Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5

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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Large scale clean-ups

Currently we have notice of two large scale clean-ups required, one related to potential inappropriate uses of sources; one related to definitely inappropriate uses of sources, totally about 1750 uses. What is the best way to deal with uncovering such large scale issues? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have started to get stuck into the AiG sources, and would love to do it as part of a collaborative effort. So far I have taken the list of linked pages, deleted all the user, talk and project pages, and put them into rough categories. I'm just doing that in a word document on my PC but I suppose I could put it in a user page. Should we have a Project of the month? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups ? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Could we put some kind of signal to say that it is there and could you help? A bit like wikifying, (but I used to participate in WP:WWF then got fed up because the backlog only ever grew, so we don't want to generate that feeling). Itsmejudith (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've started by limiting the number of items to below 1500 as the maximum to accept new incidents, with a space for candidate incidents. I've also added the noticeboard to the noticeboard header's list of noticeboards. I've asked about incorporating this into the RS/N header above. Perhaps the signpost might have an interest in this. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I put my categorised list in there, but please feel free to hatnote the sections or find a completely different format in which such lists can be maintained. It's taken quite a long time, and having migrated the list into a Word document and back I have lost the internal links for the articles. The Signpost idea is a very good one, and as well perhaps we could post at BLPN in case some of the BLP activists would like to get involved. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Next time I'm on a suitable computer I can try some regexp magic on the list. Given that we're just starting this kind of job I'm sure we'll get lots of help with structures and presentations. BLPN sounds like a great idea. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be a little cautious about too much promotion/requests for help on this project. It should be fine for experienced or uninvolved editors, but I can see huge problems springing up quickly both from the groups of less experienced editors removing valid cites in these projects and then getting into edit wars/arguments, as well as involved editors who are going to take this and use it as a "reason" to gut these cites from articles they don't want them in, again, regardless of validity. I would suggest a something in the header that makes mention of something like "Please do not edit any articles you have previously worked on in any capacity" or something to that effect. That would take care of the latter problem (and avoid us being used as a justification for their actions), maybe some similar sentence for newbs too (who's problem is more likely to be just a lack of policy knowledge, combined with an over-abundance of enthusiasm)? -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 14:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope this edit reflects the discussion? I guess I can see your point about developing a culture prior to inviting the whole world in (ala Signpost). I already noted the noticeboard's existence to BLP/N, but my feeling is that BLP/N regulars are much like RS/N regulars in their circumspection. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ya, I would agree that BLPN-ers are probably more paranoid if anything, probably ok. I made a little tweak of the text you just added, but overall, yes I think that's a much needed statement, not totally clear on the intent of this part though, "One or more of the issues listed below may lie outside of your areas of previous work." Is that supposed to mean don't edit articles you don't know about, or be more careful when attempting to fix things you're not sure of, or ?? -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 14:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Also, as a suggestion, as we go through these links, crossing off the one's we've checked, possibly using and {{thumbs up}}/{{thumbs down}} to indicate the validity of the cites would be useful for others to see as well (I'm not particularly thrilled with those icons, I would probably make new ones). Also, and this seems like a lot more work, I know, but... how do we feel about a list of reasons, similar to the "reasons for article deletion" list, so that we could just stick an "A4" or whatever, beside the link to indicate *why* it was decided the way it was decided? (IF we want to do this, one good way might be to start by leaving reasons beside each listing, and I will create a page based on those reasons, and re-assign the reasons with the appropriate linked reason from the "reasons" page). -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 14:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess I meant, "If you're conflicted on current issue X; then Y or Z is probably ok for you to edit." I'm picturing maintaining about 3 major themes on large clean up as maximum, and 1500 items as maximum.

I've been leaving detailed edit summaries when editing, and leaving (reasonably) detailed result summaries after striking items as completed. Before setting up the WP:RS/N/L page, I was checking Young Earth Creationist related sources in detail and passing as appropriate a large number of instances (SPS re self without promotional, etc.). I think that analysing the most common outcomes and making hints is a good thing. Up or down, valid, mixed, unjudgeable, and invalid might be another. I think maybe a week or a fourtnight to cull down some of the YEC / US Political stuff currently on the table will give a good measure. I'm pleasantly surprised at how much YEC content is valid. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the wording on that sentence to more along the lines of what you said here, you might wanna check to make sure I got that right. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 15:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Started the creation of this page, will add to it slowly over the next couple of weeks, we'll see how it progresses, if it's useful, we can keep it, if not, nuke it.

-- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 15:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff. Yes, I see the potential difficulties of the "all hands on deck" approach. I was thinking of inviting some particular users to help with the AiG load: John Carter for the Bible and theology articles, Dominus Vobisdu and I.R.Wolfie for the science ones. All are very experienced and would be able to comment on this process as well as on the actual articles and sources. Shall I go ahead and alert them? And in these cases it's about getting the right kind of expertise in, by grouping articles. In some other cases it might be enough to alert a WikiProject - perhaps working with them to strengthen their sourcing guidelines and their alerting processes. More often than not, there are other problems with the articles, that go beyond sourcing, and what we as RSN people can best do is to hand the article over for attention. If you see my impressions on the biographies in the AiG list, you'll see quite a lot of neutral/needs more thought, as well as yeses and noes. So it'd be good to have a sideways thumb or a P for Perhaps category alongside the Accept and Reject. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Can do, with regards to a neutral/undecided icon as well, I'm not crazy about the ones I already found, so if I have some time this afternoon, I will either make 3 new ones, or find some free ones that are already available. My thoughts on the first point you raise, I'm neutral on John Carter, and I'd have to re-read the comments from Dom. Vob, and IRWolfie, as the only times I've seen them have been in a dispute at RSN (now at DRN), where my impression is that they were arguing against a clearly RS source. But I will reserve my judgment on that until I go and re-read all that was said, maybe I'm getting that wrong. Although I note that Fifelfoo also had a problem with IRW's attitude above, as did I at the time (I remember that part clearly). No decisions on that made yet however, will re-read it all when I get home today, maybe my perspective will be different. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 16:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(To be honest, I quickly forget the editors I've disagreed with, even when I remember the causes of the disagreement. Almost every day here I take arguments fresh from principles, even if I reject them for their same old flaws. Also, I've learnt to be positively surprised by editors I've disagreed with on one matter, agreeing with them on another and respecting their arguments regardless). Fifelfoo (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

With the policies we've set up at the top of that page, I have no problem with either of the editors suggested by IMJ. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 15:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Preliminary template work

Thoughts on this? Very rough, especially the documentation, but could speed things up if I/we get the reasons page to a decent stage, template at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:RSNSO (RSN Source Opinion). -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 19:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of HISTRS

A frequent contributor to this noticeboard recently said at an article page, "Let me clarify this: you are ignoring the reliable sourcing standards for this article WP:MILMOS#SOURCES and WP:HISTRS..." and similar statements can be found by that same editor and (far less frequently) by other regular contributors in posts at this noticeboard, though most of the posts here do not so plainly claim HISTRS to be a "standard". HISTRS seems to be being quoted as if it were a policy or guideline when, in fact, it is currently no more than an essay and, indeed, an essay created by and mostly worked on by the editor who most commonly refers to it and also to certain criteria and sources cited at WP:MILMOS as if they were policies or guidelines. The WP:CONLIMITED policy makes it very clear that projects and, by extension, venues such as this noticeboard (and, indeed, dispute resolution venues such as WP:3O, WP:DRN, and WP:MEDCAB where I most frequently work) cannot establish policies and procedures which are binding on the Wikipedia community as a whole, at least not without going through the policy-making procedures set out in WP:POLICY. Treating and referring to HISTRS or criteria established by MILMOS as "standards" or as if they are somehow otherwise binding on all of Wikipedia is misleading, especially to newcomers (and who make up, I suspect, a disproportionate part of the folks who end up coming to this noticeboard) and others who are not sophisticated in the underpinnings of WP, and I object. If HISTRS is to be treated as a policy or guideline, it should be submitted to the Wikipedia community as such for evaluation (and I am not at all certain, I must frankly admit, that it will or should survive such scrutiny), but until it has been and passes that scrutiny, it should not be treated or referenced as if it already has. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Newspapers, biographies and pulp tripe are clearly unacceptable for historical articles. If you can't read the existing policy, that exceptional claims (such as scholarly WEIGHT, or historiography) require exceptional sources (such as scholarly sources), then you ought to stop editing in fields covered by scholarly sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I've worked on HISTRS too. The point is that codifying what makes a good source for articles in a particular subject aids decision making and sorts out arguments before they have time to develop into major rows requiring dispute resolution. If you think HISTRS is too restrictive, come and argue that on the talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I learned a lot just looking at HISTRS. The problem with it is that it calls for examination of literature that often does not exist, and if it does, is inaccessible. And, as noted above, it is neither policy nor a guideline. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"New York Times is shite as no NYT editor is a historian" is just nonsense. For most purposes The New York Times is an acceptable, even preferable source, especially for use by those experienced with its failings. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Which is crap. The NYT publishes on a daily schedule with no access to archival material, and its journalists lack the analytical techniques that historians possess. It is quite simply insufficient for history, it lacks any methodological claim to produce history. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times is archival material, see footnote 1 at Cananea. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that this is not the place to argue the merits, or lack thereof, of HISTRS, and being in the DR wiki-business I wholly agree that "codifying what makes a good source for articles in a particular subject aids decision making and sorts out arguments before they have time to develop into major rows requiring dispute resolution". My only point here is that it is inappropriate to use or refer to it as a standard before those merits have been established. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion on the talk page of WP:HISTRS because I have several comments to make. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Closures required

WP:RS/N#Biology and political orientation requires closure due to an involved editor's IDHT / badgering. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

An uninvolved editor may wish to close WP:RS/N#Wikinews is reliable. as outside of format, or move or duplicate it to Wikipedia talk:IRS as an rfc. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have raised a request for a wider review of the appropriateness of sourcing from Wikinews. And, I consider your tagging of Wikipedia:Wikinews rather poor form. --Brian McNeil /^talk 15:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have replied to you there regarding venues and drafting. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Disruption of RSN

How long should we put up with William S. Saturn's disruption of WP:RSN before we file a report an ANI? If someone should choose to, I will support it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not disruption. It's a request for reasonable discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

And what should I be reported for? Not falling in line with the mob?--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A Quest for Knowledge, I would suggest that if you can read a consensus that you attempt to close the threads that appear problematic. WP:RS/N has a relaxed attitude towards attempts to make fresh arguments, but tends to not like "I don't hear that" ignoring of consensus. One way to emphasise consensus is for a neutral editor with experience in source reliability and/or discussion closure to close and summarise a discussion. Generally, due to the sometimes heated nature of reliability questions, it is better to attempt to deal with the content issue by clearly stating formed consensus, rather than running directly to conduct forums. Up to you, I'd try closure first. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Seeking consensus about an old issue, pushing the burden of proof on others (making them prove a negative), rejecting the renewed consensus as "stupid" because it wasn't what one originally wanted, and then arguing ad nauseam is disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been closed 3 different times by three different editors.[1][2][3] William S. Saturn refuses to accept consensus.[4][5][6] He's been warned on his talk page.[7] Further disruption is a conduct issue, not a content issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Brian McNeil's forum shopping and comparing those who disagree with him to Nazis is also not pleasing. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Why did you all refuse to counter my points? The only thing that is disruptive is to ignore someone that disagrees with you and then call them disruptive without even countering their points.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes! I called you all a bunch of Nazis, ... Not! I employed a somewhat extreme analogy in characterising the—most unreasonable—discussion, and called nobody a Nazi. Some people need to improve their reading comprehension. It's been sadly lacking in the discussioen which I requested an RfC on, and when I try to start the RfC myself following an involved editor closing the debate, I'm accused of forum shopping.

I would like informed debate, there's precious little of that in evidence there. --Brian McNeil /^talk 00:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC) (en.wiki talk page:User talk:Brian McNeil)

Again, your analogy was you:others::gay black men:Nazis. Whether it was analogy, simile, metaphor, or outright statement, you equated those who disagreed with you with the Nazis, insulting those who were persecuted by them by reducing the Holocaust to a slight disagreement over managing an encyclopedia. Grow up, take responsibility for what you said, and don't use attacks to express displeasure over disagreement.

And again, you went to multiple venues looking for one "yes" result so you could ignore the many "no" results. That is forum shopping. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to cut'n'paste your weak arguments everywhere, Ian. I was told I should raise the issue as an RfC, before the debate was closed. I started that process and made an attempt to take it further when the discussion was closed by an involved editor who brought naught to the table to rebut the arguments of William or myself. In fact, there were two Wikipedians suggested the issue needed raised as an RfC.

Now, is there someone uninvolved, with no opinion one way or the other, who can take this to an RfC in the face of some pretty ridiculous, and obnoxious, WikiLawyering? --Brian McNeil /^talk 00:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You could try POLITELY requesting an uninvolved admistrator to help you properly formulate your RfC on WP:AN. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just so you know, I'm not leaving this conversation because you're right or something, but because your basic inability to take responsibility for what you've said, your inability to listen to others, and your combative attitude (totally unfit for this encyclopedia) leave me unable to conclude that any discussion with you will result in anything unless I kiss your ass, which I refuse to do. You are appallingly unreasonable, and the site would be better off without you. May you step on the wrong toes and be blocked soon. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've never been popular here, Ian. I don't want, expect, or need that validation, and I don't expect you to pucker up and kiss my glutimus maximus either - which may come as a surprise. I thought I had, as Dominus asks, put together a reasonable request for an RfC. That would be the one you've called forum shopping. The vast majority of input on the 'questionably closed' discussion is indeed from a point of complete ignorance as to the workings of Wikinews which dramatically increases the frustration. And, once people have taken a stance, it is human nature not to take onboard correction of the points upon which they base their argument. That many Wikipedians have gone thought that route, is yourselves being guilty of not hearing us.

