Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Secondary sources not "third-party" sources

I went ahead and changed this because it is such a glaring oversight. Here's a link: http://www.lib.umd.edu/guides/primary-sources.html

Third-party is a legal term used in torts and contracts...like in a defamation case, when one party makes a false statement about a second party to a third-party...that's when you get sued...you can try to lie to a person, but if you lie ABOUT a person to someone else then you get sued...unless it's a "public person" like a president or celebrity...then you can publish it in your own newspaper and won't get sued because they have recourse to address the injury in the media (like the Washington Post)...but you still might get sued for doing so...but if it's something about Johnny "no one knows who I am" Arkansas then you will get sued if he finds out and knows a lawyer in Arkansas...whatever...the sources you want here are called "secondary" sources, not "third-party" sources. Actually, Wikipedia IS a third-party source or tertiary source: http://www.lib.umd.edu/guides/primary-sources.html#tertiary.

That being said, doesn't Wikipedia want primary sources that are published? I think, yes. The correct reading for the guidelines should be "primary and secondary sources" Hkp-avniel (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term "third-party" is entirely deliberate and accurate on this guideline. It refers to sources that are independent of the subject of the source. It's essentially impossible for a third-party source in this sense to be primary, but it's very easy for a secondary source to not be third-party. Thus, the use of third-party (the word independent is used elsewhere in the guidelines, such as the notability guideline) is meant to solve the dual requirement that a source be both secondary and sufficiently independent of the subject of an article to be considered reliable. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:RS clearly states what a reliable source is and as such, and I quote: Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics...this means that Wikipedia articles should include primary, secondary, and tertiary sources to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations...this means the best article will have multiple viewpoints. Again I state, "third-party" sources is inaccurate and misleading. You want primary, secondary, and tertiary (third person, like encylopedias) to be used in articles, not just some dude who had a "dream" about the truth or writes what he feels like...you get what I mean. Hkp-avniel (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:RS wants reliable third-party sources, however WP:N wants reliable secondary sources.
I've often thought one of the guidelines wants changing! Not sure which just one of numerous ambiguous things the guidelines have. SunCreator (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You missed that WP:N requires the sources to be "independent of the subject." And so there is no real difference there, only the use of more straightforward term. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It says that at the top, but further down it's does not.
"'Sources', defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability." SunCreator (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems I maybe wrong about the above sentence due to the context, but either way such use of presenting something to two different ways is bound to confuse. SunCreator (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the guidelines need to be consistent with itself, but which is the best wording? "third-party sources" or "secondary sources independent of the subject"? SunCreator (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The term "third party" (legal terminology) is often confused with "third person" a grammatical term such as in "I" (first person), "you" (second person), and "him" (third person). That' said, the most correct scholarly term for reference sources is "primary", "secondary", and "tertiary". That being said, Wikipedia rules/regulations/policies/guidelines/essays/etc do not always adhere to correct terminology but perhaps someone who is willing to be accused of "wiki-lawyering" could write an essay on correct terminology for use in writing policies? A braver soul than I at least. :) Low Sea (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

The last part of this (the sentence about AIG), appears to lack neutrality. RC-0722 247.5/1 03:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines do not need to be neutral. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, I highly doubt that. Even if they don't, they should at least state correct facts. RC-0722 247.5/1 19:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting they are considered reliable, accurate sources within scientific fields? Can you provide evidence for this? Scienceblogs.com (generally considered a reasonably reliable source, I believe) has quite a number of articles about their new journal, and all are pointing and laughing, not discussing the brilliant new research. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, two things. 1) I am not suggesting that we use it as a source. What I am suggesting is that we remove the slams against AIg's material and make the sentence that word we all like to use except when talking about something scientific: Neutrality. 2) Scienceblogs.com has a viewpoint (which, incidentally, is anti-creation), and is obviously biased and ignoring the obvious information that contradicts most of their theories. But that's not why I'm here, I'm here to discuss the neutrality of that sentence. Please continue this discussion on this thread. RC-0722 247.5/1 04:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

third-party published sources OR secondary sources that are independent of the subject

Seems both these terms are used in various articles and templates. Is there a reason for both? Do they mean the same? If they are the same can we use just one. And ultimately which wording to use. SunCreator (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

They overlap in meaning but are not exactly the same. An example of the difference would be a historical document such as a medieval "life of" a king... it is a Third-party source (ie witten by someone not directly related to the subject) but it would be considered a primary historical source, and not a secondary one. Blueboar (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
On the other side, a person could hire a publicity firm just before going on holiday, forcing them to comb newspaper reports on him and so on to collect information on him. The press statements they put out might be a secondary source, but it wouldn't be independent of him, so it wouldn't be a third-party source. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(OOH... I hate people like that... forcing poor innocent publicity firms to do all the hard work, while they go off on holiday.)  :>) Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added to the end of the title for the longer wording as given in WP:N with the ending 'that are independent of the subject'. I think now that both sides say the same thing. Both not entirely sure. SunCreator (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

appropriate to the claims

"Sources should be appropriate to the claims made"

Can anyone tell me what meaning is intended by this phrase? User:Pedant (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a couple things - basically, the sources need to be sufficiently reliable with respect to the information provided. Don't use the writings of fringe theorists as your source for describing the mainstream view. Extraordinary claims need extrordinary sources. Small, low-quality scientific studies can't be used to claim the mainstream is wrong. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible ambiguity in the guidelines in section 1.5.1

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

The wording in this section could be a little ambiguous, as is being shown in a discussion currently ongoing on WT:UKGEO#Notable People section–need for verification and extra checks. I maintain that this passage could mean either: (a) that all unsourced material should be removed, and, in addition, all poorly sourced material which is contentious should be removed; or (b) that all contentious material that is either unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately. However, I think b contains a strange redundancy, as unsourced material is clearly poorly sourced, and so if this meaning were intended, the quote would have been better worded at this point as "Remove all poorly sourced contentious material immediately."

There are three issues here:

  1. Is it ambiguous in the ways I outlined?
  2. Which interpretation (or which other interpretation) is the preferred interpretation?
  3. Should the writing of 1.5.1 be clarified at all?

I have had advice in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Wikipedia as a source? (above) that suggests we should be more stringent in considering entries in a "Notable Persons" section of an article about a settlement, and getting any such articles to GA or FA status would seem to require that all entries should be verified by means of an appropriate citation, but some editors on the UK geography talk page seem to have differing opinions.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Policy that governs this is: WP:BLP ... a subsection of that policy Wikipedia:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, clarifies the issue by saying:
  • Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research).
Therefore... the key is whether it is contentious or not. If it is not contentious, but is simply unsourced, other sections of BLP tell us to remove it from the article... but there is no harm done by moving it to the talk page for further discussion (which might result in someone finding a source). If it is contentious, and is either unsourced or poorly sourced, it should be summarily deleted, and not moved to the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Using a single source

An interesting debate came up at a current Featured List nomination. The nom in question can be found here, the article being List of the 100 wealthiest people. To make a long story short, the article is basically based on a single source, the annual Forbes listing of the wealthiest people in the world. Forbes is obviously a reliable source, so we're cool there, but does it make sense to base an entire article/list on a single source? Perhaps more relevantly, would such and article/list reflect "Wikipedia's best work"? My argument has been no: reliance on a single source is not adequate since it is a) redundant, b) makes the list about as useful as a single external link would be, c) renders the list completely reliant on this one source, d) ultimately renders the list/article inferior to its source, and e) might be a copyright violation (?). The last one I'm not sure about at all, but I thought I'd bring it up anyways. I suggested finding some other sources that also mention people's wealth, but it turns out that almost every source that might do so merely references the Forbes list, and are also not as reliable in their data as Forbes has proven to be. So I thought I'd bring up the issue here. The guideline specifically says "sources" (plural), but I'm not sure if it was written with this kind of situation in mind. Perhaps we could figure out what is right for Wikipedia, and then alter the wording of the guideline slightly to reflect any consensus reached. Thanks for any comments you guys might have! Drewcifer (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A one-source article is not, in itself, a problem. A stub that describes, say, some Greek mythological hero might have one source and, as it summarises only some of the information from that source in a unique way, it'd be fine. This article, however, doesn't just present information from Forbes' list: it presents nearly all the information from Forbes' list [save the biographies, which it instead just extracts a couple companies mentioned from] and also copies a lot of the look and style of Forbes' list, like the stock-market-based up-and-down arrows. Very, very much a problem in terms of copyright. Information is free, presentation of that information is not.
The academic concept of plagiarism is probably a useful guide here: It's fine to quote another source, only slightly paraphrase that source, or anything else on those lines so long as it's clear what type of usage it is. If you write about things you know in your own words, without using a source, then you don't have to go seeking a source. If you do use a source, though, you need to make it clear how you're using it. Quotes are put in quote marks to indicate them as such. Rephrasing information in your own words is fine, and does not strictly need a source (provided it's clear you aren't describing your own work), but in more academic papers should get one on verifiability grounds. However, if you only change a few things, so that it's nearer a quote than a rephrase, then that's plagiarism, because it's not clear that it's not your own work. As we want to write an academic encyclopaedia, one wonders why Wikipedia has not yet made any use of the standard core plagiarism rules that cover all of academia, articles, publications, and essays in setting up its policies.
Admittedly, the concept of plagiarism can be very poorly taught at times, to the point of claiming that not using full MLA-referencing when talking about something you had read once, named the magazine you had read it in, but were unable to find it again to provide the full reference, was plagiarism and therefore should result in a 0 for the assignment - yes, that's a true story. I think the teacher mixed up verifiability and plagiarism. Anyway, when you get past high-school stupidity, the rules regarding plagiarism as described by (most) universities, academic journals, and so on are sensible, reasonable, and would make excellent policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yuck... This seems to be nothing more than a repackaging of the Forbes list... the two are almost identical... the only difference is that the Wikipedia article has a (unsourced) column for "sources of wealth" listing the various companies that the people own. Instead of being a good candidate for promotion to Featured List, I would say it is closer to being a candidate for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The Forbes publication is much more than just the bare list. To report on it by giving the ranking and the money is not a violation of their copyright, but fair use--to a very considerable extent, the success of that list depends upon people who use it as authoritative and publicize it in the manner we're doing.DGG (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC).
But this seems to be getting into look-and-feel territory. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Questionable journals.

