Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:40, 28 August 2009

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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

The Washington Post

I do not belive that The Washington Post is an excellent example of a reliable source because of its lack of political neutrality. Instead, may I suggest a newspaper which does not have a political leaning such as the Wall Street Journal. I think this website needs to make sure that all articles are neutrally written and neutral sources are cited. Often times i find articles severely edited towards the "liberal" side, and no one seems to revert the edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonked116 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Instead, may I suggest a newspaper which does not have a political leaning such as the Wall Street Journal." Unfortunately, I was drinking tea when I read this. Now I have to clean my computer screen. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Great comment Jc3s5h, the same thing happened to me when I read "Washington Post" on the main page.

The core problem here is that WP:Reliable sources assumes that mainstream media checks facts and avoids opinion in news articles. Even the media themselves have largely given up on the illusion of unbiased fact based reporting, the abandonment of which tracks in tight correlation with their declining reader/viewer base.

Eventually as the nature of reporting changes and shifts away from historical mediums and traditional news sources shift away from traditional rules of reporting this issue is going to have to be dealt with. Just because an entity makes money publishing information does not make them fact based and objective. Even today I would trust a primary photograph of a bunch of tea party protesters holding "Obama/Dems = Bush/Repubs" to tell me what the protesters care about rather than the Washington Post view of the event. Kehrerrl (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that the Washington Post on the main page be replaced with a better example that is more widely recognized as being unbiased and known for checking facts. Kehrerrl (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is an excellent example... precisely because it doesn't have political neutrality. I can not stress this enough... sources do not need to be neutral to be considered reliable. What needs to be neutral is how we present what those sources say. Blueboar (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. Ideally political neutrality should not be the measure of "reliable", fact checking should be. However, jumping back to reality...there are at least two types of errors a news organization may make. 1) They may posit something that is not true simply because they didn't research the facts. This is just lazy journalism, and while it should lower their trustworthiness, accidents happen and is forgivable as long as a pattern doesn't emerge. 2) They may purposefully pick and choose what subset of the facts to report in order to spin the story to fit their political views. This is not simply laziness or accident. It is willful mischaracterization of what actually happened at an event. This type 2 error is much more likely from a biased source than a neutral one.

Of course the remedy for such errors is to provide sources from opposing viewpoints. This is easy as long as our definition of "reliable" doesn't out of hand make that possibility very difficult. For example, in the United States, one political viewpoint typically owns the organizations that print or broadcast for profit. The opposing viewpoint typically messages through talk radio, blogs, and grassroots stuff. Yes there are exceptions, but it is very lopsided like that. To put it in terms of a real life case: if one listens to the "reliable" mainstream media one could walk away with the idea that the Tea Party protesters are out to get President Obama. However if one instead looks at "un-reliable" speeches, attendee photos, tirades on blogs, etc it is clear they are very bipartisan in their anger at the all politicians whose actions they perceive as bad.

I think that the WP definition of reliability needs to take this type 2 error into consideration and recognize that a biased news source is much less reliable than an unbiased one. I also think that the definition needs to adjust to the internet age as traditional news media is supplanted by internet age means of publishing. I'm not sure how that definition is adjusted, but without that change the WP definition of "reliable" may actually drive articles to misrepresent the truth simply because finding an opposing viewpoint that is deemed reliable is not possible. Kehrerrl (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah... but people with different viewpoints will often disagree as to what the truth actually is (which is why our criteria for inclusion is verifiability and not truth). You might think CBS News has a biased towards a left wing viewpoint, someone else will disagree. You might object to Fox News as having a right wing viewpoint... someone else will disagree. Our job is to mention both viewpoints and cite both sources for what they say. We can cite the Washington Post and the Washington Times, NPR and Rush Limbaugh. Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we have just two things please?

A: A page for each and every source we ref.

B: On this page some bias codes.

A bias code that both WaPo and WSJ would share would be American, while The Register and The Economist would be tagged with British and Press TV would be tagged with Iranian. Additional tags would indicate government control (Press TV and VOA) and so on.

Also, should we simply exclude all editorial material from all publications? Hcobb (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinions need to come from notable people

This article doesn't say anything about whose opinion can be cited, in citing opinions. Presumably, Joe Blow With a Blog is not a source for an opinion on a random political issue. Opinions need to be from relevant or influential people--an expert, or maybe a leader (maybe belongs in the article for that person...). What are the guidelines? Noloop (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This covered in WP:RS#Self-published sources --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not about opinions per se. I wasn't giving Joe Blow as an example of an unreliable source. The problem is that his opinion just doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter if he wrote a letter-to-the-editor in a reliable newspaper either. How do we determine whose opinion matters? Noloop (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a specifc answer, but we should not conflate the concept of notability of a person (that is, worthy of a Misplaced Pages article about that person) and posessing sufficient expertise or influnce to be cited as a source on a particular topic. For example, if judge x, in espressing her opinion of celebrity y in a published sentencing opinion, could probably be cited in an article about celebrity y, even though x is not notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:UNDUE is the closest we have. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal. Add something like what I've put in italics:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Misplaced Pages article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.

Opinions on a subject should come from experts, such as scholars on the subject or someone likely to have notable insight into it. The opinion of a prominent non-expert, e.g. "Oprah" may be of interest simply because the source is of interest. Consider putting that in the article on Oprah, rather than the article on the subject.

There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source).

Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Blp#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source covers it already. If you wanted to add a nod to that policy in WP:RS#Self-published sources, I think that would be OK, since right now it seems to forbid what the BLP policy allows. The policy "wins" though. Gigs (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added WP:SELFPUB information to the appropriate place. Gigs (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with self-publication. That's not the point, as I explained above. If I take your opinion and put it on my Web site, it's not self-published. Letters-to-the-editor in a newspaper aren't self-published. That doesn't make them encyclopedic opinions. Noloop (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Noloops point is about newspaper articles as per ].Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I get it now, but I still strongly disagree with his original premise. We don't apply notability to sources. A source's credibility rests on their independence, their reliability when it comes to fact checking, and how much editorial oversight there is. If a source is quoting someone verbatim (such as in an interview), then that's assumed to not have editorial oversight, independence, or much fact checking, and should be weighted as such. Applying notability to sources doesn't really solve this problem, and just creates new ones. It's also a radical departure from our current practice, and has a snowball's chance in hell of actually being accepted as policy/guideline. I think a more useful discussion might be how to express what I just said in terms of source credibility in the guideline. Gigs (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm only talking about sources of OPINION. It has nothing to do with fact checking. Reliable publishers generally don't fact-check opinion pieces. Maybe there is confusion because "notability" has specific meaning in wiki-jargon (it means "deserving its own article"). I mean it in the general dictionary sense. Is a letter-to-the-editor from someone with no particular experience on the subject a valid source of opinion? It's not a matter of fact checking. We would not write "According to , universal health care is incompatible with a free market. ", where is a letter-to-the-editor, blog, or op-ed of a random, average, opinionated dude. For that opinion to be in an article on universal health care, it would presumably come from somebody notable: a professional economist, an involved politician, etc. But, we have no such guideline for sources of OPINION. Noloop (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Noloop does have a point here... not every opinion is worth discussing in Misplaced Pages. However, I don't really see this as being a reliability issue... from the stand point of WP:RS, a letter to the editor is a reliable source for a statement as to what is contained in that letter to the editor. The question of whether a given article should bother to discuss that letter is more a WP:NPOV issue than a WP:RS issue. In fact, it is discussed in that policy by WP:UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The link to WP:UNDUE is about viewpoints, not sources. My point is about the opinionater, not the opinion. The sample opinion I gave, "universal healthcare is incompatible with a free market" may deserve considerable weight in an article. That still doesn't justify citing Joe Random Dude's opinion. Sources of opinion (meaning, the author not the publisher) have to be notable (in the general dictionary sense). Noloop (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability is relative to the topic. If we're writing about Syrian-Israeli relaitons and former Sectraey of State Colin Powell writes a letter to the editor, then that would be an opinion that would be worth reporting. OTOH, his opinion of Spiderman III is not notable because it's outside his area of expertise and fame. Or, let's say we're writing about a building, and we have a newspaper article that says three people died in its construction. And let's say that the newspaper later published a letter to the editor from the president of the construction firm, who claims his company was not at fault. While the person is not notable in a general sense, his opinion is noteworthy in that narrow scope and so we should probably mention his letter.   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, notable is relative to the topic. It's not synonymous with "famous." Noloop (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I propose the following:

Opinions on a subject should come from experts, such as scholars on the subject or someone likely to have insight into it. The opinion of a prominent non-expert, e.g. "Oprah" may be of interest simply because the source is of interest. Consider putting that in the article on Oprah, rather than the article on the subject.