Have I missed any points of the Wikipedian argument with the three I laid out, and took steps to rebut, on my attempted RfC? They seem the most-common misconceptions which you're using to support your arguments, but may not be a complete list. --Brian McNeil /^talk 00:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Brian, but I don't think your RfC is neutrally formulated. You would have a much highr chance of success if you got an uninvolved admisitrator to help you formulate it better. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've already made an offer to Brian to craft a neutrally worded RFC with him here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board#Seeking_wider.2C_more_informed.2C_input_on_the_reliability_of_Wikinews_as_a_source. He appeared to reject that offer. That offer is still open. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Xulon Press

A lot of our articles reference books from this Christian self-publishing company which says it publishes material by authors ranging from professors to housewives. Could use some cleanup. Of course there's also a number of articles using iUniverse, etc.) Some of these are books written by the subjects of the articles, others may just barely be RS, but a lot aren't. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Detecting and dealing with Journatic and other content-farm-esque stories

moved discussion

As discussed on the June 29, 2012 episode of This American Life, the Journatic company has been providing "hyperlocal" content to many newspapers since "after 2000". The content has been revealed to be written, or merely collated, by outsourced low-paid writers in countries such as the Philippines, under assumed names, referred to as "false bylines".

It is my understanding that Wikipedia has long held that a newspaper is a reliable source, as a long-term publication, independent of the subjects about which it writes, supervised by an editorial staff, with fact-checking capabilities as part of the publication process.

Can Wikipedia presume that hyperlocal content is not fact-checked, but is instead merely "poured-in" content?
Can Wikipedia continue to trust any hyperlocal microsites?
How do we detect contracted content by Journatic or Narrative Science (GigaOm story)? Should we be wary of "Special to the Tribune"-type bylines? If newspapers ever publish a list of fake bylines, should we maintain that as a blacklist of unreliable content sources?

Basically, do we exclude such content broadly, or narrowly, or at all? (If this discussion should take place somewhere else, please say where...) --Lexein (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

As noted at the top of this page, WP:RS/N deals in specifics. The talk page for WP:IRS often deals in generics and policy issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok - moved to WT:IRS --Lexein (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Best next step if editors reject opinions here?

This is something that might actually be mentioned in guidelines. If there is a preponderance of NPOV editors on one side, but an editor (especially one with strong bias) keeps reverting a RS anyway (saying there was no consensus, especially when similarly biased editors agreed with him), what's the next best place to go? Wikipedia:Dispute#Resolving_content_disputes infers its mediation, since noticeboards are below Third Opinion, RfC, WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. But mediators can be hard to get. Just go back to Wikipedia:Dispute#Resolving_content_disputes, Third Opinion or RfC, as seems most relevant? Thanks. CarolMooreDC 10:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

In clear cases of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, you can sidestep WP:DR and go to WP:DDE. Good raise 13:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

In your hypothetical, you say that a "preponderance" of "Neutral" editors support one viewpoint... but then go on to mention that the other viewpoint is supported by "biased" editors. In such cases, I have to question whether the majority is actually being as Neutral as they think they are. It actually sounds like a case where both sides are being Non-neutral... ie both sides may may be guilty of some degree of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The first step may be to revisit the RS/N discussion and ask for broader input and reconsideration. RS/N discussions don't always generate highly diverse discussions (occasionally because RS/N editors don't see the need to pile on). IDHT that is disruptive is a civility issue, but Blueboar is right about the problem of differentiating disruption from attempts to edit. Have you considered finding the highest quality sources and working from there? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Newbie-to-board question

I started a section on one debated source and it exploded into a list. Do I have to rename the section, or ask for closure and resubmit, or does it just go on the way it is? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Usually, we just cope with whatever happens. Too many bureaucratic rules might get in the way of solving problems. If you really need to do something, then someone will tell you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If it gets messy, one of us will try to help reorganise for you. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC input needed

There is an RfC about the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that could use some input, if anyone is so inclined. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hatted topic "WP:RS/N#glbtq.com as a source"

I have hatted the topic WP:RS/N#glbtq.com as a source. This was previously (and validly) closed by another editor who is a regular at RS/N. As off-topic discussion was continuing, I hatted the discussion. The editors involved seem to have responded, and I'll try to remember to de-hat the topic before it is archived. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Policy/procedure for closing discussions on the RS noticeboard

Is there any policy or standard procedure (official or unofficial) regarding the closing of discussions on the RSN? Dlv999 (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

RS/N regulars only close threads that have become disruptive, are off-topic, fail to adhere to rules, bring external debates to RS/N thus crowding out independent editors, or where participants in a thread itself have suggested that a formal closure is needed. RS/N generally allows threads to peter out when and as a sufficient number of comments have been made regarding a topic, and when nobody feels the need to further contribute. Normally this results in clearly readable outcomes. RS/N works with an understanding that communities of editors unable to read outcomes would be able to discuss among themselves, or politely ask for a topic to be revisited on RS/N and noting the major contours of past discussion by linking to the archives. Does that help? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Is archiving a WP:RS request after 5 days really always sufficient time for comment? Looks like that is usually how requests are closed--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As you can note from the archives of this page, RS/N rapidly approaches 1MB as a page with longer archival horizons, due in part to the possibility of multiple high volume discussions occurring simultaneously. Most items archive after around 7 days, 3 days of discussion activity and 5 days of inactivity. No discussion with activity in the last five days would be archived. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

what's not working here?

Hi, I'm a little experience on RSN. I made a request to invite comments on India & Russia: linguistic & cultural affinity (1982) - Weer Rajendra Rishi. In the following post, I also mentioned ~~how~~ whatever is required to be taken seriously. But, why it is not being considered with positively. How can I have the attention of the experience chaps around. 117.212.46.232 (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that the issue is that Rishi is relatively obscure (only 33 hits on Google Scholar)... that can affect reliability. If an obscure scholar says something that contradicts what is said by more well known scholars, we tend to go with the more well known. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I replied to the question, almost at the same moment you were writing this. I hope my answer helps Andrew Dalby 15:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Closure request

Editors involved in the discussion at WP:RS/N#Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History by P.J.Cohen appear to be unable to read the consensus and have requested that someone familiar with RS/N try to sum up the consensus and close the thread. (I would have done so myself, but the nature of my engagement in the question precludes me doing so). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Fifelfoo, I appreciate your candour. @Churn and change and Nick-D, are either of you willing to do a formal close? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Please? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, don't assume people read this talk page. I, for one, rarely do. But, to answer your question, no. I think the discussion (at least when I left it) was not all that long, and should be read in its entirety. Churn and change (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Trolling comment removed

I removed a comment that was uncalled for [8] per Wikipedia:No personal attacks.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Your hide is far too thin, imo. This is by no means the first time that you have removed criticism of yourself on the grounds of NPA/CIV and certainly in a recent case involving me, yes, it did seem to be trolling and the outcome supported that. Perhaps let third parties determine what is/is not acceptable in future? - Sitush (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

O.k. I'll bite, Amadscientist. Can you explain how a movement that how a movement that states it's aims as being to "update and correct the current social system and create a truly responsible, sustainable, peaceful, global society", to "inhibit and override the established political, commercial and nationalist institutions outright, exposing and resolving the flaws inherent" and to "implement an economic model that follows a truly scientific train of thought with respect to the technical factors that allow for human propensity, public health and environment responsibility over generational time" [9] couldn't entirely reasonably be described as 'political'? Yes, they claim (who knows why?) to be 'non-political', but then East Germany claimed to be a "democratic republic", and Fat Tony hangs out in the "legitimate businessman's social club". Labels that organisations give themselves aren't necessarily the last word - and to suggest that somehow I was engaging in WP:OR by describing TZM as a 'political movement' looked darn close to trolling to me at the time. If it wasn't trolling, it was at least entirely off-topic - though to be fair, once Zgoutreach dragged in an old dispute about something else entirely, it was increasingly difficult to know what the topic was, as is evident by our later exchanges. We were clearly talking at cross purposes, and your apparent attempt to drag things even more off-topic with OR accusations was less than helpful. If you weren't trolling, I apologise, but I ask that you try to be constructive in future, rather than starting new disputes about the blindingly-obvious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The removal of content mentioned by another editor was not about me. It was refering to two seperate religions. An admin also stated the perception of innapropriate wording was something they could understand.

Andy I was not trolling and I accept your apology and also extend an apology to you if you saw the suggestion of OR as such.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I accept your assurances, and apologise for suggesting that you were trolling. Perhaps it would have been better if I'd added a subheading to indicate the off-topic diversion that Zgoutreach introduced sooner - this seems to have been the root cause of our initial misunderstanding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that the outcome of this discussion has been so positive—I hope we can all extend this positive vibe into the substantive discussion of source quality and the argument and evidence behind judgements of quality and usefulness! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Very many bad sources

I am editing an article that has a TON of bad sources. Is it necessary to list each individual source at the noticeboard here or can some general opinion be given as to these sources in a mass? Thank you; I hope for some help. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You could just boldly remove the ones you think are bad, and only bring here the ones for which this becomes a disputed issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The other editor just reverts them back again, with no reason except he says they are Reliable. But if I have to bring them here one at a time, is that what I should do? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=518776686&oldid=518754163. Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is actually other editors reverting -- because GeorgeLouis is quite obviously misinterpreting/misapplying WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want RS/N's opinion, then yes, we need the article, source and claim for each item. And we need the source as a citation (Author (year) "Title" Title of work contained in Place: Publisher relevant pages or hypertext link). We don't give general opinions, though sometimes we can give very fast opinions based on previous experience dealing with particular sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Fifelfoo. The first use of your advice is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Glenn_Greenwald_as_RS_in_Frank_L._VanderSloot Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Assertion vs silence

Because the board is intended to ask about specific sources, I'm going to put this general question here. I do a lot of dispute resolution and have more than once come upon a scenario about which I'd like some general guidance. I do not have a current dispute before me which will be affected by the advice I receive here. Though I've seen it come up in a couple of different contexts, I'm going to use a military history scenario as an example:

Reliable source X writing about a military conflict says that battles or skirmishes took place at (place names) A, B, and C in region N. (And by "reliable" here and in the next bullet point I mean reliability as defined by Wikipedia.)
Reliable source Y writing about those same operations says that battles or skirmishes took place at A, B, C, and D in region N.
Neither source appears to be expressly or actively contradicting the other about place D: Y simply mentions that something happened there and X doesn't say anything about D one way or the other.
While both sources appear to give a reasonably detailed account of what happened in the area, neither source makes any express claim to being absolutely comprehensive.
A dispute develops over the issue of whether a battle or skirmish occurred at place D, with one editor asserting source Y for the fact that it did take place and another editor asserting source X's failure to mention it for the fact that it did not.
Presume that all other Wiki-qualifiers for inclusion are met.

First question: Given no more than that, does the assertion that a battle or skirmish took place at D (a) qualify to be included in Wikipedia and (b) qualify for inclusion without also including a qualification that source Y doesn't mention it? My feeling is that the answer to both a and b is yes and that to read source X's silence about D as contradicting source Y is original research, but I'd like the opinions of the experts here at this noticeboard as well.

Second question: Would it make any difference to the answer if source X (the omitting source) is a focused work only about the operations in N, while Y (the including source) is a multi-volume general treatment of the entire continental campaign in which the battles in N took place which both tries to give some detail about individual parts of that campaign? Vice-versa? I again say no: so long as the sources do not expressly contradict one another, we cannot imply a contradiction.

Third question (and let me add, particularly but not only @Fifelfoo and @Itsmejudith): Same premises as question 2 except that the focused work is a popular-history work by a non-academic author from a general publisher while the entire-campaign work is an work by an respected academic historian from an academic publisher (but remember that both sources satisfy the criteria for general Wiki-reliablity)?

Fourth question: (This one does not build on either the second or third questions, but goes back to the original scenario and the first question.) Presume that ethnic or nationalistic hard feelings still remain over the war or conflict in which these battles took place and that source X is written by an author from one side of the conflict and source Y by an author from the other, but also presume that while neither source can be shown to be blatantly or obviously biased that the feelings between the two groups are so strong that bias cannot be absolutely ruled out, either. Next, presume that what may or may not have happened in a battle at D is a hot-button issue in that conflict, but that neither Y's inclusion of it (nor the manner in which it is included) nor X's failure to mention it can be clearly identified as contentious. Next, presume that even if the mere existence of the battle or skirmish at D does not alone support the claims of one side or the other in that hot-button issue, proof of its existence is necessary as a foundation for the claim that something bad happened there whereas failure to mention it severely inhibits the that claim. Finally, presume that the author of source Y comes from the side of the conflict which would benefit by proof of the existence of the battle while the author of source X comes from the side which would benefit by inhibiting the claims of the other side. Again remembering that both sources satisfy the criteria for general Wiki-reliability, does that change anything? Again, I would say no: Without proof of actual bias, then a reliable source is a reliable source and to presume otherwise from general implication is original research.