I added this:

Note that in recent years, some groups, such as Answers in Genesis, have created so-called peer-reviewed scientific journals that are not respected or considered reliable by any significant number of mainstream practitioners in the fields they purport to belong to, and hence are not generally to be considered reliable sources for anything beyond the views of the minority positions they cater to.

Itsmejudith then added:

Such journals are unlikely to be published by the major academic journal publication houses or university presses.

I'm not sure that's true, although thinking about it, I think that part of the problem is that I made my original statement too specific, so, if I might be indulged a moment, maybe we can work out a better phrasing we'll all be happy with.

Itsmejudith's addition is certainly true within Creationism - there are several Creationist journals, they all claim to be peer-reviewed (though the review only accepts those that support their views, and none are published by a major publication house.

But then I got to thinking - Rivista di Biologica was once a respected journal, but was taken over by a crank, and now publishes Intelligent Design papers (and, I believe, a lot of other fringe science). Medical Hypotheses is published by Elsevier, who say of it:

“ Medical Hypotheses takes a deliberately different approach to review. Most contemporary practice tends to discriminate against radical ideas that conflict with current theory and practice. Medical Hypotheses will publish radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. Furthermore, traditional peer review can oblige authors to distort their true views to satisfy referees, and so diminish authorial responsibility and accountability. In Medical Hypotheses, the authors' responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work is paramount. The editor sees his role as a 'chooser', not a 'changer': choosing to publish what are judged to be the best papers from those submitted. ”

It's published a lot of the recent mercury-causes-autism fringe science.

Then we get to alternative medicine. Evidence-Based Complimentary and Alternative Medicine has published bizarre things, such as doi:doi:10.1093/ecam/nel049 (a mouse study of Pyramid power). Homeopathy is published by Elsevier, and is, as you might expect, a largely promotional journal. You get the idea. I don't think any of these count as reliable sources, and policies like WP:REDFLAG, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience suggest that policy would at least insist on more caution before using them than our cheery "peer-reviewed journals are great" suggestions would imply. What do you think? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Shoemaker and others. Happy to discuss the issue. I think that what I said is strictly true and that fringe journals published by the major houses are exceptional. I'm sure it does vary a lot by field as you suggest. The statement made by Elsevier above basically says that the journal is not peer-reviewed in the conventional sense; if it was a minor publisher then we would probably not have such a statement. My experience till now has been that if there is doubt about whether a journal is a bona fide scholarly journal, then examining who publishes it is a useful step. I'm not going to argue hard for any particular wording here. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
How about "traditionally peer-reviewed"? Its also useful, I believe, to make the broader statement in the text, and leave the explication in a footnote. "Some journals published by major publishers use alternate review mechanisms or limit themselves to non-mainstream points of view. These journals are reliable only as expressions of opinion in their chosen subfield."
I think Judith is right that her statement is true over all fields, but I'm worried that medicine, one of the most controversial fields on Wikipedia, seems a major exception.
It's also to some extent qualitatively different from the other journals we're talking about, because the thing is: Medicine is BIG. Thousands upon thousands of journals, lots of subfields. There's not a huge percentage of fringe journals, but it adds up, and those that there are are fairly ruthlessly promoted on Wikipedia. But I don't want to be too bold. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that the existence of fringe journals is a major concern. Agreed also that the journal's provenance is not a cast-iron guarantee of its reliability, but it is an indicator among others. The credentials of the editorial board is another thing that might be taken into account. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's kind of hard to know how to put that into the guideline, though. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How about:

  • Note that in recent years some so-called peer-reviewed scientific journals have been created for the specific purpose of promoting fringe theories that depart significantly from the mainstream views in science. Many of these have been created by advocacy groups, such as Answers in Genesis; few (but not none) are published mainstream academic publishing houses. These are not usually reliable sources for anything beyond the views of the minority positions they are associated with.

Source for revision: WP:V#Questionable sources, with a little more emphasis on promotional sources. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You asked for my advice, which is do not attempt to be specific. I would remove the name of the journal. The reliability of peer reviewed journals is not not only reliable/unreliable, but not even a straightforward continuum. Nature, for example, has repeatedly deliberately published articles it knew to be almost certainly wrong headed: the best examples are anomalous water, and Duesberg's theory of AIDS, but there are many lesser ones also. PNAS for many years had the policy of publishing anything that a member of the NAS insisted on, & thus published Shockley's racism and Pauling's vitamin C. Some journals, on the other hand, are known for publishing only the dullest of establishment-oriented work. In medicine, both JAMA and NEJMedicine are excellent journals, but they are somewhat different in their rigor. There are many areas where there are two schools of scientific thought, each has its own journals, & they ignore each other, & which one is the respectable one depends on whom you ask. This can even affect textbooks & encyclopedias. The 11th Brittanica has some pretty kooky articles, even for the period. The academic world is not simple, and cannot be reduced to simple guidelines.
There are many levels of peer review. PNAS & PRLetters tries to publish only articles of a somewhat broad interest--no matter how excellent. Some journals deliberately aim at published all the respectable work in their field they can find. Some journals technically not peer reviewed, like C & E News, or Physics Today, have as high a standard as any peer-reviewed journal. Some journals peer-review letters to the editor, and some don't. Writing an encyclopedia isn't simple & neither is publishing a journal.
A journal gives only in most cases the first level of trust in the articles it publishes. The way of seeing if an article is accepted in its special field is to see if it is cited, and by whom. Again there are no rules--but, when a notably bad theory is much cited, its the rare exception.
Mainstream academic publishing houses unfortunately are no guarantee either. They every one of them publishes a wide range of journals from the excellent to the awful. In most fields of science, the journals published by scientific societies have an even higher reputation, but it depends on the society. It can be very difficult to tell a scientific society from an advocacy group. I don't think its a good idea in a guideline to name a specific journal or publisher
The rule for judging the reliability of sources is informed common sense. Given that we do not go by academic status, we must trust the consensus of the editors here to have common sense, for if they do not, no guideline will help.
Suggested wording:
Peer reviewed scientific journals differ in their standards. Some court controversy, and some have even been created for the specific purpose of promoting fringe theories that depart significantly from the mainstream views in their field. Many of these have been created or sponsored by advocacy groups. Such journals are not reliable sources for anything beyond the views of the minority positions they are associated with.
anything more is in my opinion uncertain. DGG (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I could go for that, and it seems reasonable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I could go for that too, thanks DGG.Itsmejudith (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If an article in an ostensibly acceptable journal is widely cited, that could still be because the citation was only for context in a controversy, not to approve it. The cutting edge of the informed common sense criterion is for things like WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE, especially in view of the common ploy to argue "but it was published in a respectable journal!" for a POV. That is, while publication in an acceptable source is necessary (modulo WP:SPS exceptions), it is not sufficient to establish scholarly consensus in favor. rudra (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but I wonder if we couldn't deal with this more simply: To whit,just say something like "simply because a source is reliable, it does not mean it is required to use it: WP:NPOV and consensus also govern use of a source." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

different example or reword

OK, I noticed that the last sentence of this (the one about Answers in Genesis), is non-neutral. I propose that we use a different, more notable, example of an unreliable source (eg. National Inquirer). Or we could reword the sentence so that it doesn't unecessarily "put down", if you will, the journals that AIG puts out. RC-0722 247.5/1 21:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't be appropriate in a discussion of supposedly scientific journals created by fringe groups, and seems to miss the point completely. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Which one? The reword or different example? Also, AIG is not a "fringe group"; they are a group made up of some highly respected scientists, and the journals they put out are scientific. RC-0722 247.5/1 01:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
...Oh, dear. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed... It's most definitely not peer-reviewed journal material. To be fair to AIG, they ain't fringe (nor are the organisation they branched from), although they are an advocacy group and would be treated like any other advocacy group in terms of sourcing. Orderinchaos 22:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. The situation has been resolved, thankfully. RC-0722 247.5/1 15:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Peer reviewed scientific journals differ in their standards. Some court controversy, and some have even been created for the specific purpose of promoting fringe theories that depart significantly from the mainstream views in their field. Many of these have been created or sponsored by advocacy groups. Such journals are not reliable sources for anything beyond the views of the minority positions they are associated with." Should be changed to, "Peer reviewed scientific journals differ in their standards. Some court controversy, and some have even been created for the specific purpose of promoting theories that depart significantly from the mainstream views in their field. Many of these have been created or sponsored by advocacy groups. Such journals are not considered reliable sources for anything beyond the views of the minority positions they are associated with." to avoid controversy. RC-0722 247.5/1 17:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but fringe theories have a specific meaning on Wikipedia, which is not the same as your change. Journals on String theory or Modified Newtonian Dynamics might not publish the same things, but both are reasonably respected in their fields, and thus both would be a reliable source. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the text cited above was my version, & I think the elimination of the word "fringe" is an improvement on it, specifically because fringe does have a special meaning in Wikipedia. There are some pretty far out journals in any specialty--and some that defend even the orthodox view will not necessarily do it in a fair way. The more general we keep this the better. DGG (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not exhaustive

Added sentence clarifying that specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliablity issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious scholarship

Suggest adding the following section:

In major religions denominations which maintain organized standards for scholarship and have an equivalent of peer review (including but not limited to Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam), the opinions of official bodies, as well as scholars, publications, and seminaries which are documentably well-known and well-regarded and considered reliable within the denomination, are considered reliable sources for religious opinions on the religion's theology, beliefs, and practices. Leadership in a top-tier seminary or religious court are examples of indicia of religious scholarly reliability. Degrees, ordination, or publication alone are insufficient.

