would say this is a good reason to allow convenience links, but that is controversial. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'm just saying that I should be corrected for the policy on OR not RS, if that ever came up, but as it's written now, if an editor chose to, they could say I'm violating RS (even though I'm not violating OR) because of the way the guideline is written. I guess I shouldn't worry about it, I just wanted clarification as I didn't want to be violating any guidelines or policies :-) --plange 15:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Edited collections of letters can certainly be biased or dishonest, but there is a corrective: they're reviewed; and if an editor suspects that they are unreliable sources, she can cite the reviews to convince others. As far as I can tell, plange is operating in good faith and writing a good article, but plange is close to the border, and I am reluctant to rewrite guidelines to move that border. Remember, this is a guideline; "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." This is the sort of case which can be treated (if necessary) as an exception. Septentrionalis 17:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Just thought you all might be interested in the same question posed at WP:V and WP:OR since this intersects these areas -- Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Reliable_source_question (go to bottom of this as first part was about a different scenario) and Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Only_published_primary_sources.3F --plange 16:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

19th century racial theorists

Certain users claim that the works of 19th century racial theorists constitute reliable sources for the Mongoloid and Caucasoid articles. I have already removed the information they added citing various white pride and religious websites, but am at a bit of a loss about what to do about "more reliable" sources, such as the works of Thomas Huxley or Egon_Freiherr_von_Eickstedt theorizing on the possible origins of such peoples or that certain peoples would be more or less evolved than others. Because their views are generally not accepted by the scientific community today, and have been largely superseded by modern genetic research, can I just get rid of it, or are we obligated to include the views of discredited and controversial theorists from over 100 years ago?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pravit726 (talk • contribs)

These are things which should definately be included in the article. However they should be in a secion on historiography, not in the area dealing with modern thought on the subject. Unfortunately, Wikipedia oftens lacks the encyclopedic information on historical development of thought on a subject. BTW such opinions were not contraversial 100 years ago. See s:The New Student's Reference Work/Yellow Race, The --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, are there any examples of historiography sections on WP I could use as a model? Also, I feel this source: http://christianparty.net/benjaminfreedman.htm is unreliable for information on Khazars. The source appears to be unscientific and biased. The source is cited in the section on Osteuropids in the Mongoloid article. -Pravit 21:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mongoloid and Caucasoid are physical types. These physical types were accurately measured by the 19th century anthropologists. Genetic information does not disprove the physical similarites among the people included in these racial categories.--Dark Tichondrias 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I never said genetic information disproved anything, but the current Mongoloid page reads like a scrapbook of every loony theory from 19th century racial theorists and Geocities pseudoscientists. Are we obligated to include every single opinion that you can find on the internet? The section on "South African Mongoloids" cites this page: http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/backwards.htm as its source. Yes, in the article, it is stated as the authors opinion, but I find it irrelevant as it is an extreme minority view. You can find hundreds upon thousands of people on the net with different ideas; should we really include all of them? -Pravit 23:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The genetic section should read:Races formed by physical type are not concordant with races formed by genetics due to different parameters for definition. Although Mongoloid is a craniofacial type, Cavalli Sforza has borrowed the term to refer to the East Asian genetic group. This has not been the historical usage of the term..

I would recommend two steps, of which I will take the first. The section on Carleton S. Coon, for example, is undue weight on an old-fashioned view, and includes no hint that Coon's views -on this subject- are no longer widely held. This is non-neutral and should be so marked.

The second, and much harder, step is to find sources for the modern deprecation of Coon, and include them in the article. When this is done, the mention of Coon will be neutralized, and it shouldn't be back. Septentrionalis 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I made some small changes

I restored a couple of Mikka's edits (partially) which I felt had improved the text of the policy or identified weaknesses in it, before they fell prey to blanket reverting. I changed "his" back to "their" because it is the more acceptable form today. I also reinserted Mikka's distinction of "pen-name", because some authors do write under a legitimate pen-name and should not be deprecated on that account. I changed the final phrase to "not anonymously", because I assume that captures the intent of the guideline there. All the same, I don't think my version or Mikka's are necessarily the ideal final form, only that they are an improvement on what was there already.