I'm not trying to create a controversy or stir the pot here. I'm really looking for other opinions about this because it keeps coming up. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Responses to Assertion vs silence question 1:

If an action is only discussed in two sources I would be surprised. Get more sources and determine the WEIGHT of the questionable location in the literature. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I second that. Even small battles are usually covered in multiple sources. In general, I think the first response to many questions of reliable sources should be to find more sources. Andrewman327 (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, find more sources. But to start with there may be no problem at all.. The sources don't contradict each other,they just differ in the way that we expect good sources to differ. Sources can't be exactly the same or there would be plagiarism. Include D in the main text or as a footnote. But is D controversial? Is an edit-war breaking out with accusations of bias, xenophobia and bad faith? Get a bigger picture, more sources, more opinions. Tag for an expert. It is beyond a simple question of weighting good sources.. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, I'd include D and not worry about it. You have no reason to believe that these sources actually mean to contradict each other. The history focus is probably misleading this group. Imagine instead that the sources say, "The common causes of high blood pressure are..." You wouldn't assume that the omission of 'D' by one source was intentional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Responses to Assertion vs silence question 2:

If with two works of equal value, one considers a matter in a spatially restricted way, it should be unsurprising that the geographically delimited work does not discuss actions outside of the delimitation. Overy's Russia's war: blood on the snow does not devote very much attention to the Persian or trans-siberian front, as it constructs the essential Russian comprehension of the war as being one of the relationship between the Soviet and German armed forces. I would question, in line with my response in item 3, why editors are agonising over the nature of an event using only two works, and if an action is only covered in two works whether this is sufficient coverage to allow for an encyclopaedia article. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Follow the focused work while maintaining consistency with the broad one. This is a fundamental method on WP. If you are writing about the history of Delhi you use books on the history of Delhi but ensure that you are always consistent with the mainstream view of the history of India. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that they are generally high-quality sources, I don't think it matters. For example, the narrow source might consider 'D' not to meet some particular technical criteria for "battle" and thus not include it. Perhaps 'D' is nearby, and the narrow source counted it as part of 'C' but the broader source didn't. Perhaps it's a difference of age, with outside sources only belatedly realizing that the battle happened to cross a border or that a minor event at 'D' was actually a military action instead of the murder-robbery that it was initially hushed up as. Since we don't know why the sources produce different lists, we should not assume that the difference is meaningful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Responses to Assertion vs silence question 3:

Claims that a sequence of human actions in history constitute a "Campaign" are often synthetic evaluations by historians and other commentators. This is particularly true before the media marketing of warfare to general populations (a 20th century phenomena). Because military actions are viewed in retrospect and then characterised, it is more desirable to use a higher quality source when marking the limits of a synthetic construct. Did the Napoleonic Wars occur in North America?—I'd ask a historian, not a popular work, even if the popular work was entirely about the war of 1812. The more synthetic the evaluation of spatiality, the less you should consider popular works to actually have any capacity to comment. Was there one "Frontier War" against Australian indigenous peoples, or many?—this is not a place I would use the West Wyalong Commemorative Pamphlet's opinion on aboriginality, spatiality, "Australianness" before 1901, etc. Where actions were clearly marketed by state apparatus to their own people, the amateurs are on better terrain (ha)—but even then, if appropriate experts in HQRS start discussing the centrality of actions in Afghanistan to the US actions in Iraq, then I'd trust their capacity to judge. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Err on the safe side. Leave out assertions from the popular text if they are inconsistent with the scholarly one. If there are a number of such inconsistencies, it's imperative to check whether the popular text is in line with the whole body of academic scholarship on the broader topic. If it isn't, then you have a fringe view and it should be omitted. Also take notice of the red flag, and check out the reviews of the popular text. Is the popular author biased for an obvious reason? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If the scholarly source includes 'D', then I'd definitely include it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Responses to Assertion vs silence question 4:

"presume that what may or may not have happened in a battle at D is a hot-button issue in that conflict" so the point is WEIGHTy if potentially contested and the issue should be included with a qualifier about the extent of discussion in the sources. Where nobody is clearly "right," describe the controverting. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If in doubt, leave it out. At the very least, attribute. Fifelfoo has given the standard solution, to describe both points of view, but it may be very difficult to find the right wording in this case. The two authors do not spell out that they disagree and you risk accusations of OR in writing up the disagreement. The least dangerous wording is "X describes the battle at D in the following way. Y writes about the campaign but does not mention a battle at D." Itsmejudith (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd include 'D' with full WP:INTEXT attribution. The difference between the Reliable Ruritanian author and the Reliable Pokolistanian author is generally worth calling out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Recourse when partisans "converge" against source?

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is a publication that includes a lot of critical material on Israel. Nevertheless it was considered WP:RS in this November 2009 discussion and was not challenged when discussed in the context of other discussions in February 2010 or in April 2012. But on October 27 at 19:25 here a well known pro-Israel partisan asked if it was WP:RS. October 28 1:56 another partisan included an extremely long and detailed criticism of the site. Within 21 hours five known Israel partisans criticized the source. Two more joined in by October 29, 1:37.

Two editors active in the area commented only on process, one writing that “no sockpuppets” had been involved in the first WP:RSN discussion of WRMEA. Another wrote of the many partisan critics: "Well, you and some other usual suspects from the IP topic area certainly advocating that position, but it would also be interesting to here the comments of uninvolved regular contributors to RSN" The three uninvolved editors thought it was generally WP:RS except for particularly contentious facts and/or depending on context. The article already was archived with the last comment 30 October 2012.

I now have one of those critical editors claiming at this diff that WRMEA is not WP:RSN. (Note Pro Greta Berlin Will Show Her Power Point Presentation Anywhere in U.S. is the article in question; the link I used from this morning seems to have gone bad.)

It is obvious this is an abuse of policy. Should I bring this to WP:ANI? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles? Or is there some recourse here? Such a biased report should not be allowed to stand like that in the archives. CarolMooreDC 20:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

On what grounds are they challenging reliability? I suspect this is more a NPOV issue than a reliability issue. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is here. Mostly its allegations of self-published, advocacy and biased, without mentioning WRMEA is a publication edited by experienced editors and sponsored by an organization whose board largely has consisted of former US foreign service officers, as described here. It has been used at least 100 times as a source on Wikipedia. CarolMooreDC 22:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It was automatically archived after 5 days at this diff. I would be happy if it could be brought out for further discussion, noting problems above and additional info I just provided. Or as a last resort I can start a "WRMEA REDUX" to add these points, if that would not be a problem. CarolMooreDC 22:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, technically it is "self-published"... most media sources are after all (the same could be said for the Jerusalem Post or the New York Times). However, self-published does not necessarily mean unreliable. Bias is not a reliability issue either (all sources contain bias... if that bias is extreme we account for it through attribution). So... I would say there is no grounds to over turn the previous determinations that all said WRMEA should be considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree. But what's the best way to handle it since I know these very aggressive editors will be busy removing WRMEA from a lot of articles as quickly as possible. It really is a quasi emergency situation. CarolMooreDC 02:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

hi carolmooredc - i am soosim, and i think you are calling me aggressive or very aggressive. not nice. i have always been polite and followed consensus. to the specific article in question, your reliable source doesn't even say that she was married 14 years (as per the wiki article using this as the source). in any case, wrmea, as per several of the discussions here, clearly is a problematic source. they are in the same category as ngo monitor, jcpa, electronic intifada, and others. they are an academic research institute or glorified blog, and need a 3rd party RS to cover them. nothing has changed over the years. this is the way it is... Soosim (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Since it's "crowd sourcing" it must be positive. Right? If the outcome doesn't seem right, just put more crowd sourcing on it! (No comment on this specific matter since I haven't looked into it). Ah, blessed blessed crowd sourcing.Dan Murphy (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

[insert]: I don't know what you mean by crowd sourcing.... CarolMooreDC 06:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

May not be adding to the resolution of the issue with this, but here goes. I would tend to regard Washington Report on Middle East Affairs as a reliable source WITHIN its area of expertise. Like the sources referred to (EI, etc.), they are not exactly mass-market, being a "niche" publication, and they have opinions on the same area, but unlike them, objections to WRMEA can't really be based on WP:RS. If you want to tease the components out, WRMEA has authors and an editorial board that are clearly notable, clearly experts in the field, clearly produce factual content that relates to their field that would not have to be covered in a broader-based publication, and are clearly used by experts in the field (journalistic or academic) as a source/citation. The problem with WRMEA is not so much WP:RS as WP:NPOV, whereas with EI, etc., it is both. For a niche/academic publication, they don't do a good job of separating opinion pieces from reporting, and need to be used with caution, but in the case of WP:NPOV, that has to be argued case by case.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the noticeboard right now you will see there is a concerted effort being made to lump all those types of source together. I wonder why?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly because the effort to lump all similar sources from the other side of this issue has been largely successful in the past, and is used on a daily basis to disqualify sources, referring back to this board. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

So it is justified because the other side was first? It is a kind of revenge? I am not trying to be sarcastic because maybe the other side did start it (I have no idea), but practically speaking can revenge editing stop such a problem?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's revenge, it's probably more of an attempt to level the playing field. Personally I don't think any of these sources should be considered reliable for facts, but you can't have only pro-X sources considered reliable while a bunch of similar pro-Y sources are not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

andrew - do you think that academic research institutions are RS? or do they need to be quoted/mentioned in some 3rd party source? Soosim (talk) 06:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

@Soosim, I think your rhetorical question is useful. Fact is that concerning WP:RS we never say that we have to use any source. The only arguments for having to use a source would be on the basis of WP:NPOV. Secondly, there is clearly no general rule, and this is clearly a widespread approach. Research institutions are often cited as reliable sources. (What's more, if we are trying to neutrally report a very notable debate or dispute, WP:NPOV tells us that we should try to report both sides of that debate, and censor neither side, and this implies that quite apart from reliability, notable public debating parties should be considered for citation. Politics is full of disagreements and positions which are not easy to call simply wrong or right.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Opinion pieces should not be used as sources for facts, regardless of the publication. Also, while the magazine would be rs for the opinion of its contributors, we need to establish the weight that each opinion has. It is much better to use academic articles as sources because the facts have been checked and even when they argue for different points of view, they usually explain the weight that different views have. TFD (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with that as a general comment TFD. The trick is in the application to cases where editors have a difficult disagreement. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we not make it clear enough that reliability depends on context? The exact same source can be reliable in one context and unreliable in another. When there is a concern about bias, the solution is to attribute. Suppose BNN (Biased News Network) reports that "the President lied in his press conference". BNN may or may not be reliable source for an unattributed statement that the President actually did lie ... but it is a reliable source for a statement that "BNN reported that the President lied" or "According to a BNN report, 'the President lied'". Once attributed, the issue is no longer one of reliability... the issue becomes one of UNDUE weight (ie...does mentioning what BNN reported give undue weight to a minority viewpoint)? Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Would indeed make things easier if sources registered themselves as "biased". :) But seriously if we are talking CNN (a real case) for example, or an academic thinktank, or whatever, we will have cases where it is not so easy to just say that this source is a good one for facts, and this one requires attributions all the time. It will for example depend on what the subject matter is. The question here seems to have been raised after a recent wave of quite concerted efforts to get a whole range of pro-Palestinian sources treated in a general way. This concerted effort (look at the noticeboard) obviously had at least half an eye on the way things normally work, and trying to work it. Some of the sources were clearly weak but some quite quite strong, but the aim was to show that lots of editors found them all controversial, and lump everything together. If we say that any sign of non-consensus is enough mean that we should treat a source as weak then we can be manipulated. Unless I am wrong, I think that was the point of the question here. But I think the noticeboard handled it OK? Still certainly nothing wrong with mentioning concerns like this on this talk page or any other relevant forum.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

But how do we establish weight? By seeing what weight is ascribed to it in news articles and academic papers. TFD (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Not official policy

Per WP:RSN saying: While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.

Removed comment ~~Again, what is best recourse, reopen issue at WP:RSN or go to WP:ANI or WP:ARBPIA about abuse of WP:RSN process??~~ I still do NOT recognize that lopsided discussion as valid and will revert deletion of the source. If it gets reverted back I'll bring the issue for that specific article back here. I'm sure that the NON-partisan editors will see that my use of the source is quite legit. CarolMooreDC 07:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As people will probably know, I'm an RSN regular who,also,sometimes edits Israel/Palestine articles. Commenting here with RSN hat on of course. Andrew has this right,,both in this thread and the earlier one.. The WMREA is a political magazine. Sometimes reliable, and we can discuss cases here. Since the article it is proposed to refer to is currently a deadlink, the point is moot. Be careful in a BLP, but the statement to be supported is a simple biographical one, where the political bias of a report, sympathetic to the BLP subject, is unlikely to be an issue. Further advice may be sought at BLPN. The RSN takes a very dim view of persistent attempts to get a blanket yes/no for sources. In fact it is trolling, and if it carries on then recourse to ARBPIA may be necessary. Even worse is tit-for-tat comparison of sources - you should know that that is absolutely not how we work. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reminder to all of us. Obviously, I wouldn't have started this thread if I'd been on top of the issue! (I don't know if you were talking about Greta Berlin link, but I did find right one - plus Highbeam link - and put it back. It's positive and interview material. But they can bring to WP:BLP if disagree.) CarolMooreDC 07:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As an RSN regular who does NOT edit Israel/Palestine articles... I would agree with Itsmejudith. We are talking about a media source here. NO media source is ever 100% reliable or 100% unreliable. To determine reliability of media sources, we must examine the specific context in which they are being used... we have to ask three questions: 1) what exactly is the information being taken from the source? 2) Do other sources disagree with the source as to the specific information? and 3) how is the information being presented in a specific Wikipedia article? For example, a source may not be reliable if the information is presented as an accepted fact (X is true), and yet be absolutely reliable if the information is phrased as an attributed opinion (according to Y, X is true). It is important to remember that having a bias does not automatically make a media source unreliable... media sources are allowed to have a political bias ... however when a media source does have a bias, we need to account for that bias. We need to frame how we present the information in a neutral tone. We need to attribute the information we take from the source, and present any alternative views. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Museum exhibit citations?