Purpose: we have for some time been attempting to come up with a standard for religious scholarship which on the one hand doesn't permit everyone with ordination and a book or a web site to be considered a reliable source, and on the other hand doesn't require everything to be filtered through a Western academic lens. This is particularly true for religions that have academies and religious courts that operate in a manner somewhat analogous to their Western secular counterparts. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It could be a little clearer on scope, though I'll admit that I don't know religious scholarship issues on Wikipedia that well. I suppose the only question I'd have is if it was a little too specific, and wouldn't be better as a more generally-applicable rule. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Are we talking about reliability for statements of fact, or reliability for statements of opinion here? To illustrate the difference: should the article on Catholicism say "Catholics believe X (cite to noted Catholic theologian Y)", or should it say "According to noted theologian Y, Catholics believe X (cite)"? Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Good question Blueboar. For opinions I think my proposed WP:BELIEFS[1] would cover this. For facts the only issue is determining WP:RS and I believe that may be what Shirahadasha is pursuing however the wording is ambiguous and needs to be clarified.
Another issue is how to deal with conflicting religious authorities. In some eastern religious traditions there are significant disputes on matters of who is and who is not cannon. How to deal with this for purposes of WP:RS needs to be addressed somehow in the guideline. For now I 'OPPOSE but I am open to changing my mind if these two issues can be resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Low Sea (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, this is the reliable source guideline. It gives the first necessary requirements for being considered for use on Wikipedia, but WP:NPOV is the policy related to what should be. As such, it's reasonable to simply set the minimum standards (and make it clear they are the minimum) here, though it needs to be clearer and have better-explained scope. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this unnecessary instruction creep. I have yet to see a religion where different authorities did not have disputes over just what was the most authoritative. It's not just Eastern religions--if we look within just Judaism, there are major sects--if we look within each sect, there are major disagreements also. The better you know it, the more divisions one finds, and the more changes over time. DGG (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The proposal uses the language "reliable sources for religious opinions on the denomination's theology, beliefs,..." (rather than reliable sources for the beliefs etc. themselves), in an effort to clarify that the intent here is only to identify which are the significant opinions in disputes, not to determine which one is correct or represents the denomnation as a whole. However, if different language would make this distinction clearer, I'd be happy to see the proposal improved. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the belief fact distinction, it might be better to speak in terms of the scope of a field and what the field is reliable for. Is a law a belief or a fact? Lawyers and legal scholars give opinions about the state of the law. The field similarly has multiple opinons on many matters. There are a disputes about how much the law changes over time, how much it should change over time. Moreover, judges routinely write opinions that make claims about the history of the law and how that history should guide interpretation. Even though academic historians may completely disagree with judges' versions of history, lawyers still have to take the judges' opinions into account when making legal interpretations. Whether one regards laws as beliefs or facts, or whether one believes the assumptions, rationales, and views of history claimed to be underlying those laws are correct or mistaken, whether one personally thinks the law involves itself in matters that shouldn't be its business, doesn't really affect the fact that law is regarded as an established field in which reliable lawyers and legal scholars can be distinguished from unreliable ones by criteria including reputation in the legal community. There are some analogies here. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL... I am more confused now than I was when I asked the question. I am still not quite clear on why there is a need to spell all this out. What is the goal here? Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a source?

Sorry if this is not the appropriate place to post this question: I am unsure whether it should go here, on this page's discussion page (where I posted it yesterday) or where else. Since this page is active and the discussion page is not, I assume it is better placed here.

An article about a location (town/city/village) makes a claim about a person in terms of where they were born or where they have lived. This is questioned, and the reply comes back that since that person's name is linked to the wikipedia article about that person, and in that article the fact is referenced, there is no need to include the reference in the article about the town/city/village. I consider that one should routinely include a reference to the fact in the town/city/village article as well on a few grounds that can be summed up with the phrase "a wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference for a fact in another wikipedia article." Am I right? Now, is there any difference if the fact is not one about a person, but about something else? I consider there isn't. I think I may be correct here, but I'd like some comments in case I am not. Is there anything explicitly in any guidelines about this as I have seen an increasing number of similar issues crop up over the past few months. Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is clear that we should not actually cite another wikipedia article (ie: <ref>wikipeida article</ref>), but that is not what is occuring in this case. A wikilink is not considered to be a "reference" or "citation" to another wikipedia article. It is simply a navigational tool, a pointer to another article where further information can be found. From what you tell us, the information that person X lived in town Y is apparently cited to a reliable source. So we are not citing wikipedia for the information. The question then is simply: do we need to repeat the citation in every article where the information is repeated? Consensus is actually mixed about this.
The argument that, as long as a piece of factual information is cited in the main article on X, we do not need to repeat the citation in other articles when we repeat that information, is (to some degree) valid... but it may not be the best practice. It really depends on the information, and whether it is at all contentious. If it is contentious, then best practice would be to repeat the citation (if only to avoid constantly having to say... "but it is cited... see the main article"). In other words... the citation does not have to be repeated, but it probably should be.
As a final thought.... I have to ask whether an article on a town/city/village really needs to mention that person X was born or lived in the town? Unless this fact had an impact on the history of the town, I would think it would essentially be trivia. To give examples: The fact that Muhammad lived in Medina is important to the history of Medina (and Islam) ... but the fact that Martin Van Buren was born in Kinderhook, NY is not really important to the history of Kinderhook. The first should be mentiond in the article on Medina... the second probably does not need to be mentioned in the article on Kinderhook. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I have conveyed them to the relevant people, but it is not yet guaranteed that they will adopt what you called best practice here. In terms of your last point, your views go against what appears to be given as part of various guidelines given in, for example, WP:USCITY#Notable natives and residents and WP:UKCITIES#Notable people, both of which have been used to structure articles that have achieved GA and FA status. Indeed, they are often referred to by GA and FA reviewers with the aim of getting articles to comply with them. So, I'm not sure that your criticism reflects a widespread opinion, and, I invite you to take the matter up on the relevant discussion pages for the guidelines and for the relevant GA and FA discussion pages if you feel it is an important point.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, you might note that this page is a WP:guideline and that WP:V, which is an WP:official policy page says, in part: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources.". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone is opining that I can't link to Jewish Identity in the phrase "Jewish Identity politics" (in the article Identity politics because the article does not include info on Jewish Identity politics (though I've now suggested it should). But I am just linking as a "navigational tool" and not a source. I assume in general people can't complain about wiki links for frivolous reasons?Carol Moore 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
You're claiming that Jewish identity article is related to the Identity politics, even though nothing in the Jewish identity article seems relevant to the Identity politics article. When challenged, rather than explaining how they were related, you provided as "citations" the names of some books that you haven't even read. Jayjg (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Also see WP:MOS#Wikilinks. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I saw that link which says: "Make links only where they are relevant to the context:" If neutral parties think that a link to Jewish identity in the phrase "Jewish identity politics" is not relevant I don't have a problem with removing it. (I have asked if editors of Jewish identity if they think there needs to be such a section given that much has been written on it.)
  • If that link should be removed then I guess all the following links in the sentence in question should be removed too, unless editors can prove they very specifically mention politics, i.e.: Afrocentrism...Pan-Arabism...Gender (LGBT, Gay community, Radical feminism), Disability-based identities (Disability rights, Autism rights, Deaf culture, Diabetes, Fat acceptance) Age-based identities: (Adultism, Jeunism). I'll cite this thread when I remove the links. (Or give notice on talk page I'm going to which is better etiquette.)
  • Please cite the WP policy that you can't reference a book unless you have read the whole thing! If it exists, we should put it in WP:V -- I'll do it forthwith.
  • FYI the books in question are: Deborah Dash Moore, American Jewish Identity Politics, University of Michigan Press, October 2008 (oops! It hasn't come out yet!); Marla Brettschneider, Cornerstones of Peace: Jewish Identity, Politics, and Democratic Theory, Rutgers University Press, January 1996.
  • I don't have a problem with coming up with better, more exact references. I have read online reviews of the books and can reference them. Plus I can Search inside Brettschneider here. Plus I can reference a number of articles about the term, and that's just from first page of an internet search. How many academic and other RS references do I need to prove there is such a concept??
  • Finally, (except on WP:BLP), isn't it a wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Etiquette#Principles_of_Wikipedia_etiquette "avoid reverts whenever possible" - that you don't summarily delete material without giving people a couple days to beef up references etc? Summary deletion on questionable grounds just leads to edit wars. Carol Moore 14:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I never said you had to read the whole book; but you certainly have to have read at least some of it. Please try to avoid straw man arguments. As for better references, they'll be of no use if they're not relevant to the contents of the Jewish identity article. And finally, if you believed you should "avoid reverts whenever possible", then you wouldn't have reverted me, would you? Jayjg (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
OK... it sounds as if there is a legitimate concern here, but it isn't one that can (or should) be dealt with here at this page. This is a WP:MOS#Wikilinks issue, not a reliable source issue - since Wikilinks are not sources. I suggest you take it back to the article talk page and hammer it out there. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for WP:MOS#Wikilinks. I did misunderstand Jayjg's ref to "reading the book" as meaning the whole dang thing; I agree it helps to link to a RS review that does describe book. But it seems after doing that you also could include information about the book itself. Not just in this case but any other.
Also obviously the revert policies start with summarily reverting or deleting new RS information, not putting it back after defending it. Obviously if one has experience with an editor who does it constantly, one will stop giving that editor's reverts much credibility. Carol Moore 15:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
It might be OK to link to it - we do all sorts of things for expediency and in the knowledge that we are improving the encyclopedia. But it is not really a good idea to refer to something that you haven't read in full, because you might have misunderstood the main argument and taken a point out of context. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Haven't read in full? Hasn't read at all. She just googled up some likely look book titles. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
On a separate point, it is clear that identity politics is the field of study relating to the political dimensions of all kinds of identity, especially ethnic identity, gender and sexual orientation. That logically includes Jewish identity. It might be possible to introduce a POV by the method of linking but equally it should be possible to make the link without any such POV implication. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for excellent summary of the issue of POV vs NPOV wiki linking :-) Carol Moore 16:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
There's nothing in the Jewish identity article that's relevant to Identity politics. Carol's latest plan is to add something about "Jewish identity politics" to the Jewish identity article so she can then link to it to Identity politics. Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Mischaracterization. First, again I don't see wiki links as a source. But it does seem to me that Jewish identity could use a Jewish Identity Politics section. I asked in talk what others thought. However this whole issue is a low priority to me - just keep getting sidetracked from a completely different article I've been putting off doing for months. Then will revisit identity politics, as well as Jewish Identity and see if anyone's commented on putting in this section. Carol Moore 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

