To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Archives

WP:MOS subguideline, anyone?

Imo, this guideline could be far more usefully handled and improved if it where a dedicated WP:MOS subguideline. The applicable policy (WP:V) appropriately handles the required minimum threshold, while this page could explain various scenarious in greater detail than a policy, including the ideal case, or how to proceed in the many suboptimal cases where high quality sources are not easily available etcpp. User:Dorftrottel 14:52, February 15, 2008

Edit war

To all the editors that have been tediously warring over the wording at ==Self-published sources== for the last several days: Please knock it off. Proposals will be accepted on this talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has responded here and the edit-war seems to have stopped, perhaps everyone involved is more or less satisfied with the current wording. I think it is perplexing for an inexperienced user to see a reference deleted on grounds that it is an "unreliable source" when it was only being used to cite an opinion, which is why we should point out here that a better explanation is appreciated even if not required. The current version notes that it is helpful to refer to WP:SELFQUEST, but I would add that it is helpful to specifically note how the source was being used inappropriately. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Media bias exposed

Media bias exposed: "[http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1 Media's Presidential Bias and Decline; Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why," By MICHAEL S. MALONE, Oct. 24, 2008. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal for improving this guideline on reliable sources, or is it just for general information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked a simmilar question below. The bias inherent in mass media sources is not in question. There needs to be major amendments in many of WP policies such as verifiability, notability, original research and reliable sources. We need to exclude biased and unreliable sources of inforamtion such as many in mass media published sources and make provisions for unpublished sources of information and means by which editors can contribute original verifyable research. This is holding WP back in terms of important information that is excluded and popular information of questionable integrity that is included. For any of these policies to even suggest that they are not concerned with truth, only verifiability, is a huge factor contributing to systemic bias on WP. WP must be concerned with all information, both specific and broad of varying degrees of significance with the utmost importance placed on truth, fact and reality rather than hiding behind policies such as these to escape difficult discussion and work to create a truly reliable and factual, all-inclusive encyclopedia. Why aim so low WP editors? Things can be so much better. Nick carson (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's have the entire discussion below, in one place. There's no reason to split it up all over the page; it will just confuse people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK proposed rule change

There have been incidents of questionable sources used to support DYK hooks. A change has been proposed to the DYK rules to address this. Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Proposed_rule_change. Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Self-published sources

I don't understand the push to include this wording. WP:SELFPUB is pretty clear. What is wrong with a simple edit summary that says: "Removed per WP:SELFPUB" ? Why should it be necessary for an editor to have to re-explain a policy every time he or she makes an edit according to policy? Why make it more difficult for editors to follow policy? Dlabtot (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The current wording says it is "helpful", not that it is required. And it would not be difficult to do so; you could simply cite the number of the

restriction you believe it violates. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is 'helpful', for the reasons I stated above. Quite the opposite. Dlabtot (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont see the usefullness either since selfpublished sources are only able to be used in very circumscribed ways. (An I am not really sure what is being referred to by "simply cite the number of the restriction". There is nothing useful here or in Self-published sources which is "numbered".)-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The restrictions of WP:SELFQUEST are numbered, 1 to 7. And pointing out which is specifically violated can help inexperienced users. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not seeing how that would be any more helpful than understanding that self pub in general are not appropriate. Most attempts to use self published sources violate at least 6 of the 7. And the most important part of self pub "may only be used as sources about themselves" isnt numbered at all.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me briefly explain my history here. Several months ago, an editor deleted a bunch of references in an article I was working on, noting that the sources were self-published and labeling them as unreliable. This perplexed me a bit since they were only being used to show the viewpoints of the writers. I found WP:SELFANDQUEST (then known only as WP:SELFPUB), pointed it out, and asked him to note which of the restrictions he felt were violated in each case (which could have easily been done in the edit summaries.) He refused to do so. Although I now see that he was probably correct in most or all of those deletions (but for reasons which are still not clearly articulated by any policy or guideline), this experience really affected me negatively as a new user. I'm trying to help others avoid that. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Red Pen, I doubt that I'd find it very helpful for you to explain how I violated SELFPUB. Probably, the only thing I'd need was "Hey, did you realize that this source was self-published?"