I recently came across the article Mining on Vancouver Island, which I found extremely limited. As I live on Vancouver Island and am a Mining Engineering graduate, I know a fair bit about the history of mining on the island and know where I can find more information. However, my sources are primarily local museums found in what were originally mining towns like Cumberland. I am unsure as to whether or not museum exhibits count as reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards. On the one hand, the primary purpose of a museum's exhibition floor is to educate the public (and generate revenue for associated researchers, presumably); on the other hand, it's so specific a source that it's hard to call it verifiable - Wikipedia tends to prefer online sources as they can conveniently be checked, but even published books are easy to check in comparison to specific museums, especially when they're not large ones like the Smithsonian. I originally asked on the help desk page, but was referred here for a definitive answer. I'd hate to put all the effort into making a more comprehensive discussion of the topic only to have it reverted due to improper sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashkavar (talk • contribs) 05:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you may have wanted to post on the discussion/notice board itself and not the talk page? (discussions are usually conducted on "talk" pages, but with the notice boards, its backwards.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

IRC Office Hours

Hi all, I'll be holding office hours session on DR in about 30 minutes in #wikimedia-office. Your feedback and comments are welcome. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Tv.com

See TfD of tv.com templates. Frietjes (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute notice

The noticeboard has a notice: This is not the place for content disputes, which should be directed to the article talk page, the associated WikiProject, or Dispute resolution noticeboard.

This seems to me a little confused, since RSN is one of various venues for resolving content disputes and everything that comes here is a content dispute. The other noticeboards seem to manage fine without this, so could we remove it? Formerip (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the point of the notice is get editors to focus on reliability issues and not on other content or editor conduct issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably right. But I can't see that it's very useful for that purpose. Formerip (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can't see it, that simply means you can't see it. It doesn't make it not so. ► Belchfire-TALK 15:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the other boards should have such notices. I would say the "point" of such a notice is not to rehash arguments that may (and should have) already taken place on the article's talk page. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if we can find a clearer wording. The thing that drives me up the wall is when both sides in a dispute carry on the argument in this project page. We need to tell them firmly that they should simply pose a question about a source, ideally with all the detail we ask for, and then sit back and let uninvolved editors comment on the source question. Maybe we could spell that out more. "This board is just for posing questions about reliability of sources. Please do not carry on arguments here. Allow time for uninvolved editors to comment. Follow-up questions and further clarification are allowed." How's that? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I have a guilty conscience, but I apologize if this thread was driven by my recent posting. My understanding is that the reliability of a source depends on context, and sometimes contextual information needs to be given particularly if there are two opinions of how to use the source (i.e. a content dispute). What I found helpful earlier was when an involved editor essentially stated to a couple of us, "You got your second opinion, now go away." Location (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with discussion context. Indeed, it's necessary. The problem happens when editors cannot avoid the temptation to devolve into debating specific content, which is similar to, but distinct from, context. It's not that difficult to keep the two separated, when the motivation to come to this forum isn't driven by forum shopping. ► Belchfire-TALK 16:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Belch, RS disputes are primarily about content and we do not consider sources in the abstract, only in relation to specific statements.

The problem with the notice, in any case, is not what it is meant to discourage and whether that is a good or a bad thing, just that it doesn't make proper sense. Formerip (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Content disputes are content disputes, and there are other venues available to deal with them. The plain language of the notice should tell you that RS disputes are about the reliability of sources; not the content of articles. This really isn't complicated for most of us. You can choose to comprehend, or pretend not to understand - it's up to you. Everybody else gets it. ► Belchfire-TALK 17:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and tried to address FormerIP's concern while trying to account for Belchfire's (and other's) concerns.[10] The wording may need some slight tweaking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That's much better. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody follows the Header instructions. What should we do? Part 2

It's been a half year since we had this discussion. Yet, editors are still not formulating their questions correctly. In particular, Judith had to reformulate[11] a question because the OP failed to do so. What can we do to get editors to ask better, clearer questions? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Revert their submission and leave a note on their talk page? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

There are several like that asking if X is a reliable source, as if relaibility were an all-or-nothing attribute of sources. Such questions could simply be removed from the board. In other cases, the request could be made specific like Itsmejudith did. Sources that are thought to be almost never reliable could be moved to "Large scale clean-up efforts". But I'm probably not saying anything new... Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. On a point of detail, a source could be placed in the large-scale clean-up efforts without being "almost never reliable". When we checked through the references to Answers in Genesis, about a third of the time it was being used appropriately, e.g. to support the description of a creationist's views. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. "Often misused" might be better. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the ideas that came out of that discussion was to create an Template:RSNvague tag, but I'm not sure if anyone's using it anymore. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I made a slight change to the wording.[12] But I doubt it will help much. But please let me know if anyone objects. We'll have to modify the edit notice[13] to keep the wording in sync, and I think we need an admin to do that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

What would fix the problem decisively would be structured input, like at AN3 or SPI. Complete with HTML comments that walk the user through step-by-step. Absent that, the place looks and acts just like an extra Talk page, and that's pretty much exactly how a lot of editors use it. ► Belchfire-TALK 16:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with templates like AN3 and SPI is that they're complicated and confusing to use, especially for newbies. Have you seen WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request? They created a form for the user to fill out. Maybe we can try something like that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"...complicated and confusing to use, especially for newbies." That's not a bug; that's a feature. ► Belchfire-TALK 17:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

True, good point. But sometimes it's kind of hard to figure out what the poster is really asking. It's true that Judith went ahead and did that for the OP, but it would be much easier for everyone for the OP to do that themselves. I'll quit jabbering for now and wait for more feedback. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate that specificity is usually desired, I was of the view that in certain instances, a source's general reliability could nevertheless be determined. If Der Stürmer's reliability on Jewish characteristics was brought to RSN, would editors still temporize and demand article and content specifics? I thought that a general view of Ma'an which published antisemitic vitriol could be attained; maybe I was mistaken but this was not a deliberate attempt to circumvent the header instructions. Ankh.Morpork 19:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't you and your friends attacking WP:RS you see as too pro-Palestinian the subject of the general topic Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Recourse_when_partisans_.22converge.22_against_source.3F above?? (I only read the first couple examples of "evidence" you presented because they were translations from unreliable sources and Arabic links. Why should such "evidence" be presented at all, not to mention in the beginning which will make any sensible editor throw up their hands in disgust??)

"...because they were translations from unreliable sources and Arabic links" - I was unaware that one could not refer to Arabic links when requesting advice at RSN and that I had to make allowances for your linguistic shortcomings. I was similarly incognisant that good-faith translations provided at the Language reference desk by an Arabic speaker would be dismissed as "unreliable" and cause you to flail your arms arounds in disgust. Might I suggest that seeing as your disgust-reflex is so easily triggered, you ingest an AGF pill before continuing this conversation? Ankh.Morpork 20:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If one gives one example and editors think it's a crappy source generally, you'll hear about it. Sources get dismissed as NON-WP:RS every day. You are just wasting everyone's time with poorly prepared generalized attacks like this. CarolMooreDC 19:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

@Ankh-Morpork. Of course regulars would not temporize. That is not something we do. There is no time limit anyway on WP. We ask for specifics because we need to know them in order to form an opinion. What we hate most is wall of text. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ma'an News - Who's involved and uninvolved?

I'm half-tempted to close this thread right now, but I want to make sure I'm reading consensus right. Who's involved and who's uninvolved in this dispute? Based on Operation Pillar of Defense: Revision history:

AnkhMorpork, Brewcrewer, Nableezy, Tkuvho and WLRoss are all involved.
Me, Carolmooredc, ItsMeJudith, and TomHarrison are uninvolved.

I didn't check other IP articles as there are too many to check. So, am I reading this correctly? Did I miss someone? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Carolmooredc has edited in the past the WP:ARBPIA area.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Carolmooredc is one of the more notorious POV editors here and is not considered uninvolved by any stretch. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Could I suggest that you redact that characterisation per WP:NPA, Brewcrewer. This debate has become heated enough as it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Geez, how many times does one have to remind people that one can be sanctioned for these kinds of personal attacks under WP:ARBPIA?? I'm such a saint I've only threatened it a couple dozen times so far.

Second, involved in the article currently (as opposed to a few edits way back when) or the general area? Obviously, a lot of NPOV editors are terrified of treading into or opining on this topic so one often gets stuck with the logic of the involved.

Anyway, I actually used Ma'an recently in a case where an individual was trashed in four articles in wikipedia - at a time when media outlets and advocacy groups were trying to force them from their job - for something they said that a couple months later Ma'an reported from numerous sources was basically true. (So better late than never that BLP was cleaned up in all four.) It was the only source that bothered to get the facts. That doesn't mean I'd use or believe everything, especially if it was countered by truly NPOV and reliable sources.

But the issue here is keeping it to this specific case. Did I miss the unmistakeable evidence or absolute proof Ma'an made this story up?? CarolMooreDC 15:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have previously edited Israel-Palestine articles, but have not been involved in this one. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not directly involved in the discussion, but made a comment related to a related RSN post related to another article in the I/P morass, here. I have learned through this discussion, incidentally, that I posed that question incorrectly.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

MMA reliability

Note that I've weighed it a bit on the 3 sites mentioned in the 'MMA reliability' section. I didn't do my normal research, so anything and everything I said so far should be taken with a grain of a salt. In particular, in judging a site's reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, I look to see what other reliable sources have to say about a source. I'm in a bit of a hurry, and did not get a chance to do that with any of these sites. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Scientific & Academic Publishing

For future reference, Scientific & Academic Publishing (sapub.org) is a dubious publisher of 194 online "journals", similar to Scientific Research Publishing. Poor quality articles, by virtually unknown minor academics. Despite claims that all their journals are "peer-reviewed", this article in their International Journal of Arts was a blatant copyvio of Manifestations of Postmodernism with no attribution. We may see a lot more of this stuff from them in the future. Many of their other articles use Wikipedia as a reference, e.g. [14]. See here for more. Voceditenore (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted, but can we have a page somewhere with this sort of material so that we can refer to it easily? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose an RS reference room that maintains lists of particularly peculiar cases like this for respective fields. It would probably be difficult to reach consensus on the composition of such lists, however.

On the other hand, if it were feasible, it would be preferable to having to search archived discussions and read through them, possible rehashing them.Ubikwit (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a regular contributor here (I came across this while investigating a copyright issue), but it seems sensible to keep track of them somewhere. Note that the second publisher I mentioned (Scientific Research Publishing, scirp.org) also has articles in their journals which use Wikipedia as a reference, e.g. [15]. No proper peer-reviewed academic journal would publish articles like that. - Voceditenore (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the problem of low quality (and outright fake) journals is a significant - and growing - problem: [16][17][18]. One potential approach would be to deem journals lacking any meaningful peer-review standards to be "self-published sources" - which would make them eligible for inclusion in the WP:LSP. Unfortunately, relatively few WP contributors are likely aware that such a list exists, and it's far too easy for the unwary good faith contributor to assume that a professional looking journal website with a scholarly sounding name is legit. So perhaps the best solution would be for someone with the requisite technical skills to program a bot that scans articles to seek out citations pointing to such sources. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a list of sketchy publishers that is regularly maintained and respected among many groups of scientists and scholars. It has certainly helped me and rung true with my experiences with a few publishers on that list. ElKevbo (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Those are good lists, but it seems that the proliferation of such publications across disciplines makes for prohibitively cumbersome perusal. Bots could at least alert editors to the presence of potentially dubious sources. If someone can program bots, wouldn't it be possible to create a sub-page attached to the RS/N that organizes such lists according to discipline, etc?Ubikwit (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Central RS Rationale Repository?

From time to time I see editors citing websites which look like merely personal projects. Digging deeper, I discover that the author of the site is a retired professor, or active and well-cited participant in a particular, though narrow, field. At the moment, there's no generic way on Wikipedia to quickly verify that any source is reliable enough by our standards, other than by:

Searching RSN. This works for experienced editors, but there's no way that a reader would know to go to WP:RSN then search the archives.
Checking to see if the source has a page on Wikipedia. This would indicate that the source is WP:N notable, but what if they're reliable but not notable?

Through research, I have rehabilitated a few sources, and, after discussion on RSN, catalogued them under WP:WikiProject IRC/Sources. I have linked cited sources to that document with a hand-made tag called ^(rationale) for use in the References section of IRC-related articles. Example: ii (IRC client)

Proposal 1: a Wikipedia-wide Reliable Source Rationale repository, linked to by a common ^RS tag & link. The top page would be WP:Reliable sources/Rationale, and the sources would be listed as /subpages. Ideally, this would be used for sources which are not obviously reliable, or were disputed, but approved.
Proposal 2: No repository, but the ^RS link goes to the archived RSN discussion. This is less ideal, because the rationale can't be condensed and clarified post-decision, since archives aren't to be edited.

Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Linking to the archived discussion at RSN regarding a source, which has been discussed here, especially those that are found to be SPS RSs, would be helpful, and can be added within the <ref>citation template<br/>Wikilink to archived RSN discussion</ref> (reference). What does everyone think? Would this violate MOS? How helpful would this be? Or would this be harmful?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it difficult to decide. Whether a source is a book, a journal, or a website, the fact that a reference contains a link to our encyclopedia page about that source is good and helpful. But this is different: should we link to a discussion/project page debating that source? We can say more or less what we like in discussion pages, and what we say isn't the result of any consensus, as an encylopedia page is. Andrew Dalby 09:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the point. Reliability of a source is contextual: it depends on the statement being backed up. One can treat even an autobiography as reliable for some statements but not others. Hence a centralized approach fails unless it supports individual discussions for all the WP uses of that source.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

PolicyMic

It's been 5 days without any comments in this section: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#PolicyMic. May I request that editors provide their input there? Thanks. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor's reference dialog

VisualEditor's reference dialog, especially the way it handles citation templates, is being redesigned. Suggestions and opinions are wanted at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. (It's over at the sister project, Mediawiki.org, but you should be able to use your Wikipedia username/password to login there.) This is a practical, focused workshop to improve the design. Views from people who regularly edit at other Wikipedias are also needed, since some Wikipedias do not use the same citation templates (or don't use citation templates at all).