extremist sources

From the article: Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves in articles about themselves or their activities, and even then with caution.

I think this needs to be reworded to be more in line with the main article: Verifiability#Questionable_sources. Just because someone is an 'extremist' doesn't mean they're unreliable. Another issue is who decides what extremism is, which goes against the neutrality concept of Wikipedia, besides that the concept of what the norm is tends to change every generation. --Zero g (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is, however, important that we include something along those lines, for the simple reason that this is, perhaps, the #1 problem in any fringe article - Discovery Institute publications and books, books by people seeking to promote some form of alternative medicine... You get the idea. It also spreads to mainstream articles that go against these beliefs. "We should talk about how awful mainstream medicine is, using [fringe alt-med source attacking them]" or "We CAN'T say evolution is scientifically accepted, look at [Creationist or Intelligent design book]." Be careful before weakening that qualification too much, as it could make it very hard to write an encyclopaedia if policy does not support the mainstream against the fringe. That said, I agree that it is somewhat unclear and could be better phrased. WP:V could also stand to cover the points better, as it only covers self-published sources in any detail. In short: The policies have a slight tendency to be written to cover situations that would come up in an average, non-controversial article. Since controversial articles are the ones that need the most guidance, though, we could really stand to overhaul a teensy bit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've had a go. Either someone's edited WP:V or it wasn't as far off as I thought it was. I also added a little content based on the policy page WP:NPOV#FAQ that seemed appropriate to mention here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

hwee

Questions about Brand New Paragraph One:
  • It reads: Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves in articles about themselves or their activities, and any information used must be directly relevant to the subject and their cause of notability.
  • Doesn't it need to specify they are regarded as extremist by a prepondance of reliable sources? Some might think it's by the whatever editors think is mainstream, which could be biased.
  • It reads: Articles using such sources should not repeat any contentious claims, or any claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
  • What is the rationale here? Shouldn't the issues be "contentious claims should be clearly presented as the group's views" and "a group’s claims about living people should not be repeated unless they also have been published by reliable sources."
Hearing no explanations or objections, I'll make those changes. Carol Moore 00:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Questions about Brand New Paragraph Two:
  • First sentence reads: Organizations and individuals that promote what are widely agreed to be fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), such as revisionist history or pseudoscience) should only be used as sources about themselves or, [if correctly attributed as being such, to summarize the views of the proponents of that subject].
  • What does section in [brackets] mean?? "or about their own theories and those who hold similar theories”?
  • Assuming it means that, the last two confusing sentences should be reduced to: "However, such fringe sources must not be used to describe the mainstream theories or the level of acceptance of the fringe theories. And they must be balanced by reliable sources which fairly and accurately describe the mainstream as opposed to the fringe theories."
  • Also, I’d clean up the definition and remove the distracting examples (which should be accurate and be presented as "negationist historical revisionists). in fact, I'll do so when I do above, soon, hearing no objections. :-) Carol Moore 21:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


A lot of these are based closely on policy documents, so I'll take this opportunity to list the sources. Carol's comments in bold below. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • It reads: Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves in articles about themselves or their activities, and any information used must be directly relevant to the subject and their cause of notability.
  • Doesn't it need to specify they are regarded as extremist by a prepondance of reliable sources? Some might think it's by the whatever editors think is mainstream, which could be biased.
  • The language is taken from WP:V#Questionable sources "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.". Your clarification makes sense, but should probably be done there as well.
  • It reads: Articles using such sources should not repeat any contentious claims, or any claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
  • What is the rationale here? Shouldn't the issues be "contentious claims should be clearly presented as the group's views" and "a group’s claims about living people should not be repeated unless they also have been published by reliable sources."
  • WP:V again, section Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. This attempts to include point 2 (is not contentious) and 5 (nothing contentious about third parties). Point 2 is actually kind of confusing, so I took a guess at a sensible interpretation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph 2:

  • First sentence reads: Organizations and individuals that promote what are widely agreed to be fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), such as revisionist history or pseudoscience) should only be used as sources about themselves or, [if correctly attributed as being such, to summarize the views of the proponents of that subject].
  • What does section in [brackets] mean?? "or about their own theories and those who hold similar theories”?
  • Yes, that's correct.
  • Assuming it means that, the last two confusing sentences should be reduced to: "However, such fringe sources must not be used to describe the mainstream theories or the level of acceptance of the fringe theories. And they must be balanced by reliable sources which fairly and accurately describe the mainstream as opposed to the fringe theories."
  • Sounds mostly right. The main source for the content that became your second sentence in that sample was WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience: "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." You can see the language is confusing. The material that became your first sentence was based pretty much on point four of WP:SELFPUB (that link is such a misnomer), the section of WP:V that describes self-published and questionable sources. It says that information from them must "not involve claims about third parties". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, I’d clean up the definition and remove the distracting examples (which should be accurate and be presented as "negationist historical revisionists). in fact, I'll do so when I do above, soon, hearing no objections. :-)

All of your changes seem eminently sensible and clearer. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Here's how it would read then, with couple comments at end:
Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist by a preponderance of reliable sources should be used only as sources about themselves and their views. See restrictions on such use here.
Organizations and individuals that promote fringe theories held by a small minority in any field also only should be used as sources about themselves, their own theories and those who hold similar theories, with [[ the same. However, such fringe sources must not be used to describe the mainstream theories or the level of acceptance of the fringe theories. And they must be balanced by reliable sources which fairly and accurately describe the mainstream as opposed to the fringe theories. See more on pseudoscience here.
  • I think this is one place where you really do need to specify a "preponderance" of reliable sources before labeling anyone extremist, since the definition of extremist can be so subjective and even politicized. (I could write pages on examples.) I will propose that change in WP:V also and take out preponderance if they don't like it.
  • There are so many exceptions, that it's best to refer people to them, in both paragraphs. Carol Moore 23:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc [[User talk:Carolmooredc|{talk}]
  • I think we could stand to summarise the restrictions a little bit as well as directing people to the policy pages. In the end, we want to have a good page on reliable sources, which means that the key information needs to be on the page, not just at the link on the page to a policy that also covers lots and lots of other things. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, most people won't follow the link. I'll see if I can suggest something short and compehensive soon. Meanwhile I just asked here -- Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Need:_.22Widely_acknowledged_as_extremist_by_reliable_sources.22 -- about these three options, my preferance being the middle one: widely acknowledged as extremist by reliable sources or widely acknowledged as extremist by a number of reliable sources or even widely acknowledged as extremist by a preponderance of reliable sources. Carol Moore 23:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Proposed new subsection RS:BELIEFS

I propose the following (draft wording)

===Reliable Sources for Descriptions of Beliefs===
While Wikipedia strives for objectivity by using secondary and tertiary sources for verification, any section or article with the primary purpose of explicitly describing the beliefs or belief systems of specific people or organizations should use primary sources only for purposes of WP:RS. This guideline applies only to describing what "X believes", not what "X did" or what "X is". In plain language: No one is more qualified to tell you what "X" thinks, than "X".