But it's not reasonable for us to assume that a newbie editor knows that this policy even exists, much less that it applies. If you just say "violates SELFPUB," many newbie editors will give up in frustration. These editors would likely benefit from education, and it doesn't hurt us to encourage explanations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any reason that wouldn't apply to every policy. Should every revert require a explanation of policy, rather than a link to the actual policy? The policies themselves, with wording honed by a large number of editors, and representing a broad consensus, seem to to be better explanations than anything that could be put into an edit summary. Dlabtot (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as the edit summary points to the relevant policy or policy section, that should be enough. If further explanation is needed, the editor who wants to add the source can ask for clarification on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot, I do some clean up of external links. I think that an edit summary like "Rm link to internet discussion forum per WP:ELNO #10" is a sufficient explanation. You can click the link, find #10, and see for yourself that internet discussion forums are to be avoided. By contrast, an explanation like "Rm links per WP:External links" is noticeably less specific and less useful -- and WP:External links#Maintenance_and_review briefly encourages explanations. The primary reason for the explanations is WP:BITE: external links are often added by newbies that honestly don't know any better.

I see a similar situation here. SELFPUB is violated primarily by incorrigible POVers and newbies. We can WP:AGF by assuming that they are all newbies who didn't know any better. But "Deleted per WP:SELFPUB" is not so helpful -- particularly when the confused newbie sees that the use of self-published and questionable sources is allowed. There's a lot of nuance in this policy. I think it would be much more helpful for the newbie to get an explanation, like "This is a WP:SELFPUBlished source. We can only use it to say that 'John Smith says that'..."

And -- do you actually think that the occasional "try to explain" encouragement will hurt anything? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mass media sources as reliable / Reliable unpublished sources

Many sources of information that comply with this policy and may be very well known and established may not be entirely accurate or truly reliable and may be subject to bias. What provisions are there for this in this policy, if any? Also, why does this policy persist with excluding independent and unpublisised material and information? There are many significant, important, notable, influential and even popular, writings, musicians, films, etc that may not have the financial means to gain mas media attention to be publisised in order to comply with this policy and as such WP inevitably excluse vital information of encyclopedic importance. Nick carson (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Unpublished materials are excluded because it is impossible for anyone to figure out what an unpublished source actually says. For example: I kept a diary briefly when I was about ten years old. In it, it says that my brother is a toad. Shall we use that as a source for anything, even for the fact that the statement was made? How would you possibly find out whether or not I just made that up? (I did, by the way. It doubtless contained similar complaints, but the diary itself was probably tossed in the trash twenty years ago, so I have no actual idea what was in it.)

As for the rest: It's apparently your personal opinion that mass media is horribly biased. Your view is not widely shared. The consensus is that while the mass media makes mistakes, and has certain fairly well understood limitations, it's much better than most of the alternatives when dealing with current events: e.g., what happened, when did it happened, who did it, where did it happen.

You might want to consider this fact: this policy does not hold the mass media up as the single best source for anything and everything. It's pretty weak for most scientific and medical details. I understand that people writing about philosophy and religions have similar complaints. "Published" does not just mean "in a mainstream newspaper," and other good reliable sources are not excluded merely because we permit the inclusion of mainstream media where appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It goes without saying that in the case of unpublished material, guidelines (just like this policy) would have to be established to determine if that source was reliable. For example; your diary would not as it can be proven not to be true that your brother is not and was not a toad by simple observation alone. What about all the information out there that is notable, important, significant and has never been the subject matter of any published material? Nick carson (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nick, what you are talking about goes against one of the core policies of Wikipedia... information that we include in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. From your comments here and at other policy pages, it seems as if you have a problem with several of our core policies. Perhaps you would be more at home editing some other wiki. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nick, you still haven't explained how you would find out whether or not such a statement was even made in my old diary. Using unpublished sources lets any liar put down anything he wants, and add a completely fictional reference. How would you ever figure out that it was a made-up reference? You wouldn't be able to prove that my diary didn't contain a statement about my brother's slimier qualities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, a 10-year-old's old diary would most likely not be notable, even under what I am suggesting, so it's not a good example to discuss. Please understand that I am not suggesting that information on WP should not be verifiable, rather, I'm asking questions and trying to generate discussion to include alternative forms of verifiable information.