Again, this would go in the section on sources of opinions. I'm not proposing that general reliable sources have to have expertise. Nor am I saying anything about self-publishing or due weight. Just that when we write "According to , ", the should be someone whose opinion matters. There should be an answer to the question: "Why should anyone care about that person's opinion?" Somebody with expertise, standing, or insight. The president of the construction firm, in Will Beback's example above, would probably count. Noloop (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not? One can argue that the president of a construction firm is an "expert" on the topic of a building his company constructed. Certainly he would have an important insight into the issue of the building's construction. What about a statement from the president of a rival construction company, who might give insight into normal construction practices. I understand where you are coming from with this, but it isn't something we can lock into "the rules"... who qualifies as an "expert" often depends on the topic. Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. I said the company president would probably count. Are you objecting or agreeing? The point that who counts as an expert depends on the topic just acknowledges the point that there are people who count as experts (depending on the topic). So there has to be consensus about it. I don't know what you mean by "lock into the rules." We don't cite the opinion of Random Joe Schmoe on health care. Why? Because there's no reason anybody should care about his opinion. Let's put that principle in the rules. Noloop (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... I misread your statement as saying you though the president was would not qualify. My error. Blueboar (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

My answer is none of the above. An opinion is worth repeating if the opinion itself is noteworthy. First of all, if someone has an opinion about something we don't endorse that opinion. All we can say is that the person holds the opinion. So, for example, we could say "Barack Obama and the head of Harvard's history department both believe Abraham Lincoln to be the best president in history", but we couldn't say Lincoln is widely considered the best president in history with a cite to Obama and the hypothetical professor. Secondly, like every statement of fact, the statement that person X has opinion Y should in most cases be cited to a third party source, rather than the original research implicit in our reading a document as a primary source for evidence of what a person's opinion is or what a person said. Although there is a limited RS exception here that does let us cite opinions for evidence of what a person's opinion is, it's not the best way to go about things because it does not establish weight or relevance. For example, what if Obama, Tom Cruise, the Pope, and the judges on Top Chef Masters all believe that KFC is better than Popeye's. They're certainly notable, or experts, take your pick. But if we source that claim to a random interview here and there, it still doesn't belong on the Popeye's or KFC articles because the opinion itself simply isn't noteworthy. It has no bearing or importance really. On the other hand the opinion of a far less notable person, Michael J. Pollard, that corn is evil, is quite notable because it had a huge impact, as evidenced by the thousands of major reliable sources that report on Pollard having that opinion. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the core question is... what has any of this to do reliability of sources? If Tom Cruise states an opinion on KFC v Popeye's in an interview on CNN, the source is reliable. Whether Tom's opinion is worth mentioning in any particular article is another matter. Blueboar (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What about newspaper articles (not letters) about KFC. If a newspaper publishes an article saying (by say a staff reporter, or corresepondant) that there are 3 KFC's in the villlage of Much Rutting in the Marsh would that be RS for that or not? Moreover is that an opinion or a report of a fact? A second point how do we determine notable expert in a field?Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No, an article saying that there are 3 KFCs in the town would be a statement of fact, not of opinon. A newpaper article (as opposed to a letter to the editor, op-ed collumn or editorial) is not considered an opinion piece. Whether the report is RS depends on the newspaper (an article from the Times would be RS, one from the National Inquirer would not be.)

Yes, sometimes the line between fact and opinon can be blurred (news articles that express opinions, and opinion pieces that include facts) and that is where we have to use editorial judgement. But for the most part, most major newspapers make a clear distinction between the two. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this: So, for example, we could say "Barack Obama and the head of Harvard's history department both believe Abraham Lincoln to be the best president in history", but we couldn't say Lincoln is widely considered the best president in history with a cite to Obama and the hypothetical professor. Can we say "Random Joe Schmoe down the block believes Lincoln was the best..."? I don't see how it matters whether this opinion can be found in a reliable source. We don't cite it, because Random Joe has no expertise or standing regarding Lincoln. If it is reported by 1,000 reliable sources (as in the Pollard example), that's probably evidence that Random Joe is notable and deserves his own article, so by definition it isn't the case I'm talking about. (I think that's covered by the "Oprah" example I give in my proposed text above.). I think my proposal is a piece of common sense that just hasn't made it into the rules. Noloop (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The proposal that "opinions need to come from notable people" does not accord with common practice in the quality press - for example only guest articles in The Economist have named authors, and many obituaries are effectly the work of several anonymous hands, as the media update bios of famous people constantly in order to be ready with an obit immediately it's needed. Like most of WP:RS, this is a futile attempt to reduce assessment of reliability to robotic rules. --Philcha (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop... reliablility does not necessarily mean worthy of being discussed in an article. I agree that we should not discuss what some Random Joe thinks about Lincoln, even if he says it in a reliable source... my problem with your proposal is that notability is not a reliability issue. Essentially it is a WP:NPOV#Undue weight issue (giving an obscure non-notable person's viewpoint more attention than it deserves). In other words... while I agree with the sentiment behind your proposal, you are trying to attach it to the wrong policy/guideline. Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it is not about reliability. It is about sourcing. The only guidelines for sourcing opinions, that I found, are on this page. So, I brought the discussion to this page. This may be the imperfect place to discuss it, but it seems to be the best place. At some future date, we might want to spinoff the section on sourcing opinions to its own article, but for now, this venue is what there is (unless I missed something). It's not the same as WP:NPOV#Undue weight. That is only concerned with the weighting of viewpoints, not their sources. Noloop (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

But an opinion is a viewpoint... you are saying that a viewpoint should be ignored because the person who holds it is not an expert. Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically, that's right. Noloop (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

So (and using the above example) all Wiki pages that claim x is dead and use either newspaper reorts or orbitury columns should now have that fact removed as they do not come from experets in that field (death)?Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

But all orbits are examined by newspaper employees who are experts in their field (due to working in that area for a while, not dying themselves). Hcobb (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

But they are not experts in death, just in reporting it. The sugestion is that only those who are notable expert in a field should be used as sources (in the case of death Doctors), thus is we accept your point then a reporter who works on a paper for years wrting articles about say the village of Much rutting in the marsh is an expert on much rutting in the marsh. Which brings us back rather neatly to how do you define a noted expert? Moreover (as I had hoped my point wouold demonstrate) if we do accpet this idea that soource have to be noted experts in the field they are used as a source for then much of the curretn project will fall foul of this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Death isn't a matter of opinion. I am only talking about sourcing opinions. Noloop (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

IMNSHO, every source needs to be notable enough to justify its own page, which needs to be linked from every reference that uses that source. Then sources can be dealt with using standard WP practices. We could have a robot march through and adjust cites to link to source pages with simple URL matching, and leave red links where the matching fails. Hcobb (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No... sources need to be reliable, not notable. In fact, reliable sources are what determine notability... not the other way around. Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

as an example David Irving is a notable historian of WW2 and Nazi Germany, does that make him a reliable source on those subjects? Are his critics notable experts on ww2 and Nazi Germany?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources need not be notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. For example, the listers of a small Vermont town are not a suitable subject for a Misplaced Pages article, but the grand list they produce is a reliable source for the appraised value of pieces of real estate in the town.

I don't understand what Hcobb is talking about with robotic matching, but it sounds a lot like book burning to me (that is, sources need not be on-line; we allow the use of printed books as sources). --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Any book used as a source simply needs to be notable enough to have its own page or at least be listed on the notable author or publisher's page. Hcobb (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Then all you need to do is bring up one counter example of a book that ought to be used as a source but neither the book nor the author (or group if produced group-wise) deserves their own page. Hcobb (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure... one from List article that I have worked on... Bicentennial Commemorative Volume of Holland Lodge No. 8, Published by the Lodge, New York, 1988, used in the article List of Freemasons to support the fact that DeWitt Clinton was a Freemason and a member of that lodge. Neither the book, the authors, nor the lodge are notable enough for their own article but, as a self-published source - used purely in the context of establishing that Clinton was a Member of the fraternity, it is reliable. I can come up with other examples if you need. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a notable establishment to me. http://www.hollandlodgeno8.org/index.html Hcobb (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Not according to WP:ORG... local chapters of international organizations are not notable. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions need to come from notable people - continued

Dudes and dudesses! You are highjacking my thread. This thread is specifically for the discussion of how we source opinions. I'd like to make headway on that, specifically defined, topic. A lot of the initial confusions came, I think, from my lack of specificity. I think that's been clarified now, and I wonder if there are any objections. If we say "Joe Schmo expressed the opinion that..." there should be a reason we care about what Joe Schmo thinks. Joe should be expert or involved in some way. Agree? Noloop (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... an expert or involved in some way?... OK what constitutes "involved in some way"? Someone could make the argument that mearly by stating an opinion in a reliable source, the opinionator has "involved" himself. No... I still think the key to determining which opinions are worth discussing and which are not is to examine where the opinion was expressed... New York Times op-ed page? OK... a reliably published book? OK... on a personal webpage or blog, generally not OK. National Enquirer? Definitely not OK. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Define an expert or involved in some way? Is an eyewitenss involved in what they obseerve or just expresing an opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The policies define the principles, but the consensus process determines how they will be applied. In general, when we talk about eyewitnesses, we are talking about fact checking, so that's a factual matter. I AM TALKING ABOUT SOURCING OPINIONS. Example: "Pearl Jam is an overrated ripoff of Nirvana with no creative feeling of their own whatsoever." That's my opinion. If I got it in a letter-to-the-editor of a reliable newspaper, would it become valid to cite me in the article on Peral Jam? Of course not. If Courtney Love or a rock critic expressed that opinion, it might be valid to cite it in the article. Same opinion, different people. The opinionater matters, even when reliability of the publisher is not in question. Noloop (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OK then lets say we try.

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Misplaced Pages article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.

Opinions expressed on letter pages should not be regarded as having the same level of reliablitly as articles published within otherwise reliable sources.

Thus we can remove the use of letters from Joe Blogs, or words to that effect.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Or words to that effect... yes. I can agree with this. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Opps the "words to that effect" referd to my sugested addition, not to my sentance about Joe Blogs. thanks for making up for my bad spelling. But I( suspect you realised that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the point has nothing to do with reliability. Noloop (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Then what is it?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 00:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK lets try this (if users object to the use of the word reliability)

Letters published in journals or newspapers should come from experts, such as scholars on the subject. Letters from prominent non-experts, e.g. "Oprah" may be of interest simply because the source is of interest. Consider putting that in the article on Oprah, rather than the article on the subject. Letters from non notable persons should not be used.