These changes seem OK to me. Some people don't like to see their used when it refers to a single person, although some respected authors accept this usage. It could be reworded in a plural form to avoid the issue. --Gerry Ashton 16:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mikka reworded it the following way and got reverted:

"Exceptions to this may occur when well-known professional researchers self-publish within their fields of expertise or when well-known professional journalists publish their own material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously printed in credible third-party publications and they are writing under their own names or known pen names."

I wish people had changed the bits of that they disagreed with rather than reverting the smart plural. (On the singular "their", the usage has been traced back to the fourteenth century, believe it or not; all the same, the plural is usually the best solution, where possible, IMO.) The above passage, which I have now changed slightly at the end (see above), still suffers from a clumsy "their" in the second sentence (it attaches itself by miscue to "sources"); but that can maybe wait for a while. qp10qp 17:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"The totality of the source"

Another edit of Mikka identified, correctly in my view, that the final phrase in the following is weak (in my opinion it isn't self-explanatory and verges on gobbledygook).

"For example, the blog of an academic department is not merely a personal blog, but should be looked at in the totality of the source."

On the other hand, I wasn't entirely happy with Mikka's version either, though it is an improvement:

"For example, the blog of an academic department is a valid reference within the respective domain of expertise."

I have to admit that I haven't come up with a perfect alternative myself, either. So I have left "should be looked at in the totality of the source" in the text and offer the phrase up here for appraisal. Fortunately, the rest of the paragraph makes the policy clear enough, so policy doesn't hinge on the wording here.

I should add that my interest in this and some other policies and guidelines isn't in changing the policies but in helping edit them into better English, so that people will read them without losing the thread or scratching their heads. I also believe in the wiki-process as the final authority on content and so oppose reverting other than for vandalism. In my opinion, the text should be improved through a combination of discussion and editing. My edits and suggestions above are intended as a more constructive approach to Mikka's perceptive, though not perfect, edits. qp10qp 14:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to understand this issue. Can someone explain why departmental blogs should be considered reliable sources? How are they different from other blogs? What type of information is included in them that an editor might wish to cite? What makes such information reliable, and why should we not wait until such information has been peer reviewed and published? Some examples would be helpful. Blueboar 15:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is something to do with science. Certainly in my field, history, the blog of a department would not qualify in the slightest as a source (in any case, everyone prefers to be rather secretive about their work until it's published). When it comes to science, I have nothing useful to say on the issue itself, just on the need for more precision in the wording.qp10qp 15:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to not use the word blog at all; because it is a trendy word, it has been applied to such a wide variety of websites that it is hard to pin down the meaning to anything more specific than a website that is updated fairly often. --Gerry Ashton 16:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OK... I understand the arguments for why we shouldn't make an exception for academic department blogs... I want to know why we should... the guideline currently lists such sites as an exception to the no blog rule... I want to understand why? Blueboar 01:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly a "department blog" is. Is it on the university website, or livejournal? Does the university website at least link to it? Also, while most blogs are online diaries, I think a few are more along the lines of editorial. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems no one can explain what a "departmental blog" is, or defend the exemption of such sites from the general "No Blogs" rule... So I have to ask: is there a reason not to delete the sentences that discuss them? Specificly I am talking about the following lines (in bold):

• Reliability is a spectrum, and must be considered on a case by case basis. Typically peer reviewed publications are considered to be the most reliable, with established professional publications next. Government publications are often reliable, but governments vary widely in their level of reliability, and often have their own interests which will explicitly allow for withholding of information, or even out right deception of the public. Below this are sources which, while not tangible, can be providers of reliable information in some cases, for example websites and blogs, particularly those associated with reliable sources of information. For example, the blog of an academic department is not merely a personal blog, but should be looked at in the totality of the source. Blueboar 13:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I like your edit. It cleans up both the policy and the language. And if someone does wish to refer to a blog and can prove that it satisfies all other reliability criteria, there is still "website" in the text for them to chew on. qp10qp 18:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Convenience links on WT:EL

Somewhere in the middle of Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Some_fan_sites_are_better_than_others, we started talking about convenience links. Anyways, having talked about it a lot here on WT:RS, I'm guessing many of you will want to say something about it. Cheers, Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