Comments? Low Sea (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its a good idea, but I'm not at all sure about the only. If there are no good primary sources we use secondary sources. Sometimes the secondary sources will be more understandable. . DGG (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
WOW. I agree with this whole heartedly (I edit quite a bit on articles where what "X" believes is a big issue, so I would love to see this accepted)... Unfortunately, I have a feeling that this proposal will never be accepted. It is going to get a lot of resistance. There are too many people who strongly feel that WP:NPOV demands that we should be able to mention what "Y" says about "X"'s beliefs, as long as we make it clear that this is "Y" opinion. In any case... this needs to be bounced off of the folks at WP:V. That is the Policy under which this guideline opperates, and they need to approve it first. Blueboar (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Two thoughts:
(1) What you propose has the advantage of avoiding distortion and interpretation by those who may not understand the beliefs very well, who are merely regurgitating other, potentially inaccurate third-party accounts, or who are unable to leave their own frame of reference to a sufficient degree to avoid making a-priori judgements.
(2) What you propose has the disadvantage of shifting the selection process (i.e. the decision as to what is central enough to be included in the article, and what is peripheral) to the editor, which can lead to a form of WP:OR. For example, if I were to summarise the Bible without reference to scholars, I could easily shift the balance by selecting the potentially embarrassing bits (from today's point of view), and vice versa.
Ultimately, I think the best solution is to find a religious scholar who has given a neutral description of the beliefs that a majority of adherents confirm is broadly accurate. These days, such neutral scholars can usually be found; I believe there has been progress in this area over the past 20 years or so. Jayen466 23:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • DGG, agreed .. "only" is too strict language, how about "preferably"? Low Sea (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Blueboar, WP:V is inter-related with WP:RS. WP:SELFPUB (under WP:V) is similar so you may have a point. Low Sea (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Jayen466, This policy would not apply to the Bible itself ("What X believes" = "What the Bible believes" = "What a book believes" is nonsense). This policy would apply to the various denominations which may use the Bible in their teachings but ultimately every denomination has certain teachings that differentiate one from the next. This proposed policy also would apply to a much broader range of subject including all faiths/denominations, philosophies, political ideologies, etc. Low Sea (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, in fact the opposite:

  1. Wikipedia does not strive for objectivity: Wikipedia strives for neutrality (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity)
  2. "While Wikipedia strives for neutrality by using secondary and tertiary sources for verification, any section or article with the primary purpose of explicitly describing the beliefs or belief systems of specific people or organizations should use primary sources only for purposes of illustration." --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a case of statements of fact ("X believes Y"), vs statements of opinion ("According to Z, 'X believes Y'"). I can see preferring a self-published primary source in support for blunt statements of fact. On the other hand... if we start getting into interpretations of that belief ("N is true because X believes Y") then we need to refer to third party scholars. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, "According to the Roman Catholic catechism <primary source statement>" - whether Roman Catholics in general actually believe that is something for which secondary/tertiary sources are needed (e.g. a sociologist who researched it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm mainly lurking on this, but was struck by a connection between this Francis Schonken comment and an earlier Low Sea comment: "("What X believes" = "What the Bible believes" = "What a book believes" is nonsense)". I'd recast part of this in its own: "What a book believes" is nonsense (books do not have beliefs). It strikes me that, similarly, "What an organization believes" is nonsense (organizations do not have beliefs). Also, "What an organization professes to believe" probably is a less than perfect reflection of what each individual member believes, and also probably is a less than perfect reflection of the general consensus of beliefs held by a given membership segment or by the overall membership. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Francis Schonken, I like the wording you provided in #2 above. You are correct, it should be neutrality and not objectivity. Thanks.
  • Boracay Bill, You raise a good point. The proposed guideline as worded would be valid only for individual people. Organizational beliefs have two components: (A) the beliefs of their individual members which cannot be used under WP:BELIEFS unless a specific person is being cited as an individual, and (B) the "official" statement of belief position paper published by the central authority of their organization. Perhaps for the latter another paragraph is needed for this proposal. Usage examples might be:
    • "Organization XYZ's official position on the matter is:

      exact-non-interpreted-primary-source-text

OR
    • "Organization XYZ's official teaching is:

      exact-non-interpreted-primary-source-text

etc... Needs work I know. Low Sea (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I am in general agreement with the concept but believes it needs a little bit of refinement. It makes complete sense as is when discussing a contemporary person or organization; we should be able to use that person's or organizations writings, so long as this is done fairly (e.g. we focus on writings intended to present views and avoid unduly emphasizing off-the-cuff or out-of context slips.) But there are several potentially difficult cases. One example, as DGG mentioned above, is a case where an editor may be applying the statement out of context, such as if an editor proposes to present what "the Bible says" about some topic. This road often leads editors to WP:SYN. A second issue involves claims that a source represents a viewpoint or organization. In general, in order not to be led to wiki-temptation and to keep far from WP:SYN, we need to ensure that any claims of representation are reliable. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can see some issues here. In addition to those mentioned, there may be other exceptions to the principle that "No one is more qualified to tell you what X thinks, than X". Two that come to mind: where X's beliefs may have changed over time (and the statement is from the "old" X), and where X is widely peceived as being dishonest in making the claim (especially if there is evidence of this: X saying something different to his/her followers than to the general public). --Robert Stevens (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Robert Stevens, Good concerns but I think there are acceptable solutions. In the former case it would be to use WP:BELIEFS twice and rewrite the article stating something to the effect of:

On date A, X believed Y (CITE1), but then on date B, X believed Z (CITE2).

For the latter case WP:V makes it very clear that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". An appropriate response to such a situation would be to write the article using WP:BELIEFS with an equally verifiable source (most likely a secondary or tertiary one, and paying great heed to WP:BLP) providing refutation.

Mr. X has declared that "the only way to God is thru poverty" (CITE1), yet 2008 tax records show that he owns 47 vacation homes and 3 yachts (CITE2).

Low Sea 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Low Sea (talk • contribs)

WP:BELIEFS (revised)

I propose adding this section to WP:RS with the following (2nd draft) wording...

===Reliable Sources for Descriptions of Beliefs=== WP:RS#BELIEFS

In a nutshell: No one is more qualified to tell you what "X" thinks, than "X".

  • While Wikipedia strives for neutrality by using secondary and tertiary sources for verification, any section or article with the primary purpose of explicitly describing the beliefs or belief systems of specific persons or organizations should preferably use primary sources for purposes of WP:Reliable Sources. This guideline applies only to describing what "X believes", not what "X did" or what "X is".
  • When applying the guidelines in this section editors should try to use exact quotes when available and, when summarizing larger concepts, to take great care to avoid synthesis.
  • The usage of this section should substantially use one of the following two formats:
1. When citing what an individual person's beliefs are the statement should basically be in the form:
Xperson believes --summary--/"--quote--".
or
Xperson states "--quote--".
2. When citing what an organization's official beliefs are the statement should basically be in the form:
The Xorg teaches --summary--/--list--/"--quote--".
or
The official Statement of Beliefs of the Xorg reads "--quote--".
  • Any sentence structure that approximates the above examples is acceptable as long as it is not misleading as to the source or content of the material.
  • No portion of this section is meant to imply any prohibition towards including additional secondary or tertiary sources which support a primary source reference in this context.

Comments? -- Low Sea (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest one problem here may come from the need to summarize--the official beliefs of many organisations on many topics are quite extensive. There will sometimes be a suitably brief summary statement, but not necessarily. DGG (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, note the 2nd bullet item. Any suggestions on how to better phrase this? -- Low Sea (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Am I splitting hairs here? I don't think an organisation can have beliefs.
It can have stated policies and goals, it can publish information on its website, and it can be restricted by its constitution (or by law) as to what it can and cannot do, but it can't "believe" the way a person can.
I wonder if this might be better approached from a different angle, based on this. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BELIEFS (final draft)

Below is the final draft for this proposed new section. All of the above ideas have been incorporated into this draft.

Reliable Sources for Descriptions of Beliefs
This section in a nutshell: No one is more qualified to tell you what "X" thinks, than "X".

While Wikipedia strives for neutrality by using secondary and tertiary sources for verification, any section or article with the primary purpose of explicitly describing the beliefs or belief systems of specific persons or organizations should preferably use primary sources for purposes of WP:Reliable Sources.

1. This section applies to all kinds of beliefs including (but not limited to) religious, philosophical, political, and personal beliefs.

2. This section applies only to describing what "X believes", not what "X did" or what "X is".

3. When applying this section editors should try to use exact quotes when available and, when summarizing larger concepts, to take very great care to avoid synthesis.

4. The usage of this section should substantially use one of the following two formats:

A. When citing what an individual person's beliefs are the statement should basically be in the form:
  • Xperson believes --summary--/"--quote--".
or
  • Xperson states "--quote--".
B. When citing what an organization's official beliefs are the statement should basically be in the form:
  • The Xorg teaches --summary--/--list--/"--quote--".
or
  • The official Statement of Beliefs of the Xorg reads "--quote--".

5. In cases where X's beliefs may have changed over time the appropriate usage of this section would be to use WP:BELIEFS twice (or more) and write the article text stating to the basic effect of:

  • On date A, X believed "YYY" (CITE1), but then on date B, X believed "ZZZ" (CITE2).

6. In cases where X's stated beliefs conflict with verifiable facts to the contrary the appropriate usage if this section would be to write the article text using WP:BELIEFS in combination with a reliable secondary or tertiary source providing refutation. Example:

  • Mrs. Xperson has declared she believes that "The only way to please God is thru poverty." (CITE1), yet 2008 tax records show that she owns 47 vacation homes and 3 yachts (CITE2).
 IMPORTANT NOTE: Wikipedia makes it clear that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". Nonetheless, when faced with documenting contradictory situations between a stated belief and evidence to the opposite Wikipedia editors must pay great heed to the WP:V and WP:BLP policies, whether dealing with a living person or an active organization.

7. Editors must not attribute the source of a belief to an object. For example it would be incorrect to say:

  • The Xorg Holy Book believes people were once green-skinned.

Books do not have beliefs. A more correct way this kind of statement might be handled would be to write:

  • The Official Statement of Beliefs of the Xorg says "We believe every single word of our Holy Book to be absolute truth." (CITE1)' which could then be followed by an list of various scriptures. A reminder is in order to avoid synthesis or original research if such an approach is used.