Thus we still disallow letters from Joe Blogs and do not raise the contentious issue of reliability.

Folks... I think we need to take a step back... this guideline is about reliability. It should not discuss issues unelss they relate to reliability. If the point has nothing to do with reliability, then this is the wrong place to discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no other place to discuss it. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. If you know a forum that's a closer fit, please say so.

I'm starting to think SlaterSteven is a troll. He (and Abce2) followed me from an article full of trolls (anti-Americanism) to here. Now he is making the same sort of vaguely incomprehensible comments, maybe feigned incomprehension maybe not, that he makes in that article. Sorry for bringing a bunch of people to this article who came for personality reasons, rather than interest in the topic.... Noloop (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss the policy, not your fellow editors. If someone is a troll, we can figure it out ourselves. As for other places to discuss this... WT:NPOV seems the most appropriate (as "opinion" is just another way of saying "viewpoint") ... as I see it, the real problem with discussing the viewpoint of a non-notable person is that it gives Undue Weight to a non-notable viewpoint... so it is more a NPOV issue than it is a WP:RS issue. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The concern is not with the opinion per se, it is with the source of the opinion (hence, the connection here). By "source of the opinion" I mean the opinion-holder, not the publisher. So, it has nothing to do with reliability. It has nothing to do with NPOV. It has nothing to do with due weight. I've already given examples. Noloop (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree... I think this has everything to do with due weight. The only reason why we would cite the opinion-holder is if we discussed his/her opinion in an article. If the opinion-holder isn't notable in relation to the topic, then neither is his/her opinion. To discuss it (and therefore cite it) thus gives undue weight to a non-notable opinion. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And how do you handle the debate about the validity of using Mr. X as a reference without a Mr. X page? Hcobb (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Counter-examples to this claim: "If the opinion-holder isn't notable in relation to the topic, then neither is his/her opinion." If Random Joe Schmoe says "Universal healthcare is incompatible with a free-market," the opinion-holder is not notable, but the opinion may be. If Obama expressed the exact same opinion, it can go in an article on universal healthcare. Another previously given example was something like "Pearl Jam just ripped off Nirvana; they have no creative feeling of their own." If the opinion-holder is, say, me, it shouldn't be cited in the article on Pearl Jam or Nirvana. If Courtney Love or Jimmy Page expresses the exact same opinion, it is citable. Noloop (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

First, statements of opinions need to be clearly attributed to the opinion-holder so the reader knows it is an opinion. This means that the only reason to cite Random Joe Schmoe's opinion on healthcare (or anything else) is if an article actually discusses the opinion as being Random Joe Schomoe's opinion ... and that means giving his specific view undue weight. Presenting a similar view, one attributed to someone more notable might not be undue weight.

As for Courtney Love's or Jimmy Page's opinion on Pearl Jam or Nirvana... this is actually a good example of why reliability does not equate to notability. I don't think Love's or Page's opinion on bands is automatically worth discussing, even though they are notable ... on the other hand, the opinion of a nameless staffer writing a review for Rolling Stone (or one of the other trade mags) definitely is worth discussing, even though the reviewer as a person is completely non-notable.

Reliability has little to do with notability, whether we are talking opinions or not. Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To give an example of when it might be appropriate to cite a non-notable person... take the opinions of Joseph Wurzelbacher aka Joe the Plummer. OK, today he has become notable... but he wasn't notable when he first confronted Obama and made the news. He was just another random guy... a plumming contractor. In fact, it was the fact that he was seen as being an average guy that made his comments and opinion notable. He wasn't notable... but his comments (expressing his opinion) were. As such, the transcripts of his comments to Obama are reliable sources for what he said. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The way I understand WP:RS, transcripts made by Joseph Wurzelbacher aka Joe the Plumber would not be considered reliable, but transcripts made by a reputable news organisation would be. --Philcha (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that. But that is an issue of where the opinion is stated rather than who is stating the opinion. The point is, Joe's opinion can still be cited. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If we are depending on the journalist integrity of the Daily Bagel, then we need a page for them. Hcobb (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hcobb... please stop. You have proposed this elsewhere. It is disruptive to harp on the topic it in this conversation. Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Right: reliability has nothing to do with significance. We can always disagree on whether X is an important opinion-holder. You seem to be agreeing, now, that the opinion is different from the opinion-holder. Your comparison of Jimmy Page to a writer for the Rolling Stone suggests, I think, that we should consider the opinion-holder as well as the opinion.
• Vocabulary is a little confusing here. I suggest we use "opinion-holder" to refer to the person whose opinion is being cited, while reserving "source" for the publisher. And, let's use "significant" rather than "notable", since "notable" has a specific meaning in wikijargon. Noloop (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The point of my comparison of Love and Page to the writer from Roling Stone is that significant opinions can come from insignificant opinion-holders. What makes the nameless staffer's opinion significant is the fact that it appeared in Rolling Stone, not because the staffer is significant. If the same staffer posted post the exact same opinion on his personal blog it wouldn't be considered reliable. If Jimmy Page expresses his opinion in Rolling Stone (outside of a letters to the editor page), it is reliable. If he expresses it in his personal blog, it isn't. Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar: Don't you mean 'significant' for the last two uses of the word 'reliable'? A blog is reliable for the opinions of its author. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No... I mean reliable. A personal blog is not considered a reliable source, primarily because there is no fact checking or editorial oversight. For this reason most blogs are not considered reliable even for statements as to the opinions of their authors. The exceptions are blogs that have earned a reputation for hight journalistic standards, that go beyond opinion and are essentially online news outlets. Blueboar (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I believe that you are mistaken. A blog is considered a self-published source which is allowed under two situations:

• If the author is an established and published expert in the relevant topic. Stephen Hawking's blog (assuming he has one) would be considered a reliable source on black holes.
• If the person's blog is used as a source of information about the author (with 5 qualifications none of which is accuracy, BTW.)

Page and Love's blogs (assuming their authenticity can be verified) are reliable for their own opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to quote policy... please do so completely:

• Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

We also have to remember the restrictions on self-published sources in BLPs... In other words, even self-published sources by experts have limitations.

In any case, we are getting far from the original discussion... which was the idea that "opinions need to come from notable people". I think we have demonstrated that this is a flawed idea. Yes, the opinions of notable experts are generally going to be more reliable than the opinion of non-notable amatures, but there are enough excpetions that we can not take the final step, and say that the opinions of the non-notable are unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, I summarized but did not leave out anything important. Your statement that "A personal blog is not considered a reliable source" was clearly wrong. Sorry if I offended you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Then it seems to me that the sugestion that letters are treated the same way as blogs is a godd idea.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that letters to the editor of newspapers should be treated the same way as blog postings. My objections have been to sweeping statements tieing the concept of reliability to the concept of notability. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I totaly agree that is a bad idea. So perhaps we shold not add the line about letters not beging as relialbe as articles.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything left to see here?

Where are we in terms of this discussion and proposal(s)? I believe that the questions/objections are already handled by the existing policies and guidelines. A letter to an editor is reliable for the author's opinion per WP:RS. The significance of any opinion is determined by WP:WEIGHT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed... with the added note that there are additional restrictions that apply when it comes to BLPs. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the point hasn't even been understood. WP:WEIGHT has to do with the opinion, not the opinion-holder. There may be no due weight problem with the opinion "Universal health care is incompatible with a free market." It may be underrepresented in some article. We still don't cite Random Joe Schmo expressing that opinion. We do cite Alan Greenspan. Different opinion-holder, same opinion. I think this is common sense, and I'm not sure why I can't make it understood. If you cite someone's opinion, there must be an implied answer to the question "Why should anybody care about that person's opinion?" Noloop (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That is because Alan Greenspan is a more reliable source for that particular opinion than Random Joe Schmo is... not because Schmo is unreliable for the opinion. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

More or less, we agree: the opinion-holder matters. Greenspan is more expert, more significant. But this is not explicitly stated in any policy. You can find allusions to it here and there, but no straightforward statement. (It's misleading to say Greenspan is a more reliable source: in wikijargon, the source is the publisher, and reliability refers to factual accuracy.) Noloop (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, WP:V includes the following footnote:

• The word "source", as used in Misplaced Pages, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (an article, book, paper, document), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.

Due to a recent edit, this footnote was not showing up... so I can understand how you did not know it was there. I have fixed the problem.