IMDb

IMDb comes up often as a "source". The current locus of dispute is the article on Anastacia. Essentially all newspaper articles say she was born in 1973, following the official Sony bio. (The article lists 5 sources saying 1973 all of which should count as WP:RS.) Most fan blogs seem to take 1968 for granted as the truth based on personal communication, and they are quite possibly correct. However, the only non-blog references given so far for 1968 are a vague and dubious reference to a Stern interview, and IMDb. Trivia on IMDb is user-supplied, and the editorial oversight seems to be limited to filtering vandalism and gross errors such as a year of birth 20 years off. While it is possible to see IMDb as a "convenience link" for certain trivia like uncontroversial birthdates, this doesn't seem to me to satisfy WP:RS. I would like to add the following to WP:RS#Bulletin boards:

The same reasoning applies to trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia.com, where the degree of editorial oversight is unknown. (However, film credits on IMDb are provided directly by the Writer's Guild of America and can be considered reliable.)

See also #IMDb_and_fan-submitted_trivia_sites_again above. Gimmetrow 02:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Process essay

Cats, meet pigeon. User:David Gerard/Process essay mentions WP:RS and is likely to be applied to it by a well-meaning reader when finalised. Oddly enough, it's not an attempt to piss people off. So please criticise in detail on the talk page - David Gerard 13:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Beware"?

I reverted the following addition as it does not seem fitting:

Beware that some people will use their advanced degrees and academic affiliations to give credibility to advocacy pieces that they could not get published in peer-reviewed journals or textbooks.

The above sounds a bit like advocacy for something else; and it's not entirely clear if that advocacy is exactly in line with policy. To stress the problem: we could just as well write,

Beware that some people without advanced degrees or academic affiliations will use their published ideas in peer-reviewed journals or even books to give credibility to advocacy pieces that they could not push otherwise.

Harald88 19:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, giving that advice in a Wikipedia guideline seems to contradict WP:AGF. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC), 21:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinions regarding 2 specific sources?

I have been editing a rather controversial article that has previously been deleted but is back up on deletion review and one of the points that is brought up very frequently is that the sources do not meet WP:V and WP:RS. I'd rather not say what the article is, because I'd like to get unbiased feedback. The two (what I view to be) primary sources consist of a university newspaper and an article from Brand Republic; Digital Bulletin.

According to Haymarket Publishing, Brand Republic is UK's leading website for news and jobs from the advertising, marketing and media industries. It is also the home of Campaign and Marketing magazines online. [12] The Marketing Society says With over 150,000 articles from 12 leading industry magazines, Brand Republic also contains more than 1,000 jobs, book reviews, industry data and reports. [13]. A not for profit company ABC Electronic has audited BrandRepublic for traffic and it has established that it is indeed a high traffic site with over a million page impressions over the period of 30 days. [14][15] To me it sounds as if this is an established UK marketing website.

Now I can see some controversy regarding the student newspaper but I believe that it is held in good regard in not only the community but the state as evidenced by [16]. It has been established for 25 years and has an established record having won at least 32 awards for journalistic excellence in state along with the National Pacemaker Award [17] amongst others. I admit that the article does need more sources but it seems like the ones that are added are immediately shot down all citing WP:V and WP:RS. I am curious as to others' unbiased opinions regarding these sources as this seems to be the primary reason for deletion votes. Thanks, I really appreciate it. --ImmortalGoddezz 19:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

On the student newspaper, probably not. The awards make it arguable for sure, but that's the typical standard. As for the Haymarket, since they offer so many articles, could you simply cite the magazine that it's reproducing as opposed to Haymarket itself? That'd probably solve that problem, and perhaps make more sources at the same time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I figured that the newspaper would be arguable. As for the Brand Republic article the writer is on staff and wrote it for Brand Republic instead of BR importing it from another article. --ImmortalGoddezz 20:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