8. Editors must not attribute the beliefs of an organization to individuals. For example it would be incorrect to write the following unless a direct statement by Mrs Z to that effect was citable as a primary source:

  • Mrs. Z, a member of the Xorg Church, believes her ancestors had green-skin.

It would be equally incorrect to attribute an organizational belief to all members of that organization, even if such a belief was written as official doctrine:

  • All Democrats believe the government should end the war immediately.

9. Any sentence structure that approximates one of the above examples is acceptable as long as it is not misleading as to the source or content of the material.

10. No portion of this section is meant to imply any prohibition towards including additional secondary or tertiary sources which support a primary source reference in this context.

Comments? -- Low Sea (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • (Comment 1:) Too detailed for a guideline;
  • (Comment 2:) Contradicts existing content policy (notably, the idea that unless mentioned in secondary sources content lacks *notability* for inclusion in Wikipedia: as written this 10-point proposal would be a free pass for remote beliefs, or detaillistic belief points of better known beliefs, *but never, or depreciatingly, commented upon in secondary sources*, to be disproportionally publicised via Wikipedia)
  • (Comment 3:) DESPITE the extraordinary level of detail of this proposal, it is useless for a concrete issue I'm currently involved in accidentally, and that should be covered if you amount to so much detail: what if the *leader* of a religious movement is ambiguous, and his followers contradict themselves regarding what they actually believe, and all this also evolves significantly in a period of time? Well, easy: one can only use *secondary* sources regarding what is notable about the beliefs of this group.
  • (Comment 4:) Even for less marginal beliefs the proposed text is hardly helpful, example: Assumption of Mary#The Assumption in Catholic teaching:
    • DESPITE being an organization's official formulation of a belief (case 4.B above), the issue is presented in the format Xperson states "--quote--", case 4.A ([...] Pope Pius XII solemnly declared: "<quote from Munificentissimus Deus §44>"), which is absolutely correct in this case, because of Papal infallibility in this belief system (Pastor Aeternus 1870). Applying point 4 of the proposed guideline would make the Wikipedia text less adequate.
    • What is thaught by the catholic church in this respect needs to be explained in article text (based on secondary sources of course): just quoting catholic Apostolic and Dogmatic Constitutions would hardly satisfy the needs of a readible encyclopedia. Note that the only exception allowing to add other sources in the proposal above is when the other sources contradict the original belief (point 6), with a disingenious example (contrasting two primary sources, where the whole issue should be based on secondary sources, irrespective of being contradicting or affirmating. As currently proposed in point 6: WP:NOR problem, trying to draw conclusions based on primary sources exclusively, "tax records" for blimeys sake).
  • (Comment 5:) self-contradiction of the proposed text: books do not have beliefs, OK, but neither do organisations (which is nonetheless assumed for points 4B, 7 second example and 8): the organisation can carry a belief, but only persons can *have* a belief. Compare example in comment 4: Munificentissimus Deus §45 makes it quite clear that if you don't believe in the Assumption of Mary as defined by the pope you can't call yourself a Catholic. I assure you, what people actually believe can be quite different from what the organisation prescribes them to believe. And neither (nor the prescription by the organisation, nor the individual catholic's belief) is the "belief" of the organisation, while organisations tend to be inanimate (and are only personified exceptionally in a poetical sense, not the kind of language used for encyclopedia text).

Summary and recommendation: This can not be inserted in WP:RS for its obvious contradictions with core content policy (WP:NOR; WP:V, WP:UNDUE,...). If anything, I'd recommend to move this to an *essay* page, finetune and simplify it, and make it coherent with content policy, and then see afterwards what can be done with it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Ms. Schonken. Some examples of problems:
  • Organisations that are widely agreed to lie about some of their beliefs. For instance, for legal reasons, the Discovery Institute are known to claim their views and goals are not religious in "official" channels, but have been documented (partially in leaked secret documents) and otherwise shown in secondary sources as having a strong religious purpose.
  • Cases where an organisation or individual's belief attacks some other belief system are dangerous, as unmoderated versions of their comments might be misleading about the other belief system unless great care is taken. Using primary sources and quotes would make NPOV very difficult, particularly if we're required to give their official beliefs IN A QUOTE, including all the false attacks on another group. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Another problem: Example 6 is a classic example of synthesis: taking two facts and bringing them together to advance a third position (in this case, that the subject is a hypocrite). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Make an index, chart or list of previously discussed sources as part of this article?

Just noticed this page. In visiting Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard before I noticed discussion of a couple of sources I've wondered about - and have a feeling there are a bunch more if one looks at the archive. To avoid duplication (which has happened anyway, as one entry notes) - or unanswered questions when people don't feel like a rehash - why not create a separate page here called [/index] or something that looks like this. (Listing only sources likely to be debated again, not general discussions or very obscure or one time only debates.) Is this a - "hearing no objections in next week, go for it" situation? I am bold!! :-):

(Instructions: Add mediation issue and status to the table by copying the bottom template.)

INDEX OF PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED SOURCES
SOURCE and LINK TO DISCUSSION(S) RESOLVED (Y/N)
DELETED EXAMPLES TO AVOID CONFUSION WITH NEW VERSION BELOW

Carol Moore 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Might be useful, but "Index" might conflict with the name often used for automatic archive indexes [2] so maybe a name like "/Previous_discussions" with links to the archives. You could start by activating the automatic indexer, then editing a copy of the resulting index to reflect the actual contents of the discussions. Or just edit the actual archive section headings with the publication names in parenthesis, although this would mess up existing links to those sections (are there many?). Would it be OK with participants here to adopt a retroactive standard of putting publication names in section headlines? -- SEWilco (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Some sources do not fit a simple Y/N determination. For example, there are some sources are deemed reliable for statements of opinion, but not for statements of fact. Others are deemed reliable as self-published sources in an article about the author, but not reliable for use in other articles... etc. So... if we were to keep a list like this, we would need to have something like a "comments" column to explain the grey zones. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe call it "Chart of Archived Sources Previously Discussed" to make clearer to first time visitors what it is and that it's archives and not current list (since best to wait til archived before summarize)
  • Considering there a lot of very general discussions or off-topic discusions that should be ignored and conversely sometimes two different discussions under one section heading, it sounds like something that should be edited by people; keep the same headings and just make sure entry under Source/Link has descriptive title.
  • Comments probably necessary, though should be brief like: resolved a good source; resolved good source only if balanced; resolved good for this article for reasons cited but not in general; conflicting opinions, unresolved; etc.
Carol Moore 19:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
It's not a good idea to create new discussions simply because you disagree with the previous decisions. Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with previous discussions on this issue. Please link. Carol Moore 02:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
It's not a good idea to try to create a whole new and confusing "index, chart or list of previously discussed sources" simply because you disagree with the decisions made regarding those sources. Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard is to get people's opinions on reliability of a source.
The ongoing/still not settled discussion of Monthly Review is completely different from issue of not having to search through archives every time you want to see if a source already has been discussed. (Or just posting yet another question on same source.)
Thinking about it, the listing probably only should list the source discussed, and not other info, to prevent confusion and contention. But a mere listing of the sources discussed and links to them, in alphabetical order, would seem noncontroversial. Carol Moore 14:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I just discovered that some sources like Salon.com have a Talk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia page. I didn't see a category about such discussions. Is there any kind of central listing or do you find them sometimes? Does exidtence of such discussions need to be mentioned in this article? Carol Moore 20:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

UPDATED FORMAT: What do you think? (Note: This from Archive #1)

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED SOURCES AND ISSUES
(Instructions: Once discussions have been archived, add new source and status to the table in the same format, in alphabetical order.)

SPECIFIC SOURCES and LINK(S) TO DISCUSSIONS

  • Al-Jazeera Video: #1
  • FAIRLDS.org: #1
  • Mikhail Meltyukhov: #1
  • Salon as source controversial BLP: #1
  • Tommy2.net: #1
  • University Teachers for Human Rights: #1

GENERAL ISSUES and LINK(S) TO DISCUSSIONS

  • Academic works untranslated to English: #1
  • Forums and other user-edited sources: #1
  • Mirrors of Reliable Sources: #1
  • Heavy reliance on web sources: #1
  • Published appellate court opinion in articles not about that legal case: #1
  • Published conference proceedings: #1
  • Reliable sources reproduced on personal blogs: #1

Carol Moore 15:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

KCAA - Kansas City Area Archivists

I ran across this website[3] and it seems to be both informative and well run. Based on reviewing the history link they have been a functioning non-profit organization for 30 years. How would the more experienced editors here rate this for being a reliable source? -- Low Sea (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to propose itself as a source, more as a repository. Like the Library of Congress. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Google scholar

I've found Google Scholar very helpful for locating independent sources, and was wondering if maybe a tip could be placed somewhere in WP:RS which suggests Google scholar to help find reliable sources, and at the same time cautions that not everything it turns up is a reliable source. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Interview as Reliable Source

I left a question about the reliability of interviews over at Reliable_source_examples#Reliability_of_Interviews. I think this may be something that should be covered in the guidelines. What I question is whether an interview is a reliable source for information (as reliable as articles published by the same publication, for example?).