Of course the opinion-holder matters... just not in the way you have been saying. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha! I just found this bit, as an aside in WP:WEIGHT, talking about aesthetic opinions: "Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate." (emphasis added) Noloop (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly... this is why we have been saying that this is a WP:WEIGHT issue, not an RS issue. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I'm herding cats. There now seems to be an agreement that the opinion-holder should be important in some way (not necessarily notable, in the sense of deserving an article). There is no explicit policy that makes that clear. There are passing references scattered about. What are the objections to my proposed text? Noloop (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that it's already covered by the existing policies and guidelines. Instead of modifying these, how about we add something like the following to WP:Reliable source examples:

"Are letters to the editor reliable sources? Letters to the editor are largely not acceptable, though may be used in limited circumstances, with caution. If a letter to the editor is published by a reliable source such as a respected newspaper or magazine and is written by an established expert on the topic at hand who has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications on this topic, it is reliable for that person's opinion. If the author is a non-expert such as a celebrity, it is also reliable for that person's opinion. However, it should be noted that if the non-expert's opinion is significant, it would have been covered by third-party, reliable sources. Either way, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP still apply." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Quest... I don't think Noloop's issue is limited to letters to the editor. He seems to want a broader statement about the notability of the opinion-holder being the criteria by which we determine reliability. I think we all agree that experts are more reliable than non-experts... what bothers me the most is that his proposals imply that the opinions of amatures are unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"He seems to want a broader statement about the notability of the opinion-holder being the criteria by which we determine reliability". Then he's in the wrong guideline because this is a weighting issue, not a reliability issue. Weight should be presented roughly in proportion to its prominence in third-party, reliable sources. As for which sources are best to cite, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the best. Highly respected newspapers and magazines are usually the next best sources. When deciding which sources to use, letters to the editor appear towards the bottom. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no policy, easily locatable as being about the citation of opinion, which clearly states something like: Opinions on a subject should come from experts, such as scholars on the subject or someone likely to have insight into it. I don't know where Blueboar got the idea that I think the opinions of amateurs are automatically uncitable. If there is reason to think an amateur has insight into the topic, his opinion is citable, according to what I proposed. We can add some langauge about "prominence", which I think was covered by the Oprah example in the second part of my proposal. Can we agree on the first sentence in the proposal above? If not, are there tweaks needed or is it fundamentally flawed in some way? Noloop (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, there's no such statement because that's simply not correct. Weight should be attributed based on its prominence among third-party, reliable sources, not on whether the opinion-holder is an expert. Per WP:WEIGHT, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would object to adding such language to this guideline for two reasons... first it ignores opinions that are notable, but not held by notable people. Conspiracy theories and similar Fringe topics come to mind. It is rare for the experts to be adherants of such theories, but becuase a lot of "average Joe's" believe them what is notable is the theory itself. and yet we need to cite to someone who adhears to the theory to support the fact that the theory exists. Second, adding such language will lead to endless arguments over whether a given opinion-holder meets the stated criteria... Does the author of a self-published pamphlet promoting a Fringe theory qualify as having insight on the subject? If Random Joe Schmoe claims amateure status... would this mean that his opinion is suddenly citable after all? Blueboar (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's not a question of weight. Even if an opinion is underweighted in an article, we don't cite Random Joe Schmoe expressing that opinion. I'm talking about the opinion-holder, not the opinion. Nor is it a question of the publisher: that mainly concerns citing facts. I'm talking about citing opinions.
• A prominent holder of a fringe theory is probably notable as a source of opinion about that theory. Any given case is settled by consensus, guided by policy.
• The "endless arguments" will happen anyway. That's what initially brought me here. The point of policies and guidelines is to help resolve those endless arguments.
• What determines whether Random Joe's opinion is citable on Misplaced Pages is the consensus process, not what Random Joe says about himself. This is true of reliability, notability, and every other content policy. Noloop (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The flaw in your argument is that you can't seperate the opinion from the opinion-holder. If the editors of an article make the editorial judgement (taking into account WP:NPOV) that a particular opinion should be discussed in an article, they must be able to cite the opinion-holder, whoever that is. I can agree that when we have a choice of sources (all with the same or similar opinions), we should cite the most reliable source for the opinion, but that does not change the fundamental fact that we have to cite an opinion holder for the opinion. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

When would you decide an opinion should be discussed in an article, when nobody important to that article has ever expressed that opinion? Noloop (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Um... never... that is my point. If the opinion is important to mention in an article then the opinion-holder is also "important to the article" ... The determination on inclusion in the article is focused on whether the opinion is worth discussing. If it is, then the opinion holder should be cited. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's some sort POV-promotion. The editors aren't more important than the encylopedic sources of fact and opinion on an article. Editors can't put an opinion in an article just because they want to, even though nobody with standing on the tpic thinks the opinion is important. That would be a way to insert just about any opinion, since every opinion that could exist on any topic can be found in a blog somewhere. Noloop (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

But some opinions are important to a topic even though the opinion-holders are not... a prime example of this are conspiracy theories. Yes, conspiracy theories are usually bullshit, but in many cases they have become notable bullshit (the various 9/11 conspiracy theories are a prime example). Your proposal would mean that a notable conspiracy theory could not be discussed unless the theorist is notable. That would eliminate discussion of 99 percent of the topic.

No... The determining factor for inclusion is whether the theory is notable... not whether the theorist is notable. Once you determine that a theory is worth discussing in the article (and see WP:FRINGE for the rules on that), then it does not matter who the theorist is... you can, should and must cite him for his opinion. Blueboar (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Notable" is relative to the topic. A fringe theorist is "notable" to the particular theory he holds. Random Joe Shmoe is not. A member of the Flat Earth Society might be perfectly acceptable as a source of opinion about that theory. Such a person has standing and insight into some notable aspect of it. I'm saying Random Joe Shmoe--somebody with no standing regarding that topic--is not an encyclopedic source of opinion on that topic. Noloop (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How you determine if someone has no standing in a topic?Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The guideline we've been discussing is something like expertise, likelihood of insight, or just obvious prominence. The process would be the consensus process. Noloop (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

But we already have that for opinions, and a sugestion has been largley accepted that letters do not carry the same weight as the sources they are published in. Other then that I fail to see your objections.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, for opinions we actually have a clear criteria for inclusion that we can use... see WP:FRINGE. To boil that guideline down to its essence: If a reliable mainstream source has commented upon a given theory/opinion in a serious manner (even if to disparage it), then it is considered notable enough to discuss in Misplaced Pages... if not, then it isn't. The point for this guideline is that once we determine that a Fringe opinion should be discussed, we must be able to cite the opinion-holder for that opinion, regardless of who the opinion-holder is. Everyone (including Joe Schmoe) is a reliable source for their own opinions... the issue is whether the opinions are worthy of discussion.Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE only applies to fringe theories. Noloop (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

First line of WP:FRINGE... This guideline advises which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Misplaced Pages, and to a certain extent how those articles should approach their subjects. (bolding mine) 'Nuff said. Blueboar (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fringe theories and opinions. As in, fringe theories and fringe opinions. It's WP:Fringe. Noloop (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fringe opinions are still opinions. Which means we have a criteria for inclusion as to which opinions are worthy of discussion in Misplaced Pages. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that means we have criteria for fringe opinions.Noloop (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how that changes anything. Let's go back to your example of Random Joe Schmoe's opinion on health care... if no reliable source has commented upon his opinion, then his opinion is too Fringe to discuss in Misplaced Pages... falling on the "not worth including in an article" side of the line... if a reliable source has commented upon it, that means his opinion is not too Fringe to discuss in Misplaced Pages... falling on the "worth including in an article" side of the line. And IF by this process we determine that his opinion IS "worth discussing", then it is absolutely appropriate to cite him for that opinion. The determination is made based on the opinion, not the opinion holder. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In your example, the "determination is made based on" the commenting of reliable sources. That's what you looked at in your example. I'm not sure what you mean by the commenting of reliable sources, however. The reliability of a source is mostly about statements of fact; I'm talking about opinions. Besides, we could cite Obama's opinion on healthcare regardless of whether anyone commented on it. Noloop (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

An nopinion is worthy of discusio if it is likely that that opinion might have some knowledge of the facts. The problom comes from determining who might have such knowlegde. If Joe Blogs states there are three KFC's in a village he spent a week on holiday in is he a reliable source for that. We can (to an extent) define notable expert, after all wew can say that to be counted the soource has to have qaulifications or offical recognition (such as awards or proffeserships in that or related field) but involved?Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Slatersteven, opinions are often held in contradiction of the facts... conspiracy theories are a prime example. Yet because certain conspiracy theories are notable (the various 9/11 conspiracy theories are very notable), we have articles about them and discuss what the opinions of various conspiracy theorists are... and we cite to the people who hold those opinions because they are reliable sources for what their own opinions are. The issue is whether to discuss the opinion, not whether we can cite the opinion-holder. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In the context of this discussion, it is false that "opinions are often held in contradiction of the facts." We are taking about statements of opinion, not statements of fact. "Pearl Jam sucks." isn't in contradiction (or agreement) with the facts. "Opinion doesn't refer to whatever you believe. It refers to your POV. Noloop (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point (this is essentially what I was trying to say). Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. I think I need to clarify that by "opinion" we mean POV, not opinion about a factual matter (e.g. not the "opinion" that global warming is caused by human activity). The guideline isn't restricted to fringe theories, or cases where there is a WP:WEIGHT problem. Making these changes, can we add the proposed text? Noloop (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No... because WP:NPOV tells us that the only reasons to omit a POV is if it is fringe or if there is a NPOV problem. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is about the POV of an entire article. I'm not talking about omitting a POV from an article, I'm talking about who is a valid source of a particular opinion/interpretation/POV that is to be cited. It's kind of interesting that after this enormous volume of text, you still don't understand what is being said. Noloop (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, NPOV is not just about the POV of an entire article (although it does talk about that). It is also about how and whether any particular POV should be discussed in an article. I realize that your intent is not to omit a POV from an article... but the reality is that your suggested addition would omit POVs from articles... you are saying that we should not discuss a notable POV unless the person who has that POV (the opinion-holder) is notable. Your addition would shift the citeria for inclusion from the notability of the opinion to the notability of the opinion-holder. That sets up a direct conflict between this guideline and the NPOV policy. It is that shift that I object to. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The portions of WP:NPOV that pertain to this subject support my position. The example for citing aesthetic opinions refers to "prominent" critics. The example for citing opinions using baseball refers to "baseball insiders." The idea that the opinion-holder matters exists scattered around in various guidelines, it just isn't outright stated anywhere. Theoreticallly, the only way this guideline could cause any problems is if there was an important opinion, and nobody relevant had ever expressed that opinion. That might be impossible just by definition, and it creates new issues of neutrality for editors to decide it is the case. Noloop (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, weight should be in proportion to its prominence in third-party, reliable sources where academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the best sources to cite. Highly respected newspapers and magazines are usually the next best sources. I still don't see the issue here. Just follow what reliable sources are doing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't help. Weighting isn't the issue. My point is valid regardless of whether the opinion being cited is underweighted. Noloop (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Academic consensus among "ministers"

There has been an attempt to include all kinds of religious opinions as reliable source on 04:33, 4 December 2006. Meanwhile it seems most of this additions have been reverted, however the project page still reads

"The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing."

thereby giving the opinions of science and scholarship the same status as (here even: exlusively Christian) theologie. I don't think this is in agreement with the scientific approach of this encyclopaedic project and have therefore removed the "ministers" from the sentence. --Schwalker (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is fine, the new wording still allows for consensus among religious scholars. Gigs (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Heck, scientists are scholars too, so it could be shortened even farther if you wanted. SDY (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Short burden of evidence statement?