It's also important to remember that not everyone who contributes information baed on OR is lying, be it intentionally or unintentionally, and to assume the worst case is a slack way of dealing with problems, the fact that this model is accepted in many facets of society means little in the way of its quality.

In addition, as I have explained in other discussions; It would be apathetic of me to avoid such problems by leaving Wikipedia. I wouldn't be asking these questions if I didn't genuinely think there were better ways these policies could be structured. What I would like to see is some discussion regarding these questions rather than witness the acceptance of these policies as absolute. Surely they are subject to progression and amendment? Nick carson (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

? There are sources that can be considered reliable in the overall sense and sources that can be considered reliable in the narrow, subject specific sense. One example of a "overall" would be Time magazine. An example of a "Narrow, subject specific" would be Fangoria. It can be broken down further as well to localized publications such as the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times or down to area specific publications such as the LA Weekly, The Village Voice or the Detroit Free Press. There are numerous publications that can be used for sources of information, both for fact verification and to aid in establishing notability of a subject. As an example, if a musical artist appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone it would be fairly easy to establish that artists notability. If an artist was mentioned in the "Hype Monitor", that is only online and part of the The Rolling Stone New Music Blog, than not so much. But if that same band had a cover story or featured article in a magazine such as Flipside, BAM, Ink Disease or Ben Is Dead notability could be established as well. There are obvious reasons why self published sources such as press release and websites should not be used. Also the ability to use an official website to verify something such as a tour date is fine. Using a list of live dates from any source to establish notability should not be done. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Are all scientific journals reliable?

How does one go about deciding if a scientific journal is a reliable source? With a bit of money, what stops anyone starting a "Journal of Hocus Pocus" and trying to look genuine - especially if there are financial stakes? I ask because some articles cite the Journal of Essential Oil Research described here as a "Trade magazine [...] devoted to the publication of essential oil research and analysis." Could someone please advise? Thanks. pgr94 (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Institute for Scientific Information is the most high profile of a couple groups that measure journal impact. They have inclusion criteria for scientific publishing that often serve as a useful baseline for deciding whether a publication is really scientific journal. See their Master Journal List. In this case the Journal of Essential Oil Research does meet their criteria [1], while something like Energy and Environment (a mouth piece for global warming skeptics) does not. Of course being recognized by the ISI does not necessarily make a journal good (there are lots of low-quality journals), but it does suggest that it is not crap. Dragons flight (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Dragons flight. I'm glad I checked here first! pgr94 (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Third party link appears to go to unrelated page