  • interviews certainly provide evidence of WP:NOTE
  • but interviews are the words of the subject of the interview, not a third-party writer or journalist.
  • interviews don't really get "fact-checked" in the same way that articles would
  • interviews may tend towards "fluffiness":
    • "here's Sally to talk about the great work she's doing at the Farmer's market"
    • "we talked to Bob about the tremendous growth of his small business"
    • "tonight, in his own words, the controversial politician/writer/pundit"

So, what say the crowd? Would there be support for some specific guidelines on reliability of information provided in interviews? --Marcinjeske (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would anyone ever ever consider an interview to be any more or less reliable than the blog of the interviewee? I doubt this is something that needs to be spelled out, but...who knows. But I've never seen a problem related to this. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I think a verifiably legitimate interview would clearly be RS with regard the opinions or views of the interviewee. Whether it is regarding any other claims is debatable. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The reliability of an interview would depend on who conduted it. IE the source. An interview by the New York Times should be considered reliable. An interview on Joe Blow's personal webpage should not. That said, I agree that anything sourced to an interview should be attributed as the opinion of the interviewee. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, however an interview with Joe Blow published on Joe Blow's (verifable) webpage shoud be considered RS regarding Joe Blow's views and opinions. Whether that actually is of any relevance depends on whether Joe Blow is notable with regard the topic or not. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to a situation where Joe Blow interviewed someone else. In the case where Joe Blow was the subject of the interview, and put the interview on his own website, that would fall under the Self published source provision, with all the limitations and caveats applied. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) If the interviewer is very good, then the subject may reveal things that are then in the public domain, but which the subject might have preferred to hide. The interview is then as reliable as the publication in which it appears. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what I am hearing so far:
  • An interview is a reliable source for the opinion of the subject if it is conducted or published by a reliable source. That is, we must trust that when the source claims to have interviewed the subject, they actually interviewed the subject and accurately reported what the subject said.
So, I think that is common sense enough... that it would be uncontroversial to spell it out in the guidelines. The debatable part is whether the interview can serve as a source for other information. On the one hand, an interview could be no "more or less reliable than the blog of the interviewee". At the other extreme, a "skilled" interviewer could elicit useful information and "the interview is then as reliable as the publication in which it appears."
To provide a concrete example (and to answer User:Someguy1221's question), I encountered this type of argument in the deletion debate for an article about a (small) business. The only two sources cited were an interview with the founder of the business on what I would call a commercial blog and an interview with the founder of the business on the local radio station. The two interviews discussed the background of the founder, how the business was started, and current activities of the business.
  • Are the two interviews sufficient to establish the notability of the subject? (I know, that is a different forum, and I might bring it up there as well - just mentioning here for completeness.) I think the answer is a hesitant maybe.
  • Are the two interviews sufficient to establish the opinion of the subject? Yes. As above.
  • Are the two interviews sufficient to establish the facts about the subject? My thinking was no.
But I had a hard time justifying my stance... arguably, if those same sources had interviewed the subject and then written an article (or broadcast) based on that interview, we would not be having this conversation. (Ignoring for the moment that the commercial blog was of questionable journalistic nature.) Something must differentiate the raw interview and an article - fact-checking is unlikely, less critical tone, self-censoring by the two parties due to politeness, etc. But that difference is not clear cut and I could point to no guideline that even began to address this. While I recognize that interviews can provide useful facts ("Q: What are you working on now? A: Well, I am directing a new movie about aliens.") they can also serve to "launder information" from a less-reliable source (say, the subject of an article) to a more reliable source (the press).
Are there situations where information, beyond the opinion of the subject of an interview, can be cited and used as a basis for article content?--Marcinjeske (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
So I guess the question is - "Is an interview with an acknowledged expert on a topic as RS as that same experts words published in written form". Hmmm, frankly I can't see there being any more fact checking in the written form. Indeed, what fact checking would they do? Ring the person and ask them - ie an interview, so that progresses us nowhere anyway. Probably depends on the topic but I would think, if the interviewee is an agreed expert in the subject the solution is "in an interview, so and so stated". I would think it comes down to the acceptance of the interviewer or interview publisher as a generally acknowledged reliable source. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Source definitions

Currently the definitions of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are located at WP:PSTS, in WP:NOR. Shouldn't those definitions be here instead? It would seem intuitive that if someone wants to know the definition of such sources, that they'd come to WP:RS. Same with WP:SOURCES, currently that shortcut goes to Wikipedia:Verifiability, when it feels like it should come here to the Reliable Sources page instead. --Elonka 17:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Given past discussions at NOR about the PSTS section ... I think you would have a hard time gaining a consensus to move the definitions. WP:Sources points to WP:V because that is the core policy that gouverns both that guideline and this one. Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
That confused me a bit. What "that" guideline? WP:NOR is a policy like WP:V, not a guideline like this one. WP:PSTS contains a redirect to Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, which explicitly defines primary, secondary, and tertiary sources for the purposes of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP:SOURCES contains a redirect to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources, which discusses reliability of sources without mentioning and without differentiating between P vs. S vs. T, and refers readers to this page for a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources. I agree that the definitions of PSTS should be in a policy page, not a guideline page. I take the point from El above that the current placement is not particularly intuative — certainly not intuative to WP:NOOBs who don't know their way around the WP: namespace. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

brownington mo hendry country

looking for information on tom browning of brownington mo who the town was named after and who left the ground for the brownington baptist church to be build on he was my great grandfather thank youBarbara1st (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Copying this to the WP:Reference desk. Please look for the answer there. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of fringe sources

How about adding something like this to the guideline regarding fringe sources:

When fringe sources are referenced directly, it should generally be to provide details of the viewpoint in question. In an article regarding a fringe theory, each subtopic should generally have at least one independent source which discusses it. If one particular aspect of a fringe theory has no specific mention in any independent source (even in a general discussion of said theory), it probably doesn't merit space in an encyclopedia article.

This seems to be what restriction #1 of WP:SELFPUB is trying to say: "the material used is relevant to their notability". I do see a potential pitfall here, however. Advocates of a fringe theory could argue that mainstream sources won't address something that they can't refute. For this reason, I don't think the above should be a hard-and-fast rule. Most of the restrictions on how "questionable" sources can be used involve a large amount of interpretation, and as such seem better suited for guidelines than policies. Ultimately I'd like to see WP:V simply define what makes a source questionable and emphasize that such sources should not be treated as reliable in an article's text, leaving the rest to guidelines like WP:RS. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Collaborative blogs and WP:RS

Would major closed Collaborative blogs to the degree of Engadget and BoingBoing and all that be considered a reliable source in accordance with this policy? ViperSnake151 13:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Collaborative blogs are ones that "publish posts written by multiple users". A closed blog is one that restricts posting to certain people. Neither of these factors seems to address the issue of reliability - a fringe blog that makes no attempt at impartiality and essentially has no reputation at stake could certainly meet the criteria of (a) collaborative and (b) closed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Collaborative blogs such as are being asked about can only be judged on a case by case basis... based upon who the authors are... a blog written by notable experts in a field (writing about their field) might be reliable. The vast majority are not. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Published Software

After looking around Wiki Talk I see this issue has come up numerous times, but it seems to be talked-out to everyone's satisfaction (and presumably acted on) but no real policy change has been enacted. Here's the problem: I need to confirm a claim made from looking at a published piece of software. However, like much of the digital industry, there is nothing written in a respected source that discusses the valid observation I have made myself. Then I realized, like a URL, Book, periodical or paper, anyone could acquire the software in question and verify this claim themselves. In other words, the software IS a published source with authors and copyright dates. The closest analogy I can make is if I were writing an article about a book. No credible source available to me has commented on the quote I want to take from the book. Therefore, the book itself is the source. I would credit the particular issue in the reference notes, but otherwise it is completely verifiable because it is the thing itself. I think any digital media falls into this category, without necessarily being original research. Software – in particular information from the software company's website has been quoted in the article (an otherwise obvious verifiable source). However, anyone who actually looks at the published software will see that the "official" company publication is incorrect. How then to correct an inaccuracy if a so-called respected source has not actually stated the correct information somewhere. Many personal websites, discounted as not being reliable, maintained by those actually working in the field, but unpublished or otherwise subject to critical review do reference the corrections. In some sense critical mass of so-called unreliable sources should account for one credible source. In any event, I have not found a clear-cut answer in current Wiki proceedures and thought it should be formally addressed somewhere as policy.--Mac128 (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines do not cover every single aspect that comes up. That is why a sound editorial judgment is always needed, amd why do we have a policy that is called ignore all rules. For this specific case, join others in talk page discussions and seek consensus about how to use that source, if at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
To be specific, if you can get a couple of other editors to confirm your observations (put a request on the article talk page), and if, after some discussion on an article talk page, no one disputes the accuracy of those observations, then sure, it's reasonable to go ahead and add the observed facts to the article. It's also appropriate (perhaps in a footnote) to cite what the company says, including a link, and say something like "however, users of the software have consistently reported that X is the case. (And I suggest not actually saying "So the company is wrong"; let the reader draw that conclusion.) Do keep in mind that WP:NPOV covers space and balance as well as wording; if this is a relatively minor claim, then it doesn't deserve several paragraphs. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Emails not sources..." - What about from official sources?

Hello all,

I read that emails are not reliable sources. So, what if I have an email from the National Tramway Museum that is a response to my question about Leeds 602, and the question is is why is this tram off the road?

Would I not be allowed to quote and use this as a source?

The same goes for official forums - we asked the same question, with the answer that it's difficult to drive - could I not source this even though it is from a Board Member?

Please let me know!