If you aren't using VisualEditor regularly, it may be helpful to turn on VisualEditor (at the bottom of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing) and try to add or edit a couple of refs in your sandbox, or to read Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide first. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if VE supported IE, the world's most popular desktop browser. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we need to make that option available, and they're working on it (for recent versions of IE). I haven't heard anything for over a month about when this is likely to happen, so I'm assuming the answer is "not very soon".

However, IE isn't the world's most popular browser any longer. It only accounts for a mere 16% of our traffic (that's all versions of IE added together). Almost twice as many of our readers and editors are using Chrome. Looking at Usage share of web browsers, all but one source seems to think this is true for most websites, even to a greater extreme than we see at the Wikipedias. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sub-sectioning of talk threads & suggestions to improve discussions

"Involved" / "Uninvolved" editors sub-sectioning

Recently there have been some threads created which include subsections for "Involved" and "Uninvolved" editors. This is not customary discussion format. The template for starting a thread has a 1 – 2 – 3 layout for Source – Article – Content. At that point editors can add their comments, bulleted or otherwise. But adding the involved/uninvolved sections hampers discussions. For example, if an "involved" editor comments, where should the uninvolved editor reply, and vice-versa? The layout also provides an "us vs. them" set-up. E.g., does an involved/uninvolved editor's comment have greater or lesser weight compared with the other side? I recommend that this practice be stopped and that editors be given blanket permission to refactor these subsections to the normal and accepted layout. – S. Rich (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem of overwhelming commentary from involved editors has been brought up lots of times at lots of noticeboards on lots of issues with different editors. I know I've seen the "Involved" and "Not Involved" and "Discussion" format used at RfCs and it seems like a good idea for noticeboards. Of course now a couple people have disagreed, so I guess it's an issue.

I see the formatting did not stop the involved editors from overwhelming uninvolved editors with their comments, so it's good to discuss this here. Overwhelming with comments usually doesn't stop the most obvious problems from being dealt with but in those areas where there's a bit more effort to come to a consensus, it can be disruptive. Sometimes people ask editors to stop; sometimes they do, sometimes they don't; but it's usually after the discussion has descended into "chaos", as an admin recently commented at an ANI. If there are better solutions, do tell! User:Carolmooredc talk 16:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the format of a discussion, there are many good reasons not to allow refactoring of other editors' comments. If there's significant disagreement about this, we can discuss it in detail, otherwise I suggest we not consider "blanket permission to refactor". SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that editor comments be changed. Rather, per WP:TALKO, we need to recognize that section headings (and subsection headings) are not "owned" by any editor. The guidance says "It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate,..." I think this discussion has three points so far: 1. The involved/uninvolved layout is not customary. 2. It is not serving to keep discussions on track. 3. It may, actually, be more disruptive than helpful. With this in mind, I hope this discussion will serve as justification keeping such sub-sections out of the threads in the future and for removing them if they do appear. – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)17:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think centralized noticeboard discussions should be open to all comers equally including those who are familiar with the issues. There should not be a division between previously involved and uninvolved. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Having heard the arguments on main space, as well as these, I won't do it any more. Question for future reference: Is there any place besides RfC where such structures typically used? User:Carolmooredc talk 18:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

IMO, all is now well with the world and Wikipedia. E.g., it looks like we have consensus. Still, Specifico, perhaps you disagree or you know of other editors who might want to comment? If so, I'd certainly like to read what they have to say. (Since this was the only noticeboard where I saw such sub-sectioning, I thought the discussion could be resolved here.) And if we see such sub-sectioning in the future, we can cite the editor to WP:TALKO and take action as we see fit. – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about this issue, but you really shouldn't canvass a few editors and then declare "consensus" on any issue only couple of hours later. This applies to any talk page or noticeboard discussion. Let it linger longer, and the thread will benefit from the thoughts of any others who notice that you've raised the question. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

On a more general point: As I understand it, part of the benefit of RSN is getting the perspectives of uninvolved editors. If the same group of involved editors just keeps going around in circles it kind of defeats the point of posting on this noticeboard. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

How about a pleading note when one does an original posting, like "Involved editors, please do not present voluminous arguments in reply to every involved or uninvolved editor who you disagree with." I'd be happy to follow that myself :-) User:Carolmooredc talk 03:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, as long as the OP does not try to ban involved editors from making any argument at all, a tactic which I have seen. I think the involved editors should make their most cogent arguments and then stand back to see what others think. Binksternet (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If anything, WP would benefit from being less of a bureaucracy rather than more. Another pleading note should not be necessary here: the existing verbiage and common sense should do it most of the time. The more this sort of discussion goes on and the more those involved allow it to spill over in equal measure to general noticeboards, the less likely it is that uninvolved people will be willing to give an opinion. So, type a response by all means but hold off for a few minutes before committing to the save button: Wikipedia is not going to die in the interval and remember, as A. E. Housman wryly observed, "Three minutes' thought would have told him he was wrong, but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time." Ask yourself whether you are really advancing the discussion: historically, most ack-ack misses the target. - Sitush (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for discussion improvement

Now what?--Mark Miller (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't think the uninvolved/involved subsectioning really works, but it's an attempt to solve a very real problem, which is previously involved editors dominating a discussion (and probably rehashing what was said elsewhere anyway). But since those editors are likely the most knowledgeable about the topic, you can't really exclude them from the discussion, and this subsectioning is an (ineffective) attempt to do so. Podiaebba (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe in the guidelines to use of the page just ask that involved editors not overwhelm the discussion since this is a place to seek other opinions and then hope not too much time is spent in too many threads defining "overwhelm". :-) User:Carolmooredc talk 17:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

In my opening paragraph I referenced the Source – Article – Content layout guidelines. And it appears the discussion is moving into concerns about the need to avoid rehashing arguments. To address this concern, may I suggest we add the following to the Project page "Welcome" boxes: 1. A bulleted Prior discussion line which recommends linking to the related article talk page discussion. 2. Change "While we attempt to offer a second opinion...." to read "While we attempt to offer fresh opinions...." (The "prior discussion" need not be a new line – "Article" could be expanded to say "Article" and "Article talk page".) – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Or "second and/or fresh opinions"? Not as much of a foghorn as I'd like to see, but a start. :-) User:Carolmooredc talk 18:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That's way off-topic for this thread. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed a continued conflict

I have collapsed (I prefer to leave "hatting" to admin, even though a collapse is the same thing) a rather long posting by an editor that seemed to only discuss the conflict which appears to be something a little more than just a simple content dispute. I will not object, should others feel that was not appropriate. Cheers!

Mark James Miller--Mark Miller (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't appropriate, as the user didn't care to read the top of the page stating, "Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability." As I tried to {{hat}} the remarks, that user accused me of trying to alter his comment, and made a threating remark on its edit summary, as the user doesn't want it to be hidden, as it wants the message to be seen to get attention, in which I had to end up making another section message, in which doesn't contain unnecessary information (conflicts) by that user. Blurred Lines 04:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I get yelled at a lot for doing that so, I prefer to be clear that I will not object if another, established WP:RS contributor disagrees.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Is wetpaint acceptable?

Is wetpaint acceptable? And other websites by news people? Not like the tabloids where they have years of fake stuff but like where they interview the actors and famous people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.188.48.107 (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No Wetpaint is user generated. It would generally only be usable 1) in the Wikipedia article about the creator of the Wetpaint article for non controversial claims about themselves. 2) if the author of the Wetpaint article had been previously published in normal manner on the particular subject of the Wetpaint posting, for content that did not relate to a living person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather watch paint dry. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Rename noticeboard

I have a suggestion: the board should be slightly renamed, to something like Wikipedia:Reliable sourcing/Noticeboard. The aim would be to slightly emphasise the stated purpose of the board (see the orange header near the top), which is to consider whether specific sources are reliable enough to back up specific claims. Too often the board is trying to discuss whether sources are reliable in the abstract, which I think is foolish in principle (because it's a rare source which isn't a reliable source for something, even if it's only the claim that the source said something) and often counter-productive in practice. Note that such a renaming wouldn't preclude the same discussions happening as now - just very, very slightly encourage a focus on the specific over the abstract. (In a similar vein, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources should be renamed/rewritten to emphasise that in judging reliability the relationship between a specific claim and a specific source is important, not just the source in the abstract. But I don't feel comfortable trying to put that in motion.) Podiaebba (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose It isn't broken so please don't try to "fix" it.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing can be improved unless it can be characterised as "broken"? I don't know where to begin with that sort of Luddism expressed on a website. Podiaebba (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ignore Mark Miller. To an extent. I agree that his comment was unproductive, unnecessary, and have always believed that such statements in a discussion should be banned to the point of a 24-hour block for anyone stupid enough to be so ignorant as to utter such a non-statement that borders on being disruptive and is down-right rude and bitey. However, Podiaebba, it would be beneficial for you to point out specific ways in which your proposal would help make this noticeboard more efficient, and how without the proposal our resources are being squandered. I agree with you in principle that the noticeboard does have to worry a lot about the abstract, but the problem is not with this board, it is with policy and guidelines as currently written. Many of us on this noticeboard have attempted to re-write several policy statements to clear up confusions we see very often, however nay-sayers that stalk policy pages stifle our changes. We need to make the Community respect noticeboards and if a noticeboard makes a consensus that policy states X and it means XY then policy must be changed to reflect XY, with out further discussions or consensus needed. That's the change we need. Then perennial threads can be taken care of simply by pointing to the newly worded policy instead of a complete rehashing that X does in fact mean XY.Camelbinky (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everyone. Yes, it would, as Podiaebba says, be slightly closer to what we do. Per Mark, it's probably best not to make changes unless there is areal need. Per Camelbinky it's good if the noticeboards are more respected. However, Camelbinky, we can follow the model of case law. The policies and guidelines are worded as they are. However much they are refined they can't cope with every eventuality. The archives of the noticeboards reflect consensus about best practice. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library seeks renewal (please comment)

The Wikipedia Library has grown from a collection of donations to paywalled sources into a broad open research portal for our community. New partnerships have been formed, new pilot programs started, new connections made with our library experts and likeminded institutions. We have tried to bring people together in a new sense of purpose and community about the importance of facilitating research in an open and collaborative way. Here's what we've done so far:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of those references between 400-600%
Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

We've proposed a 6 month renewal request to continue and deepen this work and would appreciate your comments, concerns, thoughts, questions, or endorsements.

Cheers, Jake Ocaasi^{t | c} 12:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Car racing websites

I'm annoyed that the thread I started last week turned into a back-and-forth between me and the person I was discussing the issue with already, with nobody else participating (expect for one more person who showed up to emphasize that the question affected several articles). I was hoping for some input from people who have thought more about these issues, but apparently if you're not posting about some sexy political topic you get ignored here. I won't be coming back. Lagrange 613 16:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of photographs

I've been adding and editing quite a few articles on Grade I churches. I would like advice on referencing architectural detailing. National Heritage, Kelly's, Cox and Pevsner are good sources, but in abbreviated form and typically very limited, which I develop somewhat, and sometimes stray into architecture description based on Commons uploaded photos I've taken of churches. I am a little uncomfortable about this which might be seen as original research even though the pictures show clearly the fact of the written detail. I presume I can’t use an inline citation link to the photos on Commons to confirm text. Am I with developed architecture text straying onto dodgy ground ? Any advice ?

Articles to which you might want to refer are Berden / Aslackby / Harlaxton / Caythorpe. There was a 2009 discussion which may have some relevance, here. Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this is great work, and as long as you make efforts to keep the captions concise and descriptive, it should be fine. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that Cwobeel. It is not entirely the photo captions, but what is gleaned from photos and used to augment the text. Acabashi (talk)

Can you point to a specific example? I took a look at some of the articles you referred to but could not find anything wrong with them. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in the Berden article, Memorials second para on Dame Mary Scott, where although some of the historical stuff on her is from cited sources the text is developed from the grave slab which is in the photo gallery. In the Interior second para I describe the 20th-century panels and doors to the north transept, only evident in the gallery photo. Acabashi (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I sympathise with your query. Personally I tend not to use anything in an article that is not in a text somewhere (although I have been known to stray from this position). But let's consider an example: a photograph of a Perpendicular church with a battlemented tower; and it says nothing about either in any text. To say that the tower is battlemented cannot be OR can it? It is "there". But to interpret the architectural style as Perpendicular, I'm not so sure. But then, can we use the photograph as a reliable source of a tower with a battlement? Or are we interpreting the parapet as "battlemented", and that is considered to be OR? I'm afraid this is not particularly helpful, as it is just a restatement of your query. But I shall be interested to see how the discussion develops. Incidentally, why are the examples you have given not GAs (or more)? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter's view of the problem is intriguing. If the photo is of something that looks, swims, and quacks like a church tower, then it probably is a church tower, and we can describe it as such. Or can we ? At what point does a deeper interpretation of a photo—of something many people might believe obvious—begin to descend into original research ? Acabashi (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

We need reliable secondary sources for any such claims as to style and usage - I am aware of bell towers which look like church towers, but aren't, and carillons which look quite undistinguished, but which are church towers. So we do what Wikipedia requires - and use sources which others have written on the topic <g>. Collect (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)m

I disagree, there are some occasions in which ignoring all rules apply. This is one of them. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Photographs should not be used as sources... they are best used as illustrations. To give an example if there is a source that says "The east window of St. Eggfroth's Church is a prime example of Early Perpendicular Style", then Wikipeida can state that fact in an article (cited to the source)... and then illustrate the statement with an image of the rose window (with an appropriate caption).

What you should not do is rely on your own knowledge of Early Perpendicular Style to look at a picture, and state "The east window is in the Early Perpendictular Style". In this sense, you can not use a picture to support a statement (or caption). That would be original research.