After a quick glance they both look reliable to me. Any one disagree? Blueboar 19:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

forums when users identity can be confirmed

If you want to quote what the subject of a biography here on wikipedia said in a forum post, on one or more forums where the users identity can be confirmed, and/or there is no reasonable reason to doubt the person is who they claim to be - does it count as a reliable source for the quotation? Most of the people I ask say "common sense says yes" - however a few users disagree. Also does it count as a valid source of a statement about the reaction to what the person said? (ie the response was negative.) I would appreciate copies of replies being posted on my talk page. Thank you for your time. Lordkazan 19:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This strikes me as an abstract question with little practical application, because it is seldom possible to verify the identity of a forum poster. A reporter for a major newspaper could just call the person and ask "did you post such-and-such on someplace.com" and readers would take the reporter's word for it, but if a WP editor did the same thing, we wouldn't take the WP editor's word that he or she made the call. --Gerry Ashton 19:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

IT's an abstract question, but it's in reference to a certain article on wikipedia - i left out what article just to try and help with getting neutral responses. It is seldom possible to verify the identify of a forum poster, but sometimes it is - and sometimes there is no reason to doubt the identify of the poster - in the situation i have in mind both are true. Lordkazan 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, as the other party to the dispute in question (Derek Smart, because everyone has now checked your edit history.), I doubt the identity of the poster. JBKramer 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

But you have no REASONABLE basis to do so. I'm going to the admins of one of the forums in question to get the information required to confirm the users identity. Lordkazan 19:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR. JBKramer 19:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Directly quoting someone isn't a violation of WP:NOR

Btw - the account he posted under on HLP is registered to HIS email address http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=1991 Lordkazan 19:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Email: hidden" Also, forum information pages are not reliable sources. JBKramer 20:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Email isn't hidden from me apparently because i'm logged in, and forum information pages are not non-reliable sources either, that forum users email confirmation, there is no way an account could be registered with his email adress without his knowledge and approval - i can take a screenshot if you like

there is no reasonable basis to doubt that the poster in question is derek smart. Furthermore if the person posting under him at AVault wasn't him they wouldn't have ever posted, they would have been banned. Lordkazan 20:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is your link here showing "Email: hidden" because I'm not logged into the wayback machine? JBKramer 20:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Because you, and the wayback machine, are not logged into HLP. I can get a screenshot of that page, and all the written/email/posted/instant message permissions you need from the owners of HLP to post that screenshot. Lordkazan 20:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Lordkazan wrote "there is no reasonable basis to doubt that the poster in question is [whoever]". Sure there is a reasonable basis to doubt it. It's an online forum with a flame war going on. That's reason enough to doubt it. As for an email address, they are easy to come by; who knows if a certain e-mail address belongs to any particular person. It is up to the person putting information into an article to demonstrate the information comes from a reliable source (within reason). It is not the burden of the reader to come up with a reasonable basis to doubt the information. --Gerry Ashton 20:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The email address belongs to a domain owned by the person in question. How is the content of a discussion being heated grounds for doubting the identify of a person? especially when the person in question has a LONG documented history of engaging in such flamewars.

Simple Facts: AVault checked users identity, HLP account is registered to an email address belonging to the user, in a domain OWNED by the user. Email address is dsmart@3000ad.com - (Edit.. link no workie, getting screenshot) Lordkazan 20:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Gamespot was convinced it was him. Ehheh 20:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

got the screenshot of the domain whois Image:Whois_3000ad_com.jpg Lordkazan 20:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the screenshot, it really illuminated that derek's smart's email is what you said it was. Please review our policy on copyrights, located at WP:COPY. JBKramer 20:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