I was reviewing the RS guidelines and wanted to learn more about what "third-party" means. As best I can tell, WP:RS does not define the term. However, at WP:RS#Overview it does link to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Superficially this seems related, but upon consideration they seem unrelated. I'm interested in "third-party" (and presumably related terms like "first-party"). The linked page talks about primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Just a simple difference in language and "third-party" is the same as "tertiary source?" Maybe, but I can't reconcile WP:RS telling me "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources." and WP:NOR telling me "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." As such, they cannot be the same thing. So 1) I believe the link in question should be removed, as it is likely to lead to confusion. Any objections? 2) Could someone direct me to a guideline or policy that does define third-party? (If one exists, I would obviously replace the link instead of removing it.) Thank you for any assistance. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A third party source would be one that is not connected to the topic of the article. As an example, if you were writing an article on the history of Mickey Mouse, the Disney website would not be a third party source, but a book written by an expert on cartoons would be. Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That's my intuitive understanding, but I was hoping for something a bit more formal. I remain interested in a more formal guideline or policy that defines it if anyone can direct me to one. Meanwhile, I've been bold and removed the link that is likely to cause confusion and doesn't really doesn't add anything. I'd normally be hesitant to edit such a widely referenced guideline, but I don't think eliminating a link is terribly risky. — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See wikt:third party, second definition. See also the first definition here and the second definition here. And if that is an adequate explanation for you, then please add the Wiktionary link to the article, because this is the third or fourth time recently that someone's assumed that the word relates to some special Wikipedia-specific definition instead of the plain old definition that you'll find in any dictionary of the English language. Otherwise, please try to help us understand what would be more useful to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, upon reflection I was unclear, probably because I hadn't sorted it out well in my head. Your comment has helped me sort it out a bit, thank you. I think I can now express the area I still see as undefined. Is third-party relative to the subject of the article or the claim being cited? By way of example, obviously in the Academy Award article, the official site at http://www.oscars.org/ would be first-party and not what we're looking for. But would a link to the 2006 awards on the official site be an appropriate citation in the article Happy Feet for the claim, "Happy Feet won an Academy Award for best animated feature film of the year?" My guess is yes, because the Academy Awards are third-party to the subject of the article, the film Happy Feet. (And it certainly seems a good citation, as no one can be more official than the Awards. All any other source can do is repeat what the Academy announced.) But an alternate interpretation is that the Academy's site is first-party to the claim itself, and thus is a bad citation. I'm asking because my understanding was the former, but another editor believes the latter is correct. (It's actually a different topic, but it is about a group that issues awards. If you're really curious this is the discussion.) Upon having my belief challenged, I sought out the relevant guidelines to learn if one of us was operating under a mistaken understanding, but I'm not finding a clear answer either way. Thanks for your time! — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are editing the article Happy Feet... then I would say that oscars.com is a legitimate third party source for the statement "Happy Feet won an Acadamy award for best animated feature film" (the first party source would be the official website of the movie, or its production company). While I suppose oscar.com might be considered a primary source for who won an Oscar, this is a perfect example of the appropriate use of such a source. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of (any) sources are (always) determined relative to the specific claim being cited. Our mantra that "no source is universally reliable" means that no source is universally independent, universally third-party, universally accurate, universally neutral, etc. The appropriateness of a source is only evaluated in relationship to how it's being used. A source that is being used to support a single sentence does not need to bear the burden of the entire article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm interpreting your first sentence as being "Third-party is considered relative to the claim being cited." So if I understand you, WhatamIdoing, the "Happy Feet won an Oscar" example I gave above would be a bad citation. Assuming I got that right, I appreciate your point of view. But it appears to be different from what Blueboar (and admittedly I) would expect. Thus my desire for a more formal definition in a guideline or policy. I'm not currently finding a formal definition, so I suspect that one does not exist. I think Wikipedia would benefit from such a definition, although I expect hashing out consensus to make such a change would require more than just the three of us. (That mantra is new to me. &hl=en&filter=0 It doesn't appear to be especially used on Wikipedia. If by "our" you mean Wikipedians as a whole, I'm not sure I'd call it "our mantra." Still, I like it. It's a good, memorable summary of an important idea.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There are different ways of saying it, but it's a constant theme at RSN. All the entries that begin with "Is my source reliable?" get a reply along the lines of "It depends on how you're using it." No source is universally reliable is just a more formal way of expressing it.