Now, some editors argue that we should make an exception to the "don't use photos as sources... only illustrations" rule when it comes to photos that depict text (such as a photo of a road sign, gravestone, memorial slab, etc.). The argument is that the text shown in the photo is a written source. In fact, there is no need for this exception. We don't need the photo, since the original sign, gravestone, memorial slab, etc. is itself its own Primary source, and can be quoted as such. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

But what about the battlement or the rose window that is not mentioned in the text but is obviously there in a photo. It seems somewhat contrary to ignore it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a problem if an article leaves out information which no other source has ever felt the need to note. We aren't leading our readers astray because we're just following where our reliable sources take us. We are leading our readers down potentially dangerous paths, however, if we start to incorporate our own assumptions into articles. We should discipline ourselves and stay on the safe side for the sake our readers. Let the picture speak for itself.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Collect about the description of photos being deceptive as to what they describe, although the context of a photo detail within an article can provide some support. I tend not to add my photos in articles to describe something other than what would be covered in sources, and not make my own interpretation on style or period. I say ‘tend’ as this is not the query I’m posing. Take my photo of the modern screens in the Berden church (shown), for which I can find no source. If we presume that I am not truthful that the photo was taken in this particular church, and you only have my word, then how would we describe this: "a seemingly wooden screen with what looks like glazed panels in an interior somewhere" ? Perhaps even this is not good enough, and any description, however strange, might do if I care to use it.

The real problem might come if we contradict a source (see Blueboar’s “St. Eggfroth's Church” example), that there is a EP window, but it is sketchily described in the source. I would not contradict the source’s EP origin description, but what if the photo of that window incontrovertibly shows a hood mould with label stops—there are tediously hundreds of these—not mentioned in the source. As the ‘hood mould’ is Wikilinked wouldn’t the reader be able to see Wikipedia’s truth of the matter—it might not be an assumption as Brianann MacAmhlaidh postulates. Do I pretend that the hood mould is not there?—an argument might be that it is not worth mentioning. Blueboar’s observations (if I understand this), on some users accepting tombstone text as a primary source not requiring the photo is interesting too, if there are no secondary sources for the text. Should we dismiss the evidence of the photo ? And isn’t the text on the tombstone a secondary source noting the primary source (perhaps long gone), of the actual burial, and the record that would come before the tombstone. Acabashi (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

We have {{cite sign}}, which may be used to cite the text of a gravestone or memorial in a church. I used it to cite a specific date in the Somerhill House article as the only source I could find for the actual date was a memorial. Mjroots (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, this may get over the problem of working with text on tombstones with your example of the publisher as "All Saints Church, Tudeley"—the temp would imply acceptance of tomb text use. There still remains the question of extended text description based on a photo, but not contradicting the written source, of what could be assumed as the blindingly obvious to the average reader, or that can be confirmed by wikilinking to a further article. With description there has to be a line, where to back-cross it would lead all images into absurdity—Magritte painted what was for all an image of a pipe: he called it "This is not a pipe". Is the non-interpretive 'obvious' in a photo, which could possibly be confirmed by wikilink, acceptable if there is no supportive written source ? Acabashi (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting debate, and it may be more confused by the development of new technology. To start at the beginning: a photograph is evidence, and if it has not been manipulated, is reliable evidence. If it exists in a reliable source, say Images of England it is also verifiable evidence. So how do we use this source? If is for something purely factual, like “there are three windows and two gables” I see no problem. If we try to say something like “it is basically Arts and Crafts, with elements of Art Deco”, that is interpretation, and therefore unacceptable.

In fact a photograph may be more reliable than text, even if this comes from an “authoritative” source. There are plenty of errors in the Buildings of England series, and each week I send to English Heritage a list of errors I have found in the National Heritage List for England. Most of these errors have been discovered using Streetview; examples of this being demolished buildings that are still listed, and changes of use (described as a school, now a hotel). And the ‘’Bing’’ aerial views can add even more, giving views from four directions for buildings in the larger conurbations. So we now have even more reliable and verifiable evidence from sources other than text. And if the text is not available on line, it is not as easily verified as is the image from these new sources of buildings, with coordinates to confirm their location.

I am not arguing for or against anything, but we must not get stuck with old “rules”. WP must never get stuck in ruts. I have more than once seen the comment “but we discussed that all before”, as though that should be final. We, of all organisations must be open to debate and be prepared to change when it is appropriate. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

My take on this, is that I don't think this is a matter of old vs new technology. The very title of one of our policies is Verifiability, and to be verifiable, we require that sources be published. If an editor takes a photo and uploads it, that photo is WP:SPS, in Wikipedia. (so yes, that does eventually come around to WP:OR. The picture needs to be published somewhere, and somewhere reliable. I do recognize that reliable sources can be frustratingly lacking in information but that is still not license to breach WP:VERIFY. Jytdog (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

But in the case of Streetview (Google) and Bing imgages, are they not published - and by reliable sources? And so are the photos on Images of England.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

i would take a screencap from google streetview as reliable (i don't know if those images are subject to copyright but that is a different matter) Bing or Google images just search tons of websites - it would matter what website the picture came from (and again, copyright). Just looked at Images of England. Seems reliable but their Terms of Use make it clear that they do not give permission to use their images anywhere else. Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Photographs are primary sources that need to be interpreted. There are cases where that interpretation is too trivial to deal with but as a rule features of ecclesiastical architecture are beyond triviality; at the very least you need to know what the terms are. Mangoe (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that Mangoe, but primary sources need to be interpreted by secondary sources, and it is these that we need to quote. However, some supposed reliable secondary sources, for example, English Heritage are not always as reliable as they seem - see Peter I. Vardy comment on this above. I reference the NHLE left right and centre and do not directly contradict what they say, but in one of my church articles EH states that the church tower is non-buttressed, but the photo I took incontrovertibly shows the tower with a buttress ! In another, NHLE states that a suit of armour left by a local notable is on display in the church – it is not there; its lack was pointed out to me by a churchwarden and the church web site notes the loss – it was stolen years ago ! NHLE (and perhaps other ‘reliable sources’) is a mixed bag, often quoting other sources for its listing and often not having sent out field officers to list-assess churches. Is it the case that a current photo of evidence can often show the state of the building more truthfully, and in more substantial detail, and that can we describe this if our description keeps to a dry observation, with appropriate wikilinks to articles for 'Wikipedia-approved truth', and not make personal interpretation ? My view is that a photo does not trump reliable (is NHLE?) sources, but might it also be right that if a photo shows a buttress that by accounts shouldn’t be there, we shouldn’t hold our hands over our eyes and say "no, I’m not seeing this, it’s a mirage" ? Acabashi (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Just for info, most of the descriptions in the NHLE were written decades ago by a mixed bunch of inspectors. Some of those inspectors made errors (like the buttresses), some reports are ridiculously brief (some London churches I have seen), and things change, as I said above. The more recent designations have superb reports, but the size of the job to bring all the older descriptions up to this quality is beyond the means of EH. And the Pevsner series is very variable and not always accurate. So it is often impossible to to obtain accurate descriptions from any secondary source. And photographs, Streetview and Bing aerial must I suppose be regarded as primary sources. So to make an article worthy of an encyclopaedia, and to follow the "rules" is a bit difficult. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wording of headers in the Westeros.org thread

Specifically addressed to @Jack Sebastian: but other input is welcome. The matter concerns this thread.

1) The word "Again" in the main section header introduces biased. It sounds like a sigh or a complaint. It discourages people from taking this matter seriously.

Please remember that when you said you thought that part of the Ana Carol filing text was spoiling for a fight, I removed it even though I didn't agree. This is because if everyone is to accept the outcome, that outcome must be reached in a way that everyone can accept as valid.

2) Here's why we should not use "arbitrary" in the mid-topic break: Arbitrary breaks are made for length, and newcomers are expected to post below the break. This break was based on a change in topic, and newcomers who want to talk about the original topic are expected to post above the break. We can call it something other than "topic break" or "digression" if you like, but "arbitrary break" is not okay with me. It's a big language. We can find something acceptable to both of us. We should probably leave it as just "break" until we find a longer title that works for both of us. We can both agree that it is a break.

I'd also like to add that you did not think it was okay for me to change a header that you wrote. Please make up your mind.

3) We should delete or at least collapse the whole thread below the break. It's just the two of us going back and forth. No one else has joined in, and the point of coming to the RSN was to get other people to join in. Also, the conversation never circled back to source reliability, and the RSN rules say not to talk about other things here. You said something about trivializing things, but remember we've been working on this subject for months now. I do not agree with your position but I feel I've proven that I don't think your posts are trivial. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm not particularly interested in spending any more time dealing with you, Darkfrog24. AGF is not a suicide pact. You've gamed the system monstrously, and I find it depressing that others might not see through your rotten behavior. But I do. I am going to enjoy some RW time for a few days, and not give you a moment's thought. Do not consider my silence as consent to make any changes to any article, post or discussion I've contributed to. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You say you don't want to "deal with me," and yet you make a post addressed to me. So unless someone's holding a gun to your head that I don't know about, yes you do. Own that.

No, Jack. I have not been gaming the system by bringing in sources for material that was cited as unsourced. I have not been "rotten" by working within consensus that I should find more sources. While we're on consensus, you should consider what the fact that this type of material appears in all GA-rated Game of Thrones articles may mean with respect to the larger consensus on Wikipedia. I wish you fun on your trip. I hope you come back refreshed.

Since Jack has said that he's going out of town or something, I'll add a caveat to the proposal I'd prepared and send it to the floor. I'll wait at least forty-eight hours before acting on this. Per WP:TPO The entire thread below the break should be moved to talk:Oathkeeper and a link to it conspicuously placed so that any RSN respondent who wants to can view and participate in this relevant but not immediately on-topic discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop collapsing the discussion. I do not wish for my posts to be hidden from view. Show some courage and leave them be. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Prolonging the life

I'm pretty sure that the bot archives discussions based on the date of the last post. Making further posts there that are repetitive or off-topic may artificially prolong the thread's life. We asked the regulars here whether they felt the source was reliable and they answered us. We should move on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Find a Grave

I've started a discussion regarding use of the Find a Grave template and whether the way that the template page is worded in accordance with Reliable sources guidelines or a generally accepted consensus about its usage.

There are 54 postings about Find a Grave, but I don't know if one of them - or another source would be considered the definitive guidelines for content to update the template. I am happy to draft a rewrite of the verbiage for the Find a Grave template.

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I posted a summary of suggestions for the Find a Grave template, based on what I'm understanding from a number of different sources on Wikipedia. Do you mind looking at it and responding at Template talk:Find a Grave#Summary of points?

If this is the wrong place to post the question, please let me know what the right place is.

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant–Israel — Query

Why has my question posted under the heading "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant–Israel" on 16 September been archived today? There has been no response to my query yet, so surely it is extant and should remain on this page? --P123ct1 (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You can unarchive it. Just repost your query, or do a copy paste from the archives. Kingsindian (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

But to answer the question: Threads are archived automatically after 5 days without changes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's remove "Current large scale clean-up efforts"

The associated noticeboard is gone, and none of the pages have been edited since 2012. Shii (tock) 22:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Without objection, so ordered Shii (tock) 19:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Is requesting 3rd opinions allowed on the noticeboard?

There are a number of topics that come up on this and other noticeboards in which only two Wikipedians, with opposing views, participate in the noticeboard discussion. Is it permissible to request a 3rd opinion by listing the dispute on the WP:3O page? Dezastru (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Although those are usually done on article talk pages. Here it's more public and there's the chance that another person will chime in and that messes up WP:3O. Perhaps better, if the discussion has really gone stale with only two participants, to hat (close) the discussion here or wait for it to be archived, and then return to the article talk page and request the third opinion from there? And of course you have to check that the other person will accept the third opinion.Herostratus (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The usual thing is to post again saying that you are looking for further responses from uninvolved board regulars. It's worth trying, anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not? See WP:NORULES even if there was a custom you are permitted to WP:BEBOLD It is called freedom of thought, CheersWikidgood (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Could we get more editors to opine on this?

OK... I don't really think anyone else really needs to to opine... I posted this under a new sub-header to give an example of how you can request a third (or fourth, or fifth, etc) opinion at a notice board. Herostratus is right in saying that filing a formal WP:3O request is probably the wrong approach... When a noticeboard discussion is being dominated by only two or three editors (hey, it happens), and you want more editors to add their opinions - just ask for more people to share their views. Blueboar (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Will not even consider the comments of a top USAF General?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=630826050&diff=prev

What's the problem here? The USAF leadership is not even worthy of consideration for inclusion because of what? Hcobb (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

WTF??Wikidgood (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The USAF air combat commander is quoted in a reliable publication as doubting the usefulness of an expensive new aircraft and Wikipedia is covering this up. Why? Does somebody have some sort of reason to cover up for Sikorsky? Hcobb (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No edit summary used; no warning given; no prior discussion - the revert may be a mistake. Suggest you ask Mike on his talk page QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Should requests be neutral or not?

Recently, Faceless Enemy asked for feedback here on WP:RSN headed, "Walter Hickey / Business Insider." He gave the source, article, and content in question, but followed this info with a paragraph that read:

I feel that Walter Hickey is a clickbait writer. He has written articles such as "39 Photos That Prove Birthday Boy Vladimir Putin Is The Most Badass Leader In The World", "Here's The Season When Your Favorite TV Show Peaked", "7 Things That Are Worth More Than The Washington Post", and "MAPS: A Poll Asked Europeans Which Countries Were Drunkest, Hottest, And Had the Silliest Accents". I don't think he adds anything to the content he is double sourced on, and I don't think he's reliable for the sources he is the only source on. We should not be relying on him for this article.[19]

This reminded me of a request I made here last September,[20] which ended with the paragraphs:

The first was a self-published gossip site that isn't even run by the original owner. It's maintained by another person or persons now and seems to be an archive of a gossip site.