(we edit conflicts!) And what, pray tell, does copyright have to do with this discussion? Whois information is public domain information, and anybody can go and look it up, that screenshot is just to save time. http://whois.domaintools.com/3000ad.com Lordkazan 20:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The screenshot is a screenshot of a copywritten website. It is not used in article space. This is a violation of our copyright policy. I care about the encyclopedia beyond adovcating for my pet internet slapfests and would like it to not be sued. Thanks. JBKramer 20:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Um..... i don't know what type of bizarre copyright possibly disallows screenshots, which are imperfect reproductions, of publically viewable sections of websites that can be reached by any webbrowser in existance. But then again, i'm just a software developer, what do i know. Lordkazan 20:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) While I agree that the example above isn't trustworthy (Whois[18] may increase the trustworthiness that something is indeed by a particular author, but whois does have some problems), I think there are some situations where the identity of a user on a forum/mailing list can be confirmed. For example, developers' mailing lists. You can see the developers credited on the project's website and/or in the source code they release (for open source software). Even if it is a pyseudonym, it is the so long as it is the same pyseudonym as on the website/source code, it is reasonable to assume they are the same person. If someone were to impersonate them, the mailing list, being a rather tight-knit group of developers, would most likely notice. (Especially if it was someone more notable, for example, the founder of the project.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that in this particular case, enough evidence to associate the forum posts with the person has been provided, but the article is still not properly sourced since this information is not available when viewing the article. It is fair for a reader to presume that forum posts were not made by any particular person unless the article demonstrates why the forum posts are reliably assocciated with the person. --Gerry Ashton 20:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Will just have to add the additional required sources to the information to show that it is indeed that user - or easier quote slashdot and gamespy directly as well as the posts Lordkazan 21:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you thing of this, which is included in the OpenBSD article? Should the reference provide more information to confirm that it is indeed from Theo de Raadt, or is the fact that it is from the .openbsd.org domain enough? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Neohapsis site says "The Neohapsis Archives is a collection of public mailing lists and vendor announcements." [19] So it would be quite a job to trace the message back to where it was originally posted and then try to reconstruct the authentication rules for the site or mailing list back in 2001 to determine if any effort was made to verify that the email address was authentic, much less that the email address was associated with Theo de Raadt. I believe the message, but only because it seems like the kind of thing a developer would write; I don't think my subjective impression of whether something seems right makes it a reliable source. --Gerry Ashton 21:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If it makes a difference, the OpenBSD site reccomends Neohapsis, and others, as archives for viewing old mailing list posts.[20] Should the reference include this information? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Gerry... while it seems likely that these posts are from who they claim to be... likely is not enough to wave the WP:RS ban on "no bulletin board posts". Both should go. Blueboar 21:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/ reliable?

Would http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/ be considered a reliable source? It's a right-wing political activist website that claims to be a 'guide to the political left'. It's run by David Horowitz, who has been known to make unfounded assertions and false accusations against his political opponents. The site has been been widely criticized, including here and here. - Valarauka(T/C) 22:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Reliable for what, exactly? It sounds like it might be a reliable source for the views of David Horowitz, the individual article authors, or the organization the runs the site. It also may be an interesting place to find topics to research; a politician's opponents are more likely to remember negative information than supporters, and that can be useful in seeing how balanced an article here is. But as an organization that examines topics where they have a declared and prominent viewpoint, I don't think they would be a good source for the factual, WP:NPOV information that should make up the bulk of a Wikipedia article. William Pietri 01:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The context is the article for the MSA, which is currently very POV, basically consisting of a bunch of allegations of terrorism etc. all sourced from DTN. DRK has started a poll on the DTN talk page, I'd appreciate comments/votes there. Thanks! - Valarauka(T/C) 22:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Self-reference/Summary style

It was pointed out on WP:CITE that the entreaty against using Wikipedia and a source and a section in Wikipedia:Summary style are in apparent conflict. I added a short parenthetical sentence and a link stating that this is not the case. –Joke 00:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

When to quote widely acknowledged extremist views

I need some "outside" views on this. Firstly: I had some questions about this back in July (see [21].) As far as I understand, extremist views about anybody/anything (but themselves) should not be quoted except when they have in turn been quoted by a reliable source. Now, in the Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid, extremist like David Duke and Jew Watch are quoted directly in the Introduction to the term, and in fact given as much weight as people like John Dugard ( Special Rapporteur for the United Nations) and archbishop Desmond Tutu. Is this correct? Any "outsider" opinion about this will be appreciated. Regards, Huldra 10:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You need an "outside" view? Outside of what? When guidelines are set for reliable sources, I think what is meant is that the source may be used as support for text in a Wikipedia article asserted as factual. Failing to meet the guideline as a source is not a prohibition on an entity being quoted at all. In other words, an editor may quote a white supremacist as saying "whites are smarter" but of course may not use the white supremacist's statement as a source for an assertion, at the entry for Caucasians or whatever, that whites are actually smarter (which would be a bigoted, unsupportable, dumb assertion). It's not like you're referencing a cardiac surgeon about an aorta incision, it's more like you're, I don't know, quoting Sean Connery that he thinks it's okay to smack one's wife [22]. The fact that he says this does not mean it's okay, and your quoting him does not suggest that you think it's okay, and I don't think it would be seen as validating wife beating in the Wikipedia article about domestic abuse. DanielM 13:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you mixing two seperate issues here... First is whether you can use a quote by the extremist - ie, can you quote an extremist view in an article that is not specificly about that extremist? My view is that you can, although you need to take care that it is writen in a NPOV way, and you need to make it clear that this is the view of an extremist and not fact (I will leave out the question of whether you should quote such extremists, as that is a third issue that is not within the scope of WP:RS.)