While I consider the Academy Awards website to be an authoritative source for who won what, it's clearly not a third-party source for that information. The people giving the award are the first party in that award-giving exercise, and the people receiving the award are the second party. The fact that a first-party source could be reliable, and even more authoritative than a third-party source, is one of the reasons that we permit the use of first-party sources in limited ways. Does that clarify my position? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that clarifies your position... and I think what you say here is correct. While the bulk of Wikipedia should be cited to independant third party sources, a first party source might be reliable (indeed, in some circumstances, it may even be the most reliable source) and may be cited, with limitations. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Blueboar and WhatamIdoing for your time and thought! — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A discussion regarding the primary source or secondary source classification of highway maps

Wikipedia talk:No original research#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Internet Movie Database as a Reliable Source

Over a year ago, an attempt was made to set a policy on the situations in which IMDb could be used as a reliable source (if any). The discussion is here WP:CIMDB. A heated debate on this has just started up again. Anyone wanting to contribute is invited to do so: here. GDallimore (Talk) 11:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

consesus documents are more reliable than journal articles, this policy should reflect that

Reports written by consensus bodies like the National Academies of Sciences are much more forceful and should be taken into account much more than any individual journal article. In addition, review articles represent a document on "the accepted state of the art" written, often at the invitation of the editor, by an acknowledged expert in an area. These too are far more reliable than an individual article.

Why doesn't this policy recognize this? PDBailey (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't that this guideline (it isn't a policy) does not recognize this... its that it concerns itself with a more basic issue... explaining what is and is not considered reliable. Since the different types of sources you list (individual journal articles, review artices and reports writen by consensus bodies) are all considered reliable, there is no need to discuss which are more reliable than the others. Obviously, for any given article, we hope that editors will use the most reliable sources that apply. Blueboar (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And when they conflict? i.e. Peter Duesberg has had some success getting articles published claiming that HIV does not cause AIDS, but that doesn't mean much in light of consensus at places like CDC and NIH. PDBailey (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That's why we have core policies like neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not. See WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. If someone wants to push a fringe view and improperly imply that it is an accepted view, their edits can be challenged and reverted under the principle that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think what you are saying is that it is so obvious, it does not require saying. I guess I can understand that, especially given the desire to keep the length of the policies to a minimum. PDBailey (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we are saying exactly the opposite... It is so not-obvious that we can not make a rule on it. We are saying that determining which sources are more reliable than others in any specific field is a matter of editorial judgement best determined by those who are knowlegible about that field, and so can not be legislated by policy... When two sources disagree, and both are reliable, then we discuss what all sides in the debate have to say. However, we also trust our editors to determine how much weight to give to each viewpoint (see WP:NPOV and especially its subsection on Undue Weight. You may also want to see WP:FRINGE which seems to apply in your case.) Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