The second is blatantly commercial, with a big banner ad across the top for with explicit images for porn products. The interviews are undated, by unidentified authors. The site itself, its main page, has a copyright date of 2004-2010- so it's not even clear if it's a going concern. And there is nothing on it about editorial oversight.

Gaijin42 replied to this saying: LB, it would be better if you made your post more neutrally, not strongly suggesting the answer you think is correct....[21]

So I dropped my opinion[22] of the sources in question, and I've kept my opinion out of my (original) questions here ever since, (though my opinion is generally revealed as discussion warms up). I now use the simple, starting format, "Is source-a reliable for content-b?" or, for a source in general, "Is source-c a reliable source?"

I am pinging Capitalismojo, too, since he responded to this question when I posted it as an aside in the Business Insider discussion mentioned above.

Questions:

Should questions at RSN be brief and neutral (like at WP:3O) or, like WP:RM#CM, should we strive to make our point as best we can?
Could you put some guidance, please, at the top of RSN?

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It's probably unrealistic to expect people to come here without an opion one way or the other. At the same time, I can see not wanting to "poison the well" with the way the question is phrased. Maybe we can split the difference? So the 'request' should be neutral, but the requestor expresses their opinion as the first response? Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The basic question is always the same here: "Is this a reliable source, specifically for this proposed edit?" The requesting editor should give the information about what the source is supposed to be referencing and at what article. Finally the editor should, I think, state his opinion and reasoning. The question should be always be neutral, the opinion and reasoning need not be. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed style noticeboard

There is talk at the village pump about creating a noticeboard similar to this one for style issues. Right now, people tend to bring their style questions to WT:MoS: [23] [24]. They do not much disrupt business there, but there is some concern that people may not know where to go to get a clear answer about Wikipedia's policies regarding punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and other style issues. Proponents of the measure say that a noticeboard would be easier for people to find. Opponents of the measure argue that such a style board might facilitate forum shopping and drama. Contributions from users who have experience with Wikipedia's noticeboards would be very welcome. The proposal itself is at the Village Pump. A mockup of the style noticeboard is here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There is now a related proposal at the Village Pump that WT:MoS be established as Wikipedia's official page for style Q&A. This would involve actively guiding editors with style questions to WT:MoS and away from other pages. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

General problem with a source

moved from this talk page to the noticeboard. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I wasn't sure if this question is specific enough for the Noticeboard, so I'll post it here first: is http://what-when-how.com/ ever a reliable source? It claims to work with publishers and indeed I found its material to be copied, without attribution, from various sources such as the Encyclopedia of Space Science and Technology and Women and War. I still have to find the first of their articles that lists an author or sources.

~~This website is currently cited in several dozen articles. Do we allow this? Or should I try and get it blacklisted?~~ QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI, you're not on a noticeboard but on its talk page, please move your request to WP:RSN (you can move or delete this comment of mine afterwards, I don't mind either way). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

(The OP knows this is not the noticeboard. The first sentence says so.) I agree with Francis that this question is suitable for the actual noticeboard. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, moved to noticeboard. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Lost archive?

It looks like this archive at October 13 never reached its intended destination in Archive 197. The target archive has no entry with that date and time. Could someone more experienced with the archiving system check and restore that please? The move can't be undone and I'd rather not break one of the archiving pages. GermanJoe (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Just tried to fix it myself, but some ELs in the thread are now blacklisted and can't be saved (maybe that was also the initial problem with archiving). GermanJoe (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Done - Re-archived manually now (just changed the URLs to simple text). It contains some Yourstory.com information, that may be of interest for future questions about this source. GermanJoe (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: What does Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) cover?

There is a request for comments at [ Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? ].

At issue is whether the lead paragraph OF WP:MEDRS should remain...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

...or whether it should be changed to...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical and health information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

This has the potential to change the sourcing policy from WP:RS to WP:MEDRS on a large number of Wikipedia pages, so please help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here are core editors, understand the problems faced at Wikipedia, know policy well, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Archive counter

On January 18 an anonymous edit messed up the archive parameters, from which time the bot started using Archive 4 (I guess the first one it found smaller than 250k) and then Archive 6 (which had been courtesy-blanked). I’ve reset the counter, filled up Archive 201, and started an Archive 202 for the rest. If it turns out I’ve made more of a mess, consider this a request for someone more clueful to fix it, and please use the service entrance for deliveries of aquatic fauna over 15 kg.—Odysseus 1479 02:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The bot found the new archive on its latest pass, so it seems to be back on track, but I’d still appreciate it if someone were to check my manual moves.—Odysseus 1479 03:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

On the 10th Feb I started a topic on the RSN and two things that I don't understand happened to this topic: 9.electronic harassment There were two comments which did appear in my watchlist but were not that helpful, but then two other comments appear which are useful for the discussion, but for which I do not get a notice on my watchlist. When I went to RSN to check I find that the topic has been deleted. When I looked in the history I found the two helpful comments. This is not the first time that I have noticed that things that should have appeared in my watchlist notices have not.But, the first time the topic has been deleted before I could find the comments.Jed Stuart (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleted Topic and absent notices

On the 10th Feb I started a topic on the RSN and two things that I don't understand happened to this topic: 9.electronic harassment There were two comments which did appear in my watchlist but were not that helpful, but then two other comments appear which are useful for the discussion, but for which I do not get a notice on my watchlist. When I went to RSN to check I find that the topic has been deleted. When I looked in the history I found the two helpful comments. This is not the first time that I have noticed that things that should have appeared in my watchlist notices have not.But, the first time the topic has been deleted before I could find the comments.Jed Stuart (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please comment?

I started a thread here about some of the sources used in the Unlocked album which is currently pending a GA status. Can anyone comment on the thread? Thanks, jona ^(talk) 20:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Research into finding citations for articles

This month's Research Showcase includes a presentation about how to find news citations for articles. It will start in 30 minutes and be streamed live at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTDkVeqjw80

I'm not familiar with this project, but from the brief description, it sounds like they're ultimately trying to develop a semi-automated way to identify which statements in an article need citations, which of those citation-needing statements can be cited to news media, and then perhaps see if a suitable source could be found online. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Well nothing could possibly go wrong with that... (rolls eyes) Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ha! - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Good example of legitimate WP:NEWSBLOG use to add as example?

I'm trying to clarify the WP:NEWSBLOG policy over here, but haven't got a good example of the inclusion of WP:NEWSBLOG. I'd like to ask if you guys have seen a good example of using a newsblog, so we could consider adding it as an example on the WP:V policy? Feel free to reply here, or on the linked WP:V discussion. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I would use them as a statement from a relevant expert (assuming they're from a relevant expert). There's one on Solar Roadways where a blog post from Roy Spencer (scientist) is used as an opinion from a relevant expert. I don't think anyone dared actually use it as a ref, but I recall a case where Patrick Nielsen Hayden left a comment in a science-fiction-related Wikipedia AFD, and people remarked that would be the first case of an AFD constituting an RS ... - David Gerard (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm looking more for WP:NEWSBLOGs from "newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Any of the following (just a few examples):

The Monkey Cage (Washington Post) — good newsblog run by political scientists and other academics who write about research in the area and its application to current events.

The Volokh Conspiracy (Washington Post) — well-known blog, run by law professors, providing analysis and commentary on law and legal issues. Very useful, often citable

Any of the New York Times's in-house blogs, see here

The Wall Street Journal's many in-house blogs, e.g., Law Blog, Real Time Economics, etc.

These would all fall under the newsblog rubric. Neutrality^talk

Obvious mistakes

How should we handle with reliable sources which has made obvious mistakes in some small points? For example, suppose the obvious mistake by this university press book which is explained in details here, or you can imagine a reliable book saying the US is consisted of 40 states. The source of mistake can be anything, but the question's that how do we deal with them. Should we regard them unreliable for those specific areas and contexts? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It's very difficult for some editors to comprehend, but WP:RS and WP:V are not suicide pacts, and WP:IAR exists for a reason. Most often small errors should simply be omitted from an article, even if the source is used for some other content. If the errors are so gross they betray a complete lack of competence or fact checking by the author/reviewer/editor, the specific source may be declared by consensus to be entirely unreliable, even if the publisher has a generally good reputation. And finally, if the error itself is notable, it might be discussed in and of itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you please comment?

I requested comments on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Friends_of_the_Article_V_Convention. Can anyone please comment on the request? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calexit (talk • contribs) 03:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

So if there's no response for a week, should I just give up and let it be? What's the process here?? Calexit (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The process is to bring up the issue on the article talk page, attempt to have a calm, reasoned discussion there, then after a few days to to go to WP:DRR and follow the directions if you are getting nowhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail discussion in The Guardian

Thought editors might find this article of interest. Coretheapple (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

How do we search wikipedia to find the 12,000 DM citations? NPalgan2 (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@NPalgan2 this might be a good place to start. There may be better ways to search them up but even the top few results here need a lot of work. Note that replacing with an alternative source should be the go-to option, not removal. Only if another source can't be found should a ref be removed outright. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, there is, as you say, a lot of work. However, that method only detects dailymail.co.uk when it is visible as text. I'd be interested if anyone knows how to search for dailymail.co.uk when it's only in the hidden URL.NPalgan2 (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@NPalgan2:To find the dailymail.co.uk in URLs, type insource:dailymail.co.uk in the search box. (For details, see mw:Help:CirrusSearch#Insource.) – Margin1522 (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Just ask that nice Mr Dacre? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The Register : wikipedians snubs (sic) daily mail

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Google Search : site:www.theregister.co.uk intitle:Wikipedia (108 results)

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I see the "discussion" is closed. Looks like the Wikiflashmob made up its mind, which of course was made up from the start. This is just one more reason why Wikipedia is unreliable on ANY controversial issue. The Wikikidz are here to grind political axes. This is why Wikipedia is banned as a source in universities throughout the world.73.239.55.87 (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is banned (except where referencing itself) as a source on wikipedia, did you have a point? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

While I've seen a lot of accusation of a political motive behind the 'ban' very little of the discussion was political in nature at all. Rather, the discussion focused clearly on factual unreliability as a reason for them not being a reliable source. Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess if voting editors secretly really felt that the DM was fuelling prejudice, they might not want to let that cloud the comments they made with regard to content reliabilty, for fear of being themsleves accused of political bias? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't be entirely surprised if it emerged that this was a symptom of systematic bias on Wikipedia. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

With solid British folks like you around, C of E?? I had you down as a jolly dependable type, don't ya know. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You'd like to think so but I know full well I as a conservative (small c) Christian male am in the minority here on Wikipedia. But I try to ensure to balance it out. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Much as it pains me to ruin a good prejudice with some boring facts, but do read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC for a (very) long list of examples where the DM just concocted stories. Wikipedia has not banned the DM, just said that material added to articles cannot rely on the DM for supporting evidence. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman is right. Remember, Nobody is talking about "banning" The Onion, The Daily Mail, or any other source. We are talking about displaying a carefully worded warning, which wiil no doubt explain when using a source is and is not acceptable. The editor can ignore the warning and use the source, anywhere on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Reliability is a problem -do they check their facts first if they like an article's subject? I speak as someone who has appeared in several Daily Mail articles in the past -when the reporter took care to ensure accuracy but this is not always the case. See Nigel Farage#"Car tampering" where the subject's wild allegations of an assassination attempt were traced to his own poor maintenance & ignorance of basic French. The Times and Telegraph repudiated the Mail story before printing anything. I removed Mail edits until they were covered by WP:RS. JRPG (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this. The Farage example is exactly the type of reporting I intended to be inserted in the table I suggested here[25] on the suitability of news sources. I envisaged a centralised "repository" of such incidents would avoid editors having to repeatedly research/discuss such poor reporting. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

JRPG, I disagree. The Telegraph did not repudiate anything before publishing, which is clear in their article currently used as a source in the text you link to: "Nigel Farage fears he was victim of assassination attempt after motorway crash" The Evening Standard,[26] The Independent,[27] and The Express[28] all carried the same story without repudiating anything. On Jan. 6, French prosecutors rejected the story, and this was carried in the Daily Mail, [29] The Times, The Telegraph and the rest of the media. So there was absolutely no difference between how The Mail treated the story and reliable sources not subject to a ban. TFD (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

TuT TuT - you mentioned the "B" word! (intended as light-hearted). More seriously, what word should we be using? DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I use the term generally used in reliable sources, which is "ban." If you don't like it, maybe we can these publications added to the ban for publishing fakenews. TFD (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't be WP:POINTY, its not a 'ban', per wikipedia policy and what is written in the close, you can't cite 'reliable sources' to try to claim that wikipedia policy is not what it is, especially when they are clearly wrong. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"Father," said one of the rising generation to his paternal progenitor, "if I should call this cow's tail a leg, how many legs would she have?" "Why five, to be sure." "Why, no, father; would calling it a leg make it one?" --Source: Edward Josiah Stears' Notes on Uncle Tom's Cabin (1853) p. 46. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Guy, I honestly have no idea which side of this squabble you're taking, nor do I care. But I've always loved that little witticism and I wanted to tell you that (though in the version I heard it was a sheep, not a cow).