I think this page needs something short in lead to repeat Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

I came here first and searched around for what I knew to be true and only after a while did I go back to WP:V. People with less experience might never get there and be ham-swoggled into having to prove that something was NOT verifiable or WP:RS, instead of other way round. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a link to Verifiability right in the second sentence. This is just a guideline, WP:V is the policy. Gigs (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

what is the bankcode of banco de oro antique, philippine branch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa tj21 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Examiner

I wanted to reopen the discussion on the Examiner: http://www.examiner.com. (Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/archive 21#Examiner.com). For the sake of transparency, I am involved in a deletion discussion in which another editor pointed it out as a source: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Reading With Rover.

The basic structure of the Examiner is that amateur writers can sign up and start writing. They get paid per hits (which really isn't a terrible thing since professional writers receive compensation for their work) and do not always use reliable information in their reporting. It is more of a blog and neutrality is not common. It does come up on google news searches.

I have had a few personal experiences with these writers/bloggers/examiner/whatever.

• A company I was with was working on a product and information was released prematurely in blogs, forums, and sites accepting online preorders. This would usually be a good thing but the Examiner person took the incorrect information found on various blogs and made the contribution. Interesting stuff but incorrect. The writer did not verify the information and made incorrect conclusions based on the unverifiable information available on the internet. Most journalists would have contacted us for a press kit or requested an interview. It did drive sales at least.

• Another time, a writer submitted an opinion piece on products in the industry we were associated with. It was great to get some feedback from the writer but overall he had a negative impression of our stuff. Just for fun, I sent him an email asking him to take a look at the upcoming line. He emailed me back and said he would reverse his opinion of our products if I signed up as a subscriber to his Examiner page.

These are only two occurrences but the primary reason for my hesitance to accept it as a reliable source is the fact that these are amateur writers (bloggers) who do not need to answer to any vetting process (i.e. an editor). Some of the information they provide is truly outstanding (the Seattle Sounders guy is usually good even though I know of one instance where he released a tabloid like peice that contained little informaiton but started a buzz) but we should set her standards higher and make sure the information being included is verifiable. Many writings found at the Examiner site simply fail the project's and most journalists' criteria. Cptnono (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Examiner.com is not a reliable source. It's come up several times on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and each time, the overwhelming majority of editors felt it was not a reliable source: , , . A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, I don't need to revisit something that has obviously been discussed. Thanks for the links!Cptnono (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Automate tracking of sources

Here's my suggestion for how to handle sources.

First every inline cite gets robotically matched by URL to a source page. So if you ref http://www.nytimes.com/something_or_other it will automatically link to The New York Times. If the robot is unable to match your URL it will leave a red link that can be edited to fit and the robot will pick up this match for future use.

Then on the subject pages for sources we can note the topics for which they are good references and on their talk pages we can indicate where they fall short. (Say Press TV as a source on Human Rights in Iran.)

Finally we simply require that all sources have their own pages.

There will no longer be a need for a single page that judges the ability of every source to report on every issue as the problem is split up into managable bits. Hcobb (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You assume that there is a subject page for the source (ie an article on the source). The vast majority of our sources do not have (or rate) their own articles. Also, how would your bot work with dead tree sources, since there is no URL to link to? Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Books can be matched by ISBN or such. And for the pages I've looked at the missing pages for sources have been a matter of time rather than notoriety. Hcobb (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if this were a good idea, I think it would be very difficult to keep up-to-date. It is hard to tell what part of a url describes the publication, versus what part describes a particular piece that has been referenced. Organizations change their website names from time to time. They merge with other organizations.

ISBNs change with each edition and each format (hardcover, softcover, digital). Older books do not have ISBNs.

The requirement "finally we simply require that all sources have their own pages" disallows IP contributors from providing quality edits, because if the source they want to use does not already have an article, the IP editor cannot create it except by begging a registered editor to create it for him/her. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And it shifts the criteria for citation from "reliability" to "notability"... these two terms are not the same... not all reliable sources are notable (a small town newspaper is reliable for information on the town, but it isn't notable), and not all notable sources are reliable (the National Enquirer and Weekly World News are both notable, but they are far from reliable). Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I have a real easy case for you. Should we ref Press TV? Hcobb (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what Press TV has to do with the discussion. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just give me a binary yes or no. Is Press TV a reliable source? (Hint: Both answers are wrong, but go ahead anyway.) Hcobb (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking them out in a reliable source, it seems that they pretend to be independent but are actually controlled by the Iranian government. Since I wouldn't know when there acting independent, and when they are a mouthpiece for the government, I consider them unreliable. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But sometimes Iranian state media is our only source. Shall I remove all such refs from WP and all statements that depend on such sources? The real answer is that every source must be judged against its own background, which is best presented as a page. Hcobb (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The usefulness of wikilinking to an article about the author, publication, and/or publisher within a citation is already acknowledged by the widespread practice of doing so. But trying to figure out where the link should go with a bot is difficult and may be prone to false positives (e.g. Time). Making it impossible to write a citation if there is no article about the source is out of the question. --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Example of when the bot wouldn't work. Imagine our article on Joe Schmidlap, famed for being the tallest man in the world, the legendary "10 foot pole" himself. His wife, Ernestine Schmidlap, in her book, "Life of Joe Schmidlap", page 17, says that he actually wore lifts, and was merely 9' 10". Surely a) this is important and controversial information that deserves a citation; b) she is a reliable source on the subject; c) neither she nor her book deserve an individual article. --GRuban (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC on reliable sources at Invisible Pink Unicorn

There is a request for comment related to reliability of sources occurring at Talk:Invisible_Pink_Unicorn#RfC:_is_content_in_h2g2_a_reliable_source_for_information_about_the_Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

Associated Content

Should the website Associated Content be considered a reliable source or not? The article says "Associated Content enables anyone to publish their content on any topic" so that makes me wonder. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No it is not a reliable source (except for statements about itself in the article on itself). That said, it might be usable as a convenience link for material that has been reliably published elsewhere and is copied at Associated Content. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are a subject's website posts considered reliable sources?

Pardon me (this topic might have been covered many times before) but I wonder why an article subjects own posts about his doings are often cited as the truth on wikipedia? I would think that the subject's own statements are inherently biased and self-serving thus not having the reliability of secondary sources on the subject. On the other hand, the subject's posts against his interest (negative type information) are more reliable as who would post such about themselves unless it's true.

Example 1: If I was a famous person with a website and I posted on there "I am pregnant!" then this information would often be added to my wikipedia article with my own statement as the source. I don't think this is reliable.

Example 2: If i posted on there "I just pled guilty to DUI and will be serving 10 days in jail," that statement is much more reliable as it is a statement against interest.

Any thoughts? Torkmann (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Who would know than better than you whether you're pregnant? As long as the site is a reliable source for the person's statements, I don't see the problem. If you think the posting might be from an imposter, that's different. Noloop (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The site is what is known as a Self-published source (WP:SPS)... which are considered reliable for statments the author makes about his or her self, but not reliable for statements about others. Blueboar (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The site is what is known as a Self-published source (WP:SPS)... which are considered reliable for non controversial statements the author makes about his or her self. Claims of winning the Nobel Prize or that "as your stock broker I can make you a millionaire" would not be acceptable to source solely from a persons blog. Claims that I am pregnant would be acceptable, claims that I am pregnant with Micheal Jackson's love child would not.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Good caveat... but there is a caveat to that... a lot of this depends on exactly how you word things ... statements such as: "On his website, X claims to have won the Nobel Prize" or "X claims that he can make you a millionaire on the Stockmarket" can be cited to X's website. What you can not cite to his website is the statement "X has won the Nobel Prize" or "X can make you a millionaire". Blueboar (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. it seems to me that if a persons website (and it can be verified its theirs) says something unless you are calling that person a liar then it has to be assumed to be true, given the caveats above of course. But the question of twits could be raised at this point, as well as blogs, who do you determine of the said twit or blog is by the person it purports to be?Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Choosing between sources that agree