One of my cases is actually Radiation hormesis, where I argue the National Academies of Sciences represents the most forceful consensus, defining what is main stream. My co-editor argues that hormesis is not fringe. I have argued essentially this same thing many times. When there is an important policy question, I think the scientific consensus is defined by NAS, not a bunch of people getting little journal articles published, most of which will be debunked, buy only after the four year queue of the journal finally allows the publication. PDBailey (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it may not be possible to come up with a generic rule as you wish. If one simply said "consensus body reports are more reliable than journal articles", then what is to stop someone using that to promote the opinions of a blatantly biased (or thoroughly discredited or disrespected) consensus body? If it were to be specified as "national consensus body", then what would happen were the consensus bodies of different countries disagree? As such, these decisions must be left to those editors with the most knowledge of a field. Unfortunately, you are right though - there are major problems with this approach and its interaction with the greater wikipedia system. LinaMishima (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I often leave radiation hormesis alone for several months and then come back to find it a huge list of articles, mostly in questionable journals, and when I try to bring the article back to some semblance of NPOV I end up in an edit war with the most recent editor who has read some articles on the topic and now things that it is a suppressed truth. The other editors who edit the page are mostly in agreement with them (this topic is such a non-starter for the main stream, who would want to edit it?) and then every time I have to argue that the United Nations and US Congresses consensus bodies are not filled with hacks. I would argue this policy is badly needed, but I might be alone in having these types of problems, and maybe radiation hormesis isn't an important article to have be accurate. In response to your complaint I would say that bodies that consensus are official and commissioned by a state or the UN have more weight than those that are ad hoc. PDBailey (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly not alone with this problem - I was once involved in the mess that is (was?) homeopathy, and I know full well the problems that questionable sources being promoted can bring. The problem is that there is a risk that a UN commissioned group could go off on a tangent not supported by the rest of the scientific community, or that a state commissioned group would only write to benefit its state. As such, a general rule really could cause more harm than good, even though it might help in the short term with a specific article. Sadly there is little advice I can give other than to work on getting WP:FRINGE to monitor the article. I admit, it is tempting to offer to monitor the woo myself, however I no longer actively edit on a regular enough basis to offer much support (and I know exactly how damn depressing it can get :( ). Perhaps look to see if there is a specific editing group in existance (or create one, spanning other articles with good anti-woo editors) to guide your articles, and get them to agree (as it would consist of people with knowledge of the field) on rankings for sources. LinaMishima (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have not seen it... check out Wikipedia:Scientific consensus, a very good essay that deals with some of these issues. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's brilliant, thanks for the link! I've created the shortcut WP:SCICON, since that essay looks to be rather useful, and a good summary of arbcon decisions on the matter (and I remember shortcuts better :P). LinaMishima (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Official bodies have agendas, and statements of consensus from national academies, and legislative advisory groups, and similar organizations, cannot be assumed to be free from political considerations. The NAs statements on matters of public policy can be in some cases informed by as much public policy and prudence as by pure science. They inherently tend to be the conservative views of establishment scientists. Sometimes this is a problem, sometimes not. I'm thinking in the medical field now, where the consensus statements about appropriate medical treatment in the UK and the US can be very different--the UK being somewhat less likely to come to consensus to accept as a standard things that require large amounts of money. There are a great many articles and subjects where it is naive to say there is a single scientific consensus.08:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk)

Very good point about the political aspects. Academic politics can also get dirty at times.

Another difficulty with identifying consensus is the differences between subjects. In science there is at least the possibility that hypotheses can be refuted, either empirically or by indentfying clear errors in maths, methods, etc. Even that is only partially true, for example in "big-bucks" physics (particle colliders, Hubble telescope, etc.) allocation of funding is a political process. In non-scientific academic subjects this is not generally possible and debates go on much longer with no clear copnclusion. In non-academic subjects, it's very difficult to see whether there is anything even vaguely approaching a consensus. I'd go along with Blueboar's comment (20:22, 20 November 2008) that "determining which sources are more reliable than others in any specific field is a matter of editorial judgement best determined by those who are knowlegable about that field, and so can not be legislated by policy."--Philcha (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) In this particular case, you might be able to get some help from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

DGG worte, "The NAs(sic) statements on matters of public policy can be in some cases informed by as much public policy and prudence as by pure science." I don't know that "public policy" is in the sense it is used the second time, but, I would argue that using prudence when you are on the frontier and the convincing work has yet to be performed is okay because sometimes you just need to make a decision now. Gathering together experts in the field and some excellent scientists from outside the field is about the best way I can think of to do this. I would challenge DGG to give a good reason to believe the following claim, "a journal article can be expected to be better than a NAS study in the topic of [fill in the blank]" PDBailey (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pdbailey, would you like to read Russian Academy of Sciences#USSR_Academy_of_Sciences and come back here after you're done with the bit about "However starting in 1928 the Politburo started to interfere in the affairs of the Academy..."?

The fact that the United States National Academy of Sciences doesn't currently admit to government interference mean that no National Academy of Sciences has ever suffered from this problem, and it's certainly possible that an outfit that sends a major annual report to the US Congress might make the occasional politically motivated statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I was making. I think in this specific case, Pdbailey should probably look to find a wikiproject to assist in this matter. Wikiprojects within them can reach a consensus on how to advise on the reliability and correctness of sources. Plus, getting additional editors on board would help with the underlying issue of point of view pushing by opposing sides. LinaMishima (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I think you know that you intentionally misinterpreted my statement. I specifically was talking about the US NAS. There is little reason to consider the the opinions of a country's NAS when it is not independent of the government. My challenge stands and I think you are being obstinate not to admit NAS has an unparalleled history, and Wikipedia should recognize that. PDBailey (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Hello, I am the other editor of radiation hormesis that is mentioned above.