Thanks,

BG7 10:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's an official forum and the post is from a named board member, it should be okay to cite it. The problem with e-mail is that other readers can't check it for themselves, and the spirit of our sourcing policies is that every reader should be able to see for themselves where our material comes from. SlimVirgin talk|edits 17:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok... but I suppose that the forum wouldn't actually be allowed either then, as it's private requiring a TMS membership number.
Is there a way perhaps of me posting the sources on here, say in my userspace? Or perhaps on my website? (I promise they are all true and reliable, and NOT made up - users can feel free to check!)
Thanks,
BG7 17:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, No... your user space or website would not be considered a reliable source. And it would not change the fact that the underlying email is unverifiable. Also, using such an email would probably be a WP:No original research violation. sorry. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Even though the info isn't original research? How about if it's in a book? (which it is... but this book is available through ~1 outlet... the museums...)
Thanks,
BG7 17:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, that would be acceptable if the book is one of general publication (not a self-published work). Cite the book as a supporting source (See {{Cite book}}, {{Citation}}, etc.), giving title, author, year of publication, publisher, etc. specify the page number(s) where the relevant info appears. If the book is of limited availability, a parenthesized comment following the citation giving info about its availability (e.g., "(Limited availability — available through the info desk of the Field Museum in Chicago)") would be useful. -- Boracay Bill (talk)
But there's no need to use a citation template. :-) SlimVirgin talk|edits 00:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

reset!
Ok, thanks all,
BG7 17:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote emails from official sources on the talk page. (Make sure the person is ok with posting his email). "No Original Research" is mostly intended to prevent crackpots from posting that the earth is flat or what have you. If your information is verifiable and reliable, you're ok. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so would something such as "ran up to 1987 before being withdrawn[1]", with the [1] linking to the refs section, which links to the talk page, such as:
==Email Ref==
"quote" -- From xx at the National Tramway Museum email xxx to verify?
would suffice?
Thanks,
BG7 18:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No.
As follows:
  1. contact official source, ask question.
  2. at same time, ask permission to publish their reply.
  3. when reply received, post e-mail to talk page.
  4. Now you have a valid reference on the talk page.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah ok, that makes sense!
Thanks,
BG7 19:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
But the so-called "valid" reference on the talk page may disappear into an archive, and the assertion in the article which it is intended to support may still be removed as unsupported. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... it's a tough one isn't it? I doubt the talk page will be archived - it's not that an active page, with me the only content contributor, the rest being copy-editing etc.
I will put it on and then we can see what happens!
THanks,
BG7 11:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on... This advice is wrong. While we can certainly discuss and even copy these emails on the talk page, we can only do so as an aid to our background discussions about the article. We can not use something posted to a talk page as a reference... Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and Wikipedia talk pages are even less reliable than our articles (things like WP:V and WP:NOR do not apply to talk pages). Furthermore... the problem with the verifiability of the underlying emails would remain. Our readers have no way to verify that the emails are in fact "Official". I'm sorry that our policies limit your ability to add factual information, but the policies are clear. You really have only two options... 1) you can contact the official source and ask them to issue a public statement about this information... by issuing a press release, puting the information on their web page, or publishing it in some other publically accessible forum; or 2) assuming that the consensus of all the editors working on the article is that the information is both accurate and important to the article, you can invoke WP:Ignore all rules, and add the information to the article without citation. But one thing you can not do is put the emails on the talk page and cite to that. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit! In the stated situation, we just got an email from an official source (we can cross-confirm that an email comes from an official source). Now that the E-mail is posted on the talk page, the talk page just became a reliable source.
Something is a reliable source based on -well- how reliable it is, and where you got it from, not what it's written on. If the President of the United States writes something down on a napkin and signs it, it doesn't matter that it's on a ratty paper napkin... it's from the official source (ok, so presidents of the united states are not as reliable as they used to be, but you get the idea). It doesn't get any more reliable than that. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Kim, it isn't Bullshit at all. This goes to the heart of WP:Verifiability. How are readers to verify that the napkin was actually signed by the President and is not a forgery? We can not take the word of a fellow editor, we need a reliable source that confirms it. In the situation that BG is asking about, we have an email... an editor says the email is from an "official source"... but how am I or any other reader supposed to verify it? Email can be faked. What is needed is a reliable secondary source that tells us that the email is valid, or discusses the information on the email.
I strongly object your contention that posting something on a talk page can make it reliable. Our policies are quite clear on this... Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. We can not cite other wikipedia articles, and we certainly can not cite to a Wikipedia talk page (where the rules on Original Research, Verifiability, etc. are more relaxed).
Furthermore, since what we are talking about is a personal correspondence to a wikipedia editor, discussing the emails would be a WP:NOR violation. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Guys, it's alrite! I will cite the book instead - although it's not available online, or widely, i presume it's ok, as it's the official stock book?
Some more questions however:
  1. Does information taken from the board on the workshop wall count as original research (again, as there's nothing to back it up?)
  2. Does information from a website that practically is orig. res. count?
Thanks,
BG7 19:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Blueboar: Dude: Most newspaper articles and books don't even have a fine signature! Your interpretation would really cut down on the number of verifiable sources we can use :-P (down to approximately...oh... near zero). I am totally going to trust a signed source over an unsigned source. If you start on about forged signatures, I figure you're grasping at rather thin straws by then.
Posting a thing on a talk page does not magically make the thing or the talk page reliable. Having a thing in some book or newspaper article doesn't necessarily make it reliable either (eg. "The head kook of the western kook society says...") The thing must be reliable in-and-of itself. But once established that it's reliable in-and-of-itself, posting it to a talk page doesn't magically make it unreliable either. Alright? Reliable is reliable. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC) If only 100% unforgeable signed documents were considered reliable, we'd only have one or two wikipedia articles left (namely those about people smart enough to use cryptographic signatures :-P.. if even that... what happens if NSA is already fielding quantum computers {which could theoretically forge even those signatures} and just hasn't told the rest of us yet? No my friend... down that road lies madness. Not Sparta, just madness.)
Kim, duuuude, the important idea is that we be reasonably sure the source was published by an entity with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, or otherwise such that we can trust the content within. Very simply, a private email doesn't fit into that, as no one can reasonably ascertain that it's authentic. It's different with a book or newspaper, as anyone can go and find the damn thing with enough effort. What are we supposed to do with Goblin's email? Hack his email account so we can see it for ourselves, so we can be sure he didn't make it up? While true, we can never be perfectly sure a source is not faked, if the sole possible assurance that a source is authentic is the word of a single editor, then that source is not reliable. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yo dude ;-) True. But it differs a bit on who you are e-mailing. What if you e-mail a librarian to confirm that a source says something? Anyone else can mail that librarian (or possibly a different librarian, if it's not one of those ancient unique tomes) and get the same answer. If you can e-mail a librarian, you can also e-mail a newspaper to request (for instance) copies of particular articles. Anyone who e-mails that newspaper will get the same article. In the same way, you can e-mail the curator of a museum to confirm a certain item exists in their collection, or certain particulars about that item. Anyone mailing the museum will get the same answer. That's one of the tasks of the museum, isn't it? Just by inquiring after the contents of a library/newspaper archive/museum using e-mail doesn't change the verifiability of their contents. Anyone else can also e-mail/snail mail/visit that same information-storehouse and obtain the same answer. The method used for obtaining information from an information store does not alter the reliability of the information store itself, and the information should be considered reliable.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That's all fine because the ultimate source of your information is actually the book, and not the librarian/curator/whatever. Just the same as if that curator had registered a Wikipedia account and added the information himself, citing the book, his nature of having actually read the book will not be inherently suspect. In that case, you can certainly point out in the citation (with a link to a copy on the talk page, sub page, archive, whathaveyou) that the information was retrieved indirectly via email correspondence with someone who has access to the book (WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). But the citation is still to the book! I was speaking on the more general matter of content that isn't actually accessible except via communication with a particular individual. Until it's published in a more permanent manner, it's not reliable. So in conclusion, I think we're arguing over different things :-) Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, BG7 was mailing the curator of a museum I gather, so I guess he(/she/it/other) should be able to get the reliable reference he needs out of it. Perhaps he could formulate his question to the curator a bit more sharply? --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The key is to ask the curator/librarian to provide us with reliable sources for the information. Ideally the curator would provide us with full citation information. We could then cite to these sources. The point is, the email correspondence is not cited as the source... it is the means by which we obtain confirmation and verification of the source. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Would the content of the museum itself be a reliable source, according to you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean physical objects?... I would say "Yes... but". Such objects are reliable for basic statements of fact about the object itself ...but... the object would essentially be a primary source, and so all the cautions expressed at WP:PSTS would apply. Any statements about the object would have to be bluntly factual as to the specific object itself. For any interpretation or analysis of the object, or about similar objects, we would need to cite a reliable secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm just going to throw in here, as someone who has used e-mails (and phone calls for verification, not as a source) to get at basic facts, that the guideline is missing a very important qualification to verification: verification does not have to be easy. I used emails to a government to verify almanac style information that differed from almost every major published source (including Brittanica, Encarta, and CIA Fact Book). In subsequent years, EB and Encarta corrected their information, but Wikipedia did it first, and that is our strength. The research wasn't original to me, it came from the government we were writing about - the horses mouth as it were. Anyone could have used the email addresses published by this government to ask these questions, or to ask again to verify. I simply took the effort to do it when we were repeating old, incorrect information.
If a college has logbooks of old sports records, that is a verifiable, reliable source. Source based research is not original research. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Yes, but see for example Romblon, Romblon, Talk:Romblon, Romblon, and User talk:Taga guinpucan#Sourcing and copyright status of your additions. (I'm presently trying to improve this but it looks like it'll be a slow process and may not be doable). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Language

Would a source written in something other than English be considered "reliable"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.226.201 (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V#Non-English sources --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

0