In the somewhat long discussions on "Opinions need to come from notable people" above we breifly addressed the idea of using the most reliable source for any give statement... I think there is strong consensus that we should always use the best sources possible for anything... but the guideline does not actually say anything about this. We should probably address that. I would suggest adding something along the lines of the following (I am not wedded to this particular language):

• Choosing between sources that agree - Ideally, all Misplaced Pages articles should refer to the most reliable source for any stated fact or opinion. When two or more reliable sources agree on a fact, or state a substantially similar opinion on a topic, editors should discuss the relative merits of each source on the article talk page and reach a concensus as to which source should be cited.

thoughts and comments? Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that using "the most reliable" is desirable. But I could see the last sentence leading to a huge amount of effort that might be better expended elsewhere being wasted on debating the relative merits of sources that are to all intents and purposes equally, and highly, reliable... Barnabypage (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I second Barnabypage's comment. Also, this kind of presents the issue as a false dichotomy. There's nothing wrong with citing multiple reliable sources for the same content. In fact, that's probably preferable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm good points. Obviously I need to think on this more. Thanks for the replies. Blueboar (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that if there are more then one reliable source use them all (but perhpas a limit should be imposed of say 3 sources).Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

News articles that allow comments

There is someone at Talk:Harriet Harman trying to assert that a news source cannot be used if the comments to the main article contain material insulting to the subject. Specifically, the WP article claims that Harman earned a particular nickname because of her feminism. The article cites a Spectator Evening Standard piece that says her feminism earned her the nickname. Like many news sources, members of the public are allowed to leave comments at the end of the article. After this particular article is a comment stating that Harman is mental and should be institutionalized. The other editor involved in this dispute keeps removing the source on the basis that the source contains "slanderous material". He has even gone so far as to try to say this somehow implicates WP:BLP. -Rrius (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the news article can be used as a source - if it is comment by a columnist, then it clearly needs to be attributed to the columnist. The fact that others have added comment to the article page is irrelevant, IMHO. Of course such comments must not be cited. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The articles can be used, but if there is a citation without comments from the general public then that is preferable. I notice that no link has yet been provided for the disputed link, I consider that as slanderous comments about the subject of the biography that in this case it would be better not to use this link, we have other options so if the link is contentious then why keep it in the article? is the link and here is the specific comment I dislike to be linking to.

Rogan from Irving comments .. This female is basically mad and should be sectioned under the mental health act. Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No, as Jezhotwells said, it is irrelevant. As in the comments have zero effect on the article that is being used as a source. It is unclear where you are getting the idea from that it matters one iota, but clearly opinion is against you. -Rrius (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No? If you don't mind there is one comment here, that is all, so it is a little early to state that opinion in this matter is against me, I have added a link to the site and added the specific comment I object to, and opened up the discussion.Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And there is another at the Harman talk page. Everyone besides you who has commented on the issue has rejected your opinion. It is bizarre to claim that the public comments somehow tarnish the source. You have failed to explain even once, either here or at Talk:Harriet Harman, just how the comments affect the source. It seems more and more likely that the reason for that failure is because there isn't one. It would be unreasonable for anyone to think that the Evening Standard endorses the views expressed in the comment you repeated above, and it would be even more so to assume that linking to the article from Misplaced Pages somehow implies that Misplaced Pages endorses those views. It is clearly the article, not the comments, that the Misplaced Pages article is putting up as a source. I have attempted to engage with you on why you believe what you believe by asking it straight out and by asking different series of questions. You have answered none of those questions. It all keeps coming back to the fact that you "feel" it is "slanderous" even though feelings don't come into it, even though you clearly don't know what slander is, and even though you can't explain why, if the comment were defamatory, how it has anything to do with the article, which is what Misplaced Pages is linking to. Even if the whole page were nothing but a libelous screed, Misplaced Pages would still not be committing libel unless it repeated the libel. -Rrius (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is where you are wrong, I am simply requesting that this citation be changed as the comment that I have posted here is clearly visible, it is a very nasty comment about the subject of the biography, and I am simply requesting you change it for another citation without similar comments, I fail to see why you are resisting so strongly, it is a simple request easily done, you took it out once and are now for some reason insisting on it's inclusion. A little editorial goodwill and it is gone, easy, no drama. I have shown you the specific comment that is clearly visible on the page you insist on linking to...here again it is....Rogan from Irving comments .. This female is basically mad and should be sectioned under the mental health act. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How does that make me wrong? You are making what appears to be an unreasonable request. You have failed over and over again to make any sort of case as to why the comment's being visible is relevant to whether the article is a reliable source. The Misplaced Pages article does not link to the comment; it links to the Evening Standard article. Please try to understand the difference. There are very few sources out there that explain where Harman received the nickname "Harperson". I have found two, one of which you object to because some 3d party left a comment in a public comments section. The other is from the Daily Mail, a source which you and another editor at the page have disdained. I will not risk it being removed because people such as yourself believe it cannot be trusted. In any event, the availability of another source does not make your request reasonable, and your attempt to make it seems so is unconvincing. Finally, it is you who has been dramatic throughout, including in your insults to my contributions and to me personally. Your persistence in having legitimate material removed despite its being verified by reasonable sources succeeded because I was unwilling to put up with your silly declarative arguments with no attempt at support. I draw the line at removing sources based on nothing more that silly concerns that have been rejected now by three different editors and supported by none. I will not back down from this because you are being unreasonable, and you cannot be left believing that every unreasonable demand you have will be acquiesced to. -Rrius (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two different things here: the citation and the link. A citation should always have enough information that someone could go to a physical archive and find the article. A link is provided for convenience. As this is about the link rather than the citation, it has nothing to do with reliable sources. I suggest the BLP noticeboard. --NE2 01:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a BLP issue either. The problem is that there is nothing at all wrong with the linked article, so there is no "correct" place to bring the discussion. At BLP, they would say it is not really about BLP because no one claims the Misplaced Pages article contains claims about a living person that are not verified by a reliable source. They would say it is about the reliability of the source and direct the conversation here. -Rrius (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If they say it's about the reliability of the source, they're idiots. This is about whether including the link violates BLP or not. --NE2 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a WP:BLP issue to me. I suggest bringing it to WP:BLPN. BTW, if consensus is reached that this is a valid reason to disallow an otherwise reliable source, it has broad implications across Misplaced Pages as we have tons of articles cited to news sources that allow comments. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that is confusing. To avoid BLP, a claim has to be verified by a reliable source. The only possible failing is in the reliable source department. Moreover, your comment, A Quest for Knowledge, says straight out that if Off2riorob's interpretation were correct, it would have broad implications for otherwise reliable sources used throughout Misplaced Pages. How is this not a WP:RS issue? In any event, I have started yet another discussion on this topic at WP:BLPN#Harriet Harman. I just hope more people there address the question rather than trying to bounce it to another forum. -Rrius (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been pointed out there that an url is not required, so the citation can just reference the article - this would have been the best place to raise that possibility surely? Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a good solution, I like it and support it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we please have this discussion in one place? Since it seems the discussion is moving at BLP, how about we just keep it there. -Rrius (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with a reliable source

Please ref: Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)#Thompson quotation...

I have been asked to check here with RS editors if it would be appropriate to cite the following article, which holds a quote that is in the Osho article in this section. Can this website, enlightened-spirituality.org, and its contributor, Timothy Conway, PhD, be considered a reliable source?

Also, please consider this website and this website as other possible reliable sources for the same quotation.

The quotation is as follows:

I am not a disciple and I do not consider Osho my master, but I cannot hide my admiration for the old man. I think his contribution to expanding human awareness has no parallel in human history. There have been other masters, but no one has been so effective in reaching so many people during his lifetime as Osho did. Also, his insistence on laughter, enjoying life and humor as religious qualities makes him stand alone in the world of mystics. Finally, he helped to liberate, sexually and from social conditioning vast quantities of spiritual seekers that would have, otherwise, ended up ranking with some ascetic, repressive guru, and thus contributing with more repression and self-torture to this world.

— Anthony Thompson, Ph.D.

 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  14:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

it definitely fails WP:RS, it's from a forum, it's a case of WP:SPS it should not be used. BTW anyone can tag PhD after their name, but even if he is a PhD, it does not qualify his opinion in this context. Relative to the standard of sourcing used in this article thus far this item is not usable. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not a forum, it was attached to a forum but that has since been closed, it is a respectable site with the names and contact details of the owners of the site,it is a site where comments are allowed, as are lots of the links we provide to newsarticles. There are also no sales on the site. This comment that is attempted to be included is well sourced around the web. And there is no dispute about the author. This particular comment is non controvertial in any way. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a site that is run by supporters of Osho but the david cameron article uses heavily the conservative website for simple information, I would suggest that for uncontrovertial comments that this site is respectable enough, if comments are disputed then I would agree a stronger citation would be preferable but for non controvertial stuff I see no reason that this can not be cited from here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that the website in question is not a forum... it's a blog... however it is still an Self-Published source with all the limitations that implies. I would say it is not reliable for this quote. Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is not a forum, it is not really a blog either, perhaps it is closer to a well run fan site. I would say it was a bit above a blog, and I would say that for this simple comment it is fine as a citation, and it is not self published, it has been added by the management of sannyasnews not by the writer. Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Rob & Paine, please state the distinction you make between the Thompson item and the Calder SP item that is being rebuked. I take it you have no problems also detailing Calders claims then? Or detailing further Hugh Milnes experiences? or the other sources Calder refers to in his item? Contrary to the other commentators cited in the Osho appraisal section, most of whom are published academics, Thompson is a non-notable individual and is not published by a reliable third party source; Semitransgenic (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is Paine? I am here alone.I will leave her a note to come join in.Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying there Semi, this is not really about the wider picture, is it? It is really only about the possible reliability of non contentious comments from this site. Where is Paine? I am here alone.I will leave her a note to come join in.Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have left Paine a note to come comment here. I see your point Semi but I am only talking about non contentious comments from the site. Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

why is this quote notable? relative to the hundreds of other relevant quotes that could be derived from notable sources. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The inserter suggested that it is the comment that can be more important than the notability of the commenter. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Really?? I would like to see this rule applied throughout wikipedia and see where it gets us, this is an indefencible position. 78.105.238.248 (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you may be right, 78, and notability of people being quoted may or may not have been the norm up to now; however, there is nothing I can find in the MoS nor WP:Quote that says that a quoted person must be notable. Articles must be notable. Persons who have articles written about them must be notable persons. But I haven't yet found a policy nor a guideline that precludes any quoted person in any article based upon their notability or lack thereof. Perhaps you can focus me?