In this case, PDBailey decided that the consensus body opinion that there is no hormesis is more valuable than a boatload of good journal articles that suggest that there might be hormesis. Hormesis is not a fringe opinion, just the opinion of a significant minority, and this is a case where there is no real consensus yet.Likebox (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Folks, this really is an issue of having multiple reliable sources that disagree with each other. The argument stems from trying to determine which of these reliable sources are more reliable than the others. As several editors have stated above, this is not an argument that can (or should) be resolved here on this page. It simply isn't a policy issue. Please take the argument back to the talk page of the article involved. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference library category

In order to help facilitate easier location of potential sources of offline information to help verify the notability of article subjects and contents, I have created Category:WikiProject reference libraries and placed into it all of the reference library pages of which I am aware. Please add more project reference libraries to this category if you know of more. Additionally, feel free to create new reference library pages for any particular project as well. They can be very useful. ···???^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Help please.

Today, I got information on a John Isaac Hawkins from a website. I understand that if not cited correctly, my info will be challenged. Since I already know were my info came from, how do I cite it correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superhalofreak (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Use the {{cite web}} template. Instructions can be found on the linked page. Gary King (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Again question about mass media

I want to ask, what we should do if say, in several newspapers or monographies a politician called "nationalist" or a businessman called "oligarch" or a state authority called "thief" or "criminal" or "traitor" and there is no refutal from the other side? Should we represent this point of view as the only correct? Do things change if the media belong to a political group?

For example, if Goerge Bush called "war criminal", Putin called "dictator", Abramovich called "oligarch" etc? Are there any general rules? --Dojarca (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

To some extent this depends on the reputation of the newspaper that is applying the label. If it is a fairly mainstream paper, then there is a good chance that the paper has a reason to apply the label. If it is not mainstream, then we should probably be warry of repeating it.

As to your question about the lack of refutation... we can not talk about the other POV if there is no published sources (ie no refutal). That said, we do not need to represent the negative POV as being "correct"... we can present it as being an opinion. Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

1. What to do if the editors disagree over reputation?

2. If the newspaper is mainstream and calls Putin "dictator" or Saakashvili "insane" or "mad", should we add Putin to the category "dictators" and place in the lead of Saakashvili's article that he is mad?

3. Yes we can represent the negative POV as opinion, but other users may say that since there is no refutal or other contradicting source then we should present this POV as a fact.--Dojarca (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Discuss what reliable sources say, not what editors say.

2. No, we can note that the newspaper calls them a "dictator" or "insane"... but should not place them in a categorize them as such without more solidly reliable sources (see: WP:BLP).

3. Yup... it is not always easy to maintain a balance when people want to POV push. Point them to WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

1. WP:NPOV does not say anything about that we should attribute any opinion. Or am I wrong? So I can point them here but with no result.

2. What if professional psychiatrists say Saakashvili is insane? Look here [2] and here [3]. The one is professor of psychiatry and the other is the head of psychology chair of Institute of Psychiatry. So we can represent this as a fact in the article about him?