The second question is how to cite it... that is where WP:RS comes in. You must use reliable sources to do this. Extremist websites (such as Jew Watch) are usually not considered reliable - for one thing they probably include all sorts of statements that are not part of the quote, and they often take quotes out of context so they fit their extremist POV. Similarly, you should avoid personal websites as they may not have checked to be sure that the quote is accurate. However, quotes from newspapers and other reliable sources are fine. Blueboar 14:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

First; thank you both very much for you reply. If you follow my link above, you will see there was some discussion about this in July. To DanielM: by "outside" view I meant views by people not heavily involved in the article I mentioned. To use your example; would it be ok in an article about domestic abuse to have as many quotes from people who thinks it's okay to smack one's wife, as from people who think it isn´t? Or lets take perhaps a more relevant example, say, in an article about abortion, or UFOs; would it be ok if half of the supporters quoted were "notable sources" (like Nobel Prize Winners, or high-level UN representatives), and the other half of the supporters quoted were "lunatic fringe" sources, (Holocoust deniers or whatever)?

To Blueboar: that is exactly what I mean: what if no RS have quoted them on the issue? Is it or isn´t it OR to quote them directly? Taking note of the fact that this is about the use of an expression, where the expression itself is hugely contested. Regards, Huldra 15:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A quote is never OR. Not... ever. OR is the *creation* of new information. "New" being the critical word here. Wjhonson 15:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The example you raise, like I think Blueboar says, is a matter of quoting a extreme person, not a matter of using the person as a "reference" or "source" in the sense of a reference or source that is covered by WP:RS. So in my opinion you're barking up the wrong tree to try to find your answer here. I do understand that an article shouldn't sample a bunch of extremist quotes side by side with subject matter expert quotes or quotes from respected figures, at least not in a manner that appears to legitimize the extremists. I'm not sure, but I think that would be an NPOV violation, that undue weight is being provided to the extremists, in fact WP:NPOV says "articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." You'd have to figure out how to apply that to the specific situation at your article. In my opinion however the quote of an extremist more tends to invalidate the view expressed than to affirm it, as long as the extremist is well identified. It depends on the specifics. Good luck! DanielM 15:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is getting quite long... can we archive some of it? I would do so myself, but I am not good at it and some stuff might get lost if I tried. Blueboar 14:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. I've also tidied the archive stuff up a bit. It would be great if on the archive table of contents somebody could add some info about what subjects are discussed. That will make it easier for well-meaning editors to avoid repeating discussions. Thanks, William Pietri 16:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Live news footage as sources

I have added the following to "issues to look out for":

• Live news footage during disasters and major incidents are primary sources that often contain highly speculative reports and commentary, some which may later turn out to be false; Such sources should be corroborated with other reliable sources, such as newspaper reports that have gone through editorial process and review.

On articles relating to the September 11, 2001 attacks, as well as on the Oklahoma City bombing, I have seen people try to use live news footage clips on YouTube as sources. Such clips and footage contain highly speculative reports, commentary, and guesses as to what's happening by the reporters. I think it's obvious what I'm talking about (e.g. car bombs at the State Department on 9/11), but here's footage from CBS news where Dan Rather makes such speculative remarks. I don't think these should be used as sources, without corroborating them with later published sources such as newspapers which put the initial reports into context. (e.g. we can say there were reports of car bombs at the State Department, but should be accompanied by mention that these reports later turned out to be false ).

If anyone objects to this addition, I'm open to discussing it here. --Aude (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Or feel free to tweak the wording. --Aude (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)