 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  18:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Semi, there are actually 3 sources to consider, as I've linked above. On a scale from 1 - 10 (ten being the most reliable), I wonder about where each of the three possible RS's measures, as well as what minimum measurement would be appropriate for this rather harmless quotation from Thompson. And forgive me, but I don't think that just "anyone" can tag PhD after their name and be credible to even their critics for very long; Thompson is credible to the writer, Timothy Conway, who criticizes him at the first website I asked about. Nor do I find anything in the MoS or WP:Quote that automatically invalidates a good quotation just because the person quoted is not "notable" (and by what standard is this notability, if truly crucial, measured, precisely?).

 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  18:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

yes anyone can, and they have, happens all the time, happens on wikipedia also Semitransgenic (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Semitransgenic, the quote is notable because it appears to give a more down-to-earth, common person's opinion of this highly controversial mystic. With Osho it seems to usually be a "love him or hate him" proposition. Thompson seems to be able to compliment Osho without overtly showing great love or hatred. One might say that it belongs in the section and the article by virtue of the fact that it fairly balances the highly polarized opinions found in the preceding four paragraphs. I know it's all a very subjective call in this case, and that's why we came here– for your experienced help in dealing with our subjective and, in Off2riorob's and my cases, inexperience in these matters. Thank you very much for your help!

 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  18:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's in your opinion, I beg to differ, the guy is not a notable commentator, and the source is not RS. One might as well write "some dude said Osho was a bad man but some other dude says that he really is a cool dude, like yeah man!" Semitransgenic (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It could be a reliable source, it is like a well run fansite, with the administrators names and contact details. They are not selling anything and there is no forum, which as I remember was one of the previous problems with the source,I fail to see why it could not be used for non contentious comments. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you asked for my opinion and you got it. And you're entitled to differ. But I'm still unclear, because you keep saying "the source is not RS" without specifying which of the three sources you mean. They aren't all unreliable, are they? And even if they're not as reliable as one might want for more crucial, perhaps harmful claims, might their lower level(s) of reliability still be appropriate for this unharmful little quotation? And once more you lead me to ask just where it says in guideline or policy that a quoted person absolutely must be notable her or himself? Oh! and why do I get the "vibes" from you that you're not being objective? Forgive me, for I cannot remember any case where I might have somehow wronged you in the past; however, I'm getting distinct vibes from your responses that I was "beaten" before I even wrote the first word of this enquiry. If it's all etched in stone, then what's the real reason for this particular Talk page? Is it to "let the newbies down gently"? All I'm asking for here is a thoughtful decision about three possibly reliable sources for a harmless quote in an article about a controversial mystic. Am I being too much trouble for you? If so, just let me know and I'll gladly go back to wikignoming and try never to bother you again!

 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  19:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi, I sincerely hope that you can find it in your heart to forgive me. I have only now noted that this is all taking place on the wrong page, and that my enquiry should have been placed in another locale. I shall retire with all due speed to that other page: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thank you for your immense tolerance of my mistake thus far!

 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  20:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you copy over the entire discussion. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just caught your suggestion, and I did already link to this discussion over on the Noticeboard. Thank you for your advice!

 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  20:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

scholarship --> double-blind reviewing / anonymous submission_double-blind_reviewing_/_anonymous_submission-2009-08-16T18:17:00.000Z">

I think it would be valuable to discuss the issue of anonymous submission and double-blind peer-review in journals, and emphasize that in general, journals using such a review process ought to be preferred as sources to those that do not. I would also recommend including mention of factors that can lead to bias in acceptance/rejection when submission and reviewing is not anonymous. I also think it might be relevant to discuss related issues such as publication bias, especially when it comes to avoiding undue weight.

Here are some articles that discuss the importance of these concerns:

• Peters, Douglas P.; Ceci, Stephen J., "Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again.", Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol 5(2), Jun 1982, 187-255. -- This rather old study provides strong evidence that the status of the institution that work is associated with has bearings on acceptance rates in journals, controlling for content.

• R.J. Brown, "The use of double anonymity in peer review: a decision whose time has come?", Qual Assur. 2005 Apr-Jun;11(2):103-9. -- This is a pretty balanced article that discusses the benefits of (and arguments againts) anonymity of both the reviewers and author.

• Kathryn S. McKinley, "Editorial: Improving Publication Quality by Reducing Bias with Double-Blind Reviewing and Author Response", The University of Texas at Austin, Computer Science Dept. -- This editorial advocating for double-blind reviewing contains citations to many other relevant studies. It also has a compelling argument that double-blind publications are already taken more seriously in Academia as they are cited more often.

• David Shatz, Peer review: a critical inquiry, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. -- This is a pretty exhaustive text, presenting many different perspectives, and would be interesting reading for anyone who really wants to delve into this issue in more depth.

What do others think? Do people generally agree? The arguments against double-blind submission do not seem to hinge on the quality of the work (see the book by D. Shatz) and thus, from a perspective of reliability, I have not found any compelling arguments against them. What do you think would be the best way to mention these sorts of issues in WP's guidelines?

What about adding a sentence like "Publications in journals using anonymous submission/double-blind peer reviewing are preferred to those in journals."...or does anyone have any other suggestions or ideas? And what is the most widely accepted word or phrase to use here? Anonymous submission? Blind submission? Double-blind reviewing?

I think it might also help to link to a wikipedia page on the issue--I was unable to find one--and it surprises me there isn't one so if I am just not searching in the right way and someone could point this out that would be great too. Cazort (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)_double-blind_reviewing_/_anonymous_submission"> _double-blind_reviewing_/_anonymous_submission">

Instruction Creep and overkill... we already say that peer reviewed journals are highly reliable. There is no need to go further by saying that "this form of peer review is better than that form of peer review". That said, I don't think double-blind is necessarily universally better... a standard peer review from a highly respected journal is going to be more reliable than a double-blind review from one that has a poor reputation. When it comes to reliability, I think the reputation of the journal is more important than its methodology. Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "I don't think double-blind is necessarily universally better". However, in the case of journals with similar reputations, I think double-blind is clearly better as it eliminates a major potential source of bias. The key issue, as far as WP is concerned, is the source's reliability--and reputation is only a proxy for reliability. There is also some evidence, based on citation indices, that journals with double-blind reviewing actually have better reputations (at least in computer science, see: ). Determining the reputation of a journal can also be a highly subjective matter, whereas the reviewing process is something that can be determined at a glance from afar. So my points are (1) the impartiality of the submission/reviewing process is an important contributing factor to the journal's reputation, and (2) among journals with similar reputations, one with a more impartial submission/reviewing process is likely to be more reliable. Cazort (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree that formalising a preference for double-blind reviewing / anonymous submission would be "Instruction Creep and overkill". The journals cited in suppor tof the idea have a built-in bias towards instruction-creep themselves, check their names - I bet the word "process" appears in every second sentence. In reality I'm sure those with enough experience of a field can generally identify notable contributors by their style, views, methods and citations. --Philcha (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with your concerns about instruction creep; I think it would be prudent to limit inclusion to as concise a remark as possible...I would actually prefer to add only a short clause in a sentence, if it is possible to convey the appropriate meaning. But I am still convinced that the bias highlighted here is real, and is an issue that could confound attempts at NPOV, especially in cases where undue weight is an issue. Just because an issue is subtle and hard to detect doesn't mean it is any less important--I think this is an example of an issue that is extraordinarily subtle but has a massive effect on the neutrality not just of wikipedia, but of academic work in general. Misplaced Pages's guidelines, in as sense, already go above and beyond the standards of many peer-reviewed journals, in terms of demanding consensus and requiring that all views be represented in appropriate weight. I think this is one case where at least mentioning this issue is necessary in order to maintain that higher sense of rigor, both in a practical and idealized sense. Cazort (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