3. Okay, what about objects, not people? For example, why Yodok called "concentration camp" in Wikipedia and Guantanamo camp called "detention camp"? Both widely called "concentration camp" in the media, and there is no refutal, so it seems Wikipedia is taking sides here? Is there any general rule how to deal with such cases?--Dojarca (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It comes down to this... If a reliable source uses a label to discribe someone or some thing, we should note that the source does so. If different reliable sources use different labels, we should note this as well, attributing the labels so the reader knows who says what. When categorizing people, priority is given to "self-identification". There are some restrictions on all of this, especially when discussing living people (see WP:BLP), but that is the basics. Does all of this sometimes lead to arguments? Yes... in which case you need to argue it out in good faith, compromise and reach a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is there is no source that Bush does not "self-identify" himself as war criminal or Putin as dictator. They simply do not comment on such accusations. What we have is only media, papers etc that make lebels. So why Kim-Chung-Il or Milosevic is "dictator" in Wikipedia, but Putin is not? I suppose all of them did not identify themselves as dictators, but there is no source. Also I suppose Saakashvili do not identify himself as insane, but there is also no source.

You say we should attribute opinions, but please give me a link to the rule that requires attribute any opinion. For example recently a user added in Viktor Alksnis that he is ultranationalist with a reference to some publications of his opponents. Do the rules require us to attribute such claims in the text itself or we should present it as fact with references?

Also it seems Wikipedia supports double standards? If a camp belongs to the USA, it's "detention camp" but if it belongs to N. Korea, it's "concentration camp", yes? Because there's consensus among editors, correct?

Simply there are no rules to solve such problems in unified manner, so such problems are solved by the voting of Wikipedia users (this called 'consensus'). --Dojarca (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "concentration camp" vs. "detention camp", and without expressing an opinion regarding bias within WP based on whether or not a particular camp belongs to the USA (Guantanamo Bay detention camp) or to North Korea (Category:Concentration camps in North Korea), or to India (Hijli Detention Camp), Bosnia and Herzegovina (Manjaca camp, described in the article as a "detention camp"), or was a Nazi concentration camp, or was one of those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African war of 1899-1902, etc., I'll opine that discussion of this question would probably better placed on the Talk:Internment page than here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Australian copyright and YouTube questions

Mark of the Year is at WP:FLC now. It has multiple references / links to YouTube videos of the different marks (spectacular catches in Australian Football League games). The question is whether these refs / links are allowed, but their copyrtight status is unclear. Could someone who knows more about Australian copyright please take a look at the article and provide feedback on the video reference links at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mark of the Year? Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC).

It looks like the links to youtube have been removed. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Help in clarifying a BLP/RS/NPOV issue

Hello.

User:Wikidemon and I, among others, are having a spirited debate as to whether or not using the self-published blog of Martin Kramer, the externally published blog of Ron Kampeas, and a letter to the editor by Thomas Lippman, are acceptable sources to allow the article on Rashid Khalidi to say that the above three state that Khalidi misrepresented the facts when he (Khalidi) denied being an official of the PLO. The debate starts at Talk:Rashid Khalidi#Explanation of recent edits and is rather involved with point-by-point discussions of specific phrases. We all would appreciate it if some clarity could be demonstrated as to whether or not the sources brought are sufficient, as we are trying to balance BLP and NPOV on either side of the discussion, and our respective discussions have devolved into repeating the same assertions of the others' incorrect application of policy, so fresh voices would be welcome.

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Help with in-text cite for online comments re-printed in a newspaper

Increasingly newspapers are publishing online as well as in print, and as they do so some are permitting reader comment online, and some are then printing selected comments in the paper. I think I understand WP:RS with respect to newspapers and blogs and blog comments, but how about when an anonymous online comment is reprinted in a newspaper? I could use some guidance as to the proper treatment of this as a source for an article.

Of course my first idea is don't, but suppose you had an insistent editor. I understand a ref tag would unacceptably obscure the iffy nature of the source, and that minimally some kind of in-text citation would be required. I'm guessing "as reported in the Someplace Herald-Tribune" would not be accurate, nor would "according to the editors of the S H-T." Maybe something like "according to anonymous online commenters on the S H-T website"?

Thanks.Hugh (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Index Of Related Pages

The given page title is invalid, because it contains an invalid inter-language or inter-wiki prefix, or characters which cannot be used in page titles.

Previous page (Wiki-wiki)