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

23:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants I think he was pointing out the futility of claiming something is a ban just because someone 'said so', despite firsthand knowledge that it actually is not the case. I also had a good chuckle at Guy's comment. Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

TFD, thanks for your comment & I'll check what I said tomorrow. There was a lot of discussion on the Farage talk page & I know I removed early DM references because I didn't believe it. My point in this discussion is that no WP:RS would have initiated such a nonsensical story without checking it -its a disgrace to journalism though it says a lot about Farage's lack of communication skills & perhaps our overestimation of his ability. I suspect it was published because Farage and the Mail both felt "Leave" would benefit from a sympathy vote ..motives which do not make the DM more reliable. Regards JRPG (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You made the following edit, which which I have no disagreement, to the article: "Farage later said he'd made a "terrible, terrible mistake" in speaking to journalists ~~about the incident~~and that a Sunday newspaper had wrongly turned his claims of tampering into an assassination attempt."[30] The sentence is sourced to an 8 Jan 2016 article in The Telegraph, "Nigel Farage: I made a 'terrible, terrible mistake' over assassination attempt claims." In it he says, "I did give them a few bits and bobs of information, that it appeared to have been tampered with. That then turns, in a Sunday newspaper, into an assassination attempt, I never said anything of the kind, and now the speculation as to what the police say or what they didn't say." By the way, The Telegraph, when they originally reported what Farage said, did not mention that he spoke to the Daily Mail. TFD (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Handling the Daily Mail when used as a source

I'm aware of the recent decision that the Daily Mail is not now considered a WP:RS. We now have the situation where editors are removing it as a source from articles, leaving text either unreferenced, or leaving it with sources that do not reference all the text. Far better to tag any such uses of the Daily Mail as a reference with {{Better source}} or to actively find new reliable sources to reference the info. Mjroots (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. the close specifically said that replacing was the preferred option. Insert CleverPhrase Here 13:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

We had a very similar discussion to this a few months ago, but in that case it was about predatory open access journals. Pinging @JzG: who played an active role in that discussion to weigh in here, but I seem to recall that the solutions were informally ranked:

Replace with a reliable source if possible.
Replace with a {{cn}} tag if necessary.
Remove the claim along with the source if it's questionable.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

14:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Why is replacing the source with {{cn}} preferable to tagging it with {{Unreliable source|sure=y|reason=Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC}} ? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm just summarizing what I recall from the discussion. I'm sure different editors had different views on that, but it seemed to me that a {{cn}} tag was pretty well supported. Of course, I could be wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, I feel that it's better because it essentially accomplished the same thing wrt notifying readers that the claim may be dubious, while simultaneously removing an unreliable source from the encyclopedia (which is always desirable).

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

15:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You should follow the procedure outlined at "Responsibility for providing citations". If you use google news custom search for the article title and date you will likely find another source. In cases where the article is picked up from a wire service, it will be almost identical and The Express original news articles are often written by the same people as the Daily Mail. TFD (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Is an author's child a primary or secondary source?

There are some notable cases (Tolkien, Awdry) where an author's canon has been so substantial that their children have taken on the task afterwards of either archiving, critiquing or continuing the original work. Is a reasonably scholarly approach to such, a book such as "My Father's Invented Universe as an Analogy of our Family Holidays" etc. considered as a primary or secondary source?

If such a book was the main work of secondary [sic] comment on the originals, would its use be adequate to support an article on that invented universe at AfD, against a nomination of "all in-universe sourcing"? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That would depend really on context and the author concerned. The Tolkein example, as I recall Christopher Tolkein's supplementary (published) work has all been published by third parties, so his relationship to his father only adds to the material available for him to write about. He would generally be useable as both a primary and/or a secondary source for his father depending on the material. BUT an AFD is about notability not reliability (for the most part) there are perfectly reliable sources that do not indicate notability. A relation (so child) of someone would not be in lots of cases a good indicator of notability due to the inherant bias. Of course this isnt an issue with Tolkein/Awdry as they easily pass any notability test regardless of what their children think. For someone who is borderline notable, if you have to rely that their child has written/been published about them, its probably not a great argument. If its about something other than a biography related to the authors work, it would be highly context dependant. Whats the AFD this is about? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional locations in The Railway Series

No sources, fair enough, so I added the Sibley and the two Awdry books, but it was deleted anyway with no explanation. As all three books are out of print and seriously expensive, I don't have access to copies without driving a few hundred miles. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah I see the problem. At an article level you would need to demonstrate that the individual article 'Fictional locations...' is notable. Which would require independant sources to demonstrate notability. Assuming the book im looking at (Sibley) is the right one, that would probably pass IF there is more than just a passing mention within it. It wouldnt be unsurprising in a biography to compare his fictional creations with the real-world locations etc etc. However not having read the book I couldnt comment on this. RE the two Awdry's, as sources in the article I would see no problem with those, as demonstrator's of notability, I personally would not consider them independant enough to demonstrate the notability of a fictional creation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sibley's book is primarily a biography, but then the railway books themselves are somewhat autobiographical. Particularly for the Skarloey Railway and a little for the Arlesdale Railway, Awdry was writing about the beginnings of the UK steam preservation movement (why his archive is now preserved at Tywyn station). He appears as a character in his own fiction, and the real Talyllyn would later have him posing alongside their engines, dressed as his engines, with an Awdry impersonator filming the whole lot. So yes, at least for these two railways on (the fictional) Sodor, Sibley is covering their real world inspirations and the considerable overlap from reality in the 1950s to the fiction. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course as a list article, you could have 'List of fictional locations' if you had more than a few blue-linked articles for locations from the series. From brief research I can only find Ffarquhar and Sodor itself, which is not really enough. You would have better luck with doing a 'List of fictional lines from The Railway Series' and for each line having a brief list of all the locations served by it. As the individual lines all have stand-alone articles from what I can see, as a list it would pass at AFD unless the individual line articles were also deleted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way in future - the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the right place to discuss questions like this. This talk page is for discussing the noticeboard itself. Dmcq (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually noticed around my 2nd reply, but was too lazy to attempt to move it to RSN proper. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Waiting for a close -- is there a way to prevent archiving?

I've requested a formal close for this discussion currently open at RSN. Is there a way of preventing the bot from archiving the threat while the close is pending? Or are there any other solutions that apply to this situation? Any suggestions would be appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think Template:Bump or Template:Do not archive until may be what you're looking for. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: Awesome, thank you! K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Change to header re searching archives before posting and including search links in posting

Note, I just boldly made this change to the header.

The Daily Mail fiasco was caused in part by people not taking the time to understand to look and see that DM has been rejected consistently on this board as a source for most things (not everything). Likewise there is now a thread about Quackwatch which has also been discussed an enormous amount of times. Consensus is how this place works, and that includes past consensus and continually rehashing discussions just frustrates everyone. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Well done. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Like Herostratus (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice that an RfC on citing regarding use of primary sources has begun at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there a record keeper on which sources are reliable

I'm wondering if there is a page that is dedicated to which sources are considered reliable after discussing them on the Noticeboard. Something along the lines of how Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources keeps track of which sources are reliable and which aren't for their project. GamerPro64 16:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There can't be, because whether a source is reliable depends on what it is being used for. A local U.S. newspaper for example may be the best source for a local event, but not reliable for science or medical articles. Also, reliability is relative not binary. We should always evaluate the relative reliability of a source, how close to the topic it is and how recent it is. TFD (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Meaning sources can not be banned. But, must be evaluated in context each time. Endercase (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It is, however, possible to decide that certain sources are inherently unreliable as sources for anything. The Onion is one good example. If someone tries to add content to Wikipedia based upon The Onion as a source, the edit should be reverted on sight. This is true whether the citation involves international politics,[31] science,[32] sports,[33] religion.[34] or even Wikipedia.[35] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

[+1] BioPseudo (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

So every time the BBC or the Wall Street Journal writes something, we have to re-evaluate whether they are reliable sources on the topic. It's amazing that anything ever gets done around here. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 17:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Index

Every so often you get a user who goes (hell I have done it myself) "is it not RS where?" Maybe we need (at the top of the RSN page) a link to a list of all organs we have found to not pass muster, it would make it much easier to search for what is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds awesome, would save so much time and re-inventing wheels. Pretty much any list would be better than none. See also the discussion up the page about the Onion. WP:BOLD anyone? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 17:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The bottom of this discussion may be related too. —Paleo Neonate - 19:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

An RS list is kept for video games at WP:VGRS#List. A broad "don't use this source" list seems reasonable also, but a general "do use these sources" may be less so relative to domain-specific source lists. --Izno (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Britain in general

Kevin Drum, a pundit and therefore someone with a professional interest and need to know to about this stuff, wrote "This story from the Sunday Times leaves me in a quandary: [excerpt describing an alleged event]... What to think? On the one hand, reporting on items like this from the British press is notoriously unreliable..." (emphasis added).

Is this true? It is true, isn't it? It matches the general vibe I've gotten over the years. It's not a knock on the people of Britain (so I'm not looking for a tribal-solidarity response), just the way things have played out there. Everybody has crappy stuff: The United States has crappy trains and crappy health coverage, Britain has crappy newspapers. It's not just the Daily Mail and the Sun and the News of the World, it's the Telegraph and the Times and the Independent too -- isn't it?

It matters... I'm struggling with a piece of material sourced to The Telegraph (an exclusive, so no other source). I'm a little skeptical. If it was the Washington Post I'd be more confident, but a British paper... not so sure. Am I right about this, or not? Herostratus (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is more universal than that I think. The UK press can be pretty sensationalist, even the broadsheets, especially in the way they write, eg compared to the more sober (and often stilted to British eyes) prose of the New York Times. But all press outlets, including in the US, can be pretty unreliable and useless (in the ordinary sense; and I don't just mean the National Inquirer). More generally, WP is far too reliant for content on the media. Even well-done reporting is often speculative and loaded with journalese and implicit commentary. Papers also tend to have pretty strong political biases, even if these are only reflected in what they cover and how they cover it rather than by what they say explicitly. Plus of course an agenda even more basic than that: to simply make a story or whip up a controversy, even if it is based on pretty thin substance. And op-ed commentary is particularly unsuitable. Too many WP pages are just stuffed with random opinions on every passing topic from columnists with no particular expertise that happen to have appeared in an "RS" rather than actual facts about the subject or serious analysis. N-HH talk/edits 09:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that we should not use media sources except where they are using noted experts writing about their field of expertise (such as a scientist or a historian). It makes it hard to have articles about current events, but then we are not supposed to operate as a news service, and only history can determine if an event is truly notable. To many articles user OP-eds, Puffery articles and wild speculation that turns out to be false for recent events.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If UK newspapers are in general crappy (at least compared to WP' sourcing requirements), it can be due to two things: (1) UK newspapers are of poor quality compared to the rest of the world's and (2) newspapers in general are bad (at least in 2017). (1) may or may not be true in the sense that the average newspaper in the UK is poorer than the average newspaper in the US / in Spain, but I think at least The Daily Telegraph, The Economist or The Guardian have basic respect for the facts even if their editorial line has a strong political lean. (2) has been rehashed a number of times; the problem, as usual, is that GNG is a somewhat objective test and finding an improvement is hard. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

My immediate reaction is to bristle at this, but it's undoubtedly the case that public respect for newspapers in Britain is low, and few of them even have pretensions to being a journal of record. Having said that, they are members of a regulatory regime, publish corrections, and are constrained by strong libel legislation. There needs to be a distinction between the quality press (Times, Telegraph, Guardian) who can be relied on to get the facts pretty straight, and the remainder, who are prepared to concoct a story from the weakest of materials if its suits their agenda.Martinlc (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The lack of an "etc." after "(Times, Telegraph, Guardian)" worries me a little, and may mislead non-UK editors. I believe that the Independent (now online) also qualifies as usually reliable, as do the Sunday editions of those papers, including The Observer (sister paper of the Guardian). More generally, I see little wrong with a statement along the lines of: "According to the Telegraph,... etc.". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I had forgotten that the Observer is still separate from the Guardian... on The Independent I think that it is now effectively a commentator website and I'm not sure whether there is a general editorial oversight that would grant it 'sually reliabl;e' status. Martinlc (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

From what I have seen the Telegraph is definitely reliable. I would say it is better than the WaPo, especially regarding political content. In this case Talk:Aleshia_Brevard#Telegraph UK reliable for US obit? it had an obituary for someone in California before any US newspaper reported on it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

BBC Genome

I have received news that an unnamed editor who cited pages on the BBC Genome Project had their (unspecified unfortunately) edits reverted, with a claim that "BBC Genome was not a valid source as it is a 'user-edited' website".

While Genome pages do include user comments and corrections, they may only be submitted for editorial review ("Your changes will only be visible to all users once they have been verified." [boilerplate on every page]; "Once you edit an entry your suggestion will be validated, and if accepted, Genome will be changed." [36]), and the main content is from the BBC publication Radio Times. As such, it is a legitimate and reliable - and indeed, important - source.

That said, citations to Genome should be amended thus, as Genome is merely a front end to scans of The Radio Times. This can be done using Citoid. I have requested a bot run for this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Question: is the information being cited taken from a Radio Times page which has been scanned into the BBC Genome website? If so, you should not actually cite BBC Genome.... that is the hosting website, but not the source. you should cite the original Radio Times. BBC Genome has what we call a courtesy copy. Blueboar (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

That's what I said, in my final paragraph. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Predatory journal blacklist

Since the number of references to online predatory journal is proliferating, they should be added to the spam blacklist or have their own blacklist. Bright☀ 05:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Personal Knowledge

Is Personal Knowledge considered a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RCNesland (talk • contribs) 22:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

RCNesland The simple answer is "No" unless supported by published sources. Without these sources the information cannot in most cases be verified by anyone else, and if added to an article would risk being removed as "original research": Noyster (talk), 15:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

As said above the issue is verifiability.13:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

That said... while personal knowledge is never reliable for ADDING information to an article... it can be discussed on the article’s talk page, and may (occasionally) be enough for us to question what a published source says (ie to challenge whether the published source is reliable or not... and thus REMOVE flawed information from an article.) You would need a fairly strong explanation of how you came to your personal knowledge for this to work... but I have seen it successfully argued. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)