One more note, maybe it would be better for me to pursue discussion of this elsewhere on wikipedia rather than here, such as at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias...thoughts? This would avoid instruction creep in core policies and guidelines. Thanks. Cazort (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to try... but I don't think you will get very far. If anything, you are suggesting that we introduce a bias by saying that one method of peer review is better than another. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If you believe (as I do) that doubly-anonymous review eliminates a major source of bias, then you're removing, rather than introducing a bias. WP's policies already take strong, clear stances on peer-reviewed academic articles being preferred to news articles; I don't see how this is any different other than that the issue is more subtle. The reason I brought this issue up is that I believe there is a major bias here and the bias can be reduced somewhat through awareness of it. Cazort (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

peer-review journals are not uniformly highly reliable. They cover a very wide range, depending on the quality standards of the review and the editing. Many is the peer-reviewed journal which accepts anything that looks remotely like science. . The nature of the reviewing process can not be determined from afar--the only thing that can be determined from afar is what the journal says its process is, which may be very far from the reality, usually in the hope of sounding more respectable than reality. After the double blind reviewing, there is still the question of what the editor in chief decides to accept--it is very easy to go through the motions of what looks like quality, in this, as in every profession. Quality of a journal, on the other hand, can be roughly quantified for fields where impact factors are relevant or those where some sort of rating based by reputation is available. They are both limited and full of possible bias, but so is everything. Reputation measures tend to over-value the journals that were once of high quality, among many other problems, but they do exist and should not be ignored as a factor. The studies linking method of peer review with reputation are correlation studies only, and do not apply either positively or negatively to any one journal. ( I think people can even think highly of a journal because they're deceived by what it says about itself, so using reputation as a gold standard is not justifiable. And even the very best journals have had major peer-review failures, so the quality of a journal is not necessarily . There's a basic question of definition also: If journal A publishes 100% better than average work, and journal B publishes 90% average work and 10% excellent work, which is the better journal? It's the papers themselves that need to be evaluated, which is basically done by the method of publishing them and seeing what happens. There are no easy answers. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you're saying: double-blind reviewing is no holy grail (, ), and the quality of a journal is very hard to assess and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and even then, it is not a single continuum. But I still believe that double-blind reviewing is critically important for reducing bias, and is an important enough issue to warrant inclusion in WP's guidelines. Double-blind review does not guarantee lack of bias--but its absence guarantees the introduction of bias. Cazort (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, especially with your last sentence. A reputable journal will avoid bias, no matter what methodology they use for their peer review. I think you are beating a dead horse here, and getting a bit WP:POINTy in the process. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I pointed to sources backing up my view that this bias is real and its effects large. Do you have any good sources that show any evidence that non-anonymous reviewing does not introduce bias? Cazort (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two kinds of bias: Bias in articles, and Bias in overall editing policy. Both are present widely. Sometimes the journal bias is even explicit--that it covers one particular aspect of a subject, or covers only mainstream publication, or covers primarily speculative ones. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

DGG nailed it above (23:32, 18 August 2009): "It's the papers themselves that need to be evaluated, which is basically done by the method of publishing them and seeing what happens." Peer review is just a coarse filter. What matters is how a journal artcile stands up under prolonged scutiny - ultimately, whether it survives the Darwinian contest of ideas. --Philcha (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is unarguable. But for our purposes at Misplaced Pages, it's better to have a coarse filter than no filter at all. So, for example, we should generally prefer peer reviewed, published journal articles over articles that have never made it off the arxiv. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cazort, please understand that we are not saying that double blind review is bad... We are simply saying that any sort of Peer review (or its equivalent for non-academic sources) is good. We don't really care which is or is not the best. Blueboar (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand what's being said here...and it does make sense based on how most debate on WP surrounding which sources are reliable centers around things that are nowhere near as reliable as a typical peer-reviewed publication. I think I'm satisfied for the time being. Since so many editors seem to agree here, I'm going to go back and reflect on where I was going with this and where I want to go in the future. You may be right that this has no place here. I'm still not 100% convinced, but I don't want to make too much of a nuisance of myself for the time being! Thanks for bearing with me. Cazort (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem... that's what talk pages are for. Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Bengali link

Please add bn interwikilink ] for bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস. - Jayanta Nath 11:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Adult industry

from RSN

(Discussion copied here from Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Adult industry) MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In interpretation of WP:RS, what adult publications might be considered as authoritative on the adult field? I am not asking if Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler or others of that ilk be considered as authoritative on world politics... only if such publications are accptable as generally reliable and authoritative in context to sourcing articles dealing with aspects of the adult industry... films and stars and authors and such. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Such publications as which to source which articles to cite what text? Dlabtot (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I stress that I do not watch porn nor read adult magazines, and am trying to follow guideline as closely as possible in several AfD discussons: , , . An experienced editor has taken an interest in numerous adult-related BLPs and has nominated many for deletion . I feel that WP:PORNBIO is not the only guideline that might apply. When it is pointed out that adult sources might be considered in context to what is being sourced, the editor requests me to qualify the sources as authoritative and reliable for the context in which it is being used, so I have come here. In responses to opinions that an adult BLP may meet WP:ENT, the editor seeks input to change that guideline after-the-fact to support his view . The editor asserts that such pubications are unavailable to Wikipedians . So I am here seeking clarification, as I do not see the various notability guidelines as exclusionary... but understand them to be various related ways to determine notability. My thought is that if an actor has multiple write-ups in Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, or one of the other adult industry major publications, it would then qualify as meeting notability under the WP:GNG since reliable sources must be consdered in context to what is being sourced. I am of the thought that such publications should, under WP:RS, be accptable as generally reliable and authoritative in context to the sourcing of articles dealing with aspects of the adult industry. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler are all reliable sources. Playboy is just below peer reviewed journals and books, in a lot of cases. Hustler isn't great for politics, but it's just fine for adult entertainment. Penthouse is in-between, I think (not entirely sure, I think it's going down and Hustler is going up). The problem with Lilly Ann, and articles like that, is that it's a pictorial and not a normal article. The subject of a pictorial is kinda like an author. It's kinda by them as opposed to about them. If it meets PORN or whatever, that's fine, but I'm not sure that a pictorial really meets the independent part of the GNG. Finding sources is difficult for that kind of stuff. Not sure where to look. If it's an article and not a pictorial, then it's just fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I think, however, that we can safely say that the Penthouse Forum section of that magazine should NOT be considered reliable for statements of fact! Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the forums and letters sections of such are not RS, and if a pictorial spread is accompanied by an article about the subject, that should be suitable toward meeting GNG. I agree that pictures alone do not do it. I needed assurance that I was not reading guideline incorectly. And I found the discussions about WP:ATH at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people) to be enlightening as well and for the same reasons... in that the sub-criteria of WP:BIO are not intended to prevent determining notability through other applicable guidelines. Thanks. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I look at "sub-criteria", like WP:PORNBIO as specific ones tailors to those areas. In some cases, they allow in people who would otherwise fail GNG. On the flip side, I see them as over-riding GNG in a way. If specific guidelines were needed for an area, then why shouldn't we go with them? Is an actress that made 35 non-notable straight to DVD pornos notable because of the number? Is a guest spread (no pun intended) in Hustler (with a circulation of under 500,000) or Penthouse (with a circulation of under 350,000)as notable as Playboy with a circulation of over 3 million? If showing up in Penthouse or Hustler in notable, then a guest model in FHM (circulation 700,000), Maxim (2.5 million) or Sports Illustrated (3 million a week) should be a shoe-in. I am perfectly content with the PORNBIO criteria and use it as a default. It is a very easy criteria to meet. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Are biographies such as this at Hustler.com a reliable source, and if so, can they be used to establish notability? Are they independant of the subject seeing as the models work for the magazine? Epbr123 (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not in terms of establishing notability. The biography is not independent from her paid photoshoot. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sensible. "Articles" might establish notability per WP:GNG where a simple bio or pictorial spread, though it might perhaps offer some WP:V, would not of itself confer notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry but until it can be demonstrated that these publications have the same degree of fact checking and/or peer review (and I don't mean that kind of review thank you) as a broadsheet newspaper or even a red top I'm flatly not buying into the concept that an editorial in playboy or penthouse can be considered sourcing to establish notability under N or BIO. Personally, I find redtops to be unreliable in many cases so adult mags? No. I don't think so. I'm sure I'm not alone in taking this view. Spartaz 09:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• With respects Spartaz, does your comment indicate then that you do not fully aprove of how WP:RS is written? Its phrases "...generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and "How reliable a source is depends on context" seem rather clear. Subject at hand. Context. I think it is reasonable common sense to accept that Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler would be both authoritative and knowledgable on adult entertainment subjects, as that is their field of expertise. Without my researching years of archived dicussions, I believe the accepting of certain adult magazines as reliable in context to an adult subject, have already been disussed multiple times, and that consensus had been reached. No doubt it was acrimonious. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note On his talk page Spartaz indicates that I asked a question about Realiable Sources at the wrong venue. So I have copied the entire discussion here, and left a note there about this new location, so that discussions may continue in the specific location that Spartaz feels they must be discussed. Or perhaps we might create a Request For Comment? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Just an aside here - when looking for references on this subject it might be worth checking out Adult Video News; I believe there are other trade publications too. They surely meet RS criteria (and, unlike consumer adult publications, have no reason to massage the facts). Barnabypage (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's consensus at WikiProject Pornography that trade journals are reliable. The project has a guide on the reliability of certain adult industry websites. Epbr123 (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Continued discussion

AVN seems reliable. Most of them do. They're about the same as any industry in that way, whether it's fishing, or cosmetics, aftermarket car parts, or computer software - every industry has industry publications that cater to industry insiders. They tend to get the real scoop but at the same time they butter up the industry, report lots of gossip and speculation, are often mouthpieces for their publishers who themselves have a vested stake in the industry, and don't have quite the same standards of a mainstream newspaper. They do confer notability. Think of it this way. If Keyboard Magazine does a full page spread on the latest version of some sampling machine they just saw at a trade show, does that mean it's notable? Mabye, or maybe it's just inside-the-indusry news of the day. Same thing if an adult industry publication does a profile of a star, production company, video, or business news item.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs) 03:32, August 26, 2009 (UTC)