Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:40, 16 November 2016

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

view · edit Frequently asked questions Questions Where should I ask whether this source supports this statement in an article? At Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Don't forget to tell the editors the full name of the source and the exact sentence it is supposed to support. Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me? No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/cost. If you need help verifying that a source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange or a relevant WikiProject. Do sources have to be in English? No. Sources can be written in any language. However, if equally good sources in English exist, they will be more useful to our readers. If you need help verifying that a non-English source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Misplaced Pages:Translators available. I personally know that this information is true. Isn't that good enough to include it? No. Misplaced Pages includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or belief is not enough. I personally know that this information is false. Isn't that good enough to remove it? Your personal belief or knowledge that the information is false is not sufficient for removal of verifiable and well-sourced material. Is personal communication from an expert a reliable source? No. It is not good enough for you to talk to an expert in person or by telephone, or to have a written letter, e-mail message, or text message from a source. Reliable sources must be published. Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"? No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual. What if the source is biased? Sources are allowed to be biased or non-neutral; sometimes these are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a controversial subject. However, the resulting Misplaced Pages articles must maintain a neutral point of view. Does every single sentence need to be followed by an inline citation? No. Only four broad categories of material need to be supported by inline citations. Editors need not supply citations for perfectly obvious material. However, it must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source for all material. Are sources required in all articles? Adding sources is the best practice, but prior efforts to officially require at least one source have been rejected by the community. See, e.g., discussions in January 2024 and March 2024. Are reliable sources required to name the author? No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement. Are reliable sources required to provide a list of references? No. Misplaced Pages editors should list any required sources in a references or notes section. However, the sources you are using to write the Misplaced Pages article do not need to provide a bibliography. Most reliable sources, such as newspaper and magazine articles, do not provide a bibliography. Does anyone read the sources? Readers do not use the reference list extensively. This research indicates that readers click somewhere in the list of references approximately three times out of every 1,000 page views.

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, 72

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.

RFC on Wikidata

Some time ago there was an RFC about whether it was appropriate to import claims from Wikidata to Misplaced Pages articles. Does anyone remember where that RFC was? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: Here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Churnalism - bold edit

Please see this dif, which stemmed from this posting at RSN. Pretty important across WP including AfD discussions. This is part of "raising the bar" for Notability about companies that we have been talking about for a long time. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Note, posted notices at RSN and WT:N and WT:ORG. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• I like it. I think it'd cut down on a lot of the semi-press release sources out there. Ravenswing 05:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose so I have reverted. Sorry. While I agree with the sentiment, how does one know if the only light editing is a result of laziness or due to the primary source actually being correctly balanced in the first instance. We could also have avoid sources on news sites which cherry pick information to suit their editors' and owners' views. This however would just about leave nothing left. The only defence against all such issues is multiple independent sources. A better statement might be if possible, republished press release material should not be solely relied upon, and other independent sources should be used. I think something could be added but it needs to go to RFC I think. Aoziwe (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aoziwe. Some releasers of press releases are quite reliable and don't need a ton of vetting or rewriting. Furthermore, this guideline is about reliability of sources, not notability. If you're trying to solve a notability problem, take it up at the notability policy. I might go for a version of this that classifies sources that predominantly create articles that are just lightly edited press releases, and seldom create a really original article as questionable sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

This is our main guideline where we classify/discuss sources per se, and so this issue (which is an issue) should be addressed here.

The original proposal was "Avoid sources on news websites that lightly edit press releases and republish them; a reliable news source will add independent reporting in pieces spurred by a press release. See WP:Churnalism."

What if this were rephrased to say: "Be aware of the trend for so-called news websites to reprint lightly-edited press releases (known as WP:Churnalism); these should be treated as press releases, not as independent news sources. A reliable news source will add independent reporting in pieces spurred by a press release." Better?

References

1. Moore, Martin (March 3, 2011). "Churnalism Exposed". Columbia Journalism Review.

--Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I woud like it to be phrased in terms of the general practices of the source, not on a per-story basis. So if a news organization usually provides independent reporting, but on occasion reports verbatim material that comes from press releases of organizations that the news organization deems to be reliable, we could use the verbatim material. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support Considerable mischief has already happened (not here, but in the electronic business press) when a Florida company whose founder is known here in[REDACTED] primarily for advocating fringe science announced to the press a telescope that allows its users to see antimatter galaxies and "Invisible Terrestrial Entities", among other things invisible to optical telescopes. Much of the business press is running these press releases as straight news with little or no modification, with no indication that this claim is extraordinary or implausible. The tabloid press and fringe theory Web sites are the preponderance of coverage on the Web on this telescope, so far, with critical coverage in the scientific press so far not showing up in Google beyond some informal and not-rigorous discussion of the matter in skeptic Web sites. A[REDACTED] editor writing an article on this telescope would have to have a grounding in optics, physics and astronomy to locate cites which would be part of a properly neutral point of view presentation of the facts.

This is an ominous development. When a claim that is obviously implausible and extraordinary to anyone with even a little scientific literacy is carried as straight news outside of the tabloid press, any number of more plausible false statements probably are being reported on as true in exactly the same way, so that statements by people or institutions about themselves in press releases are reproduced in sources that look like secondary sources. This isn't about that telescope, its manufacturer, or its inventor, but about how news sources in a large part of the online press run press releases with little or no original content or editorial review. These news sources can, if editors aren't alerted to the problem, lend the same credence to primary source material as secondary sources which present an objective, balanced view of the subject, and which are produced under editorial review. The change advocated by Jytdog is as workable a means of dealing with the issue as I can think of; it encourages editors to be aware of the hazards of citing sources which aren't doing much more than cut-and-pastes from press releases. loupgarous (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

loupgarous Do you support the original proposal or the rephrased proposal? Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I am supporting the rephrased proposal, it covers the salient points. loupgarous (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, I disagree with your suggestion:

• "I woud like it to be phrased in terms of the general practices of the source, not on a per-story basis. So if a news organization usually provides independent reporting, but on occasion reports verbatim material that comes from press releases of organizations that the news organization deems to be reliable, we could use the verbatim material."

for two reasons:

First, editors would have to spend a lot of time looking at other articles from the suspect news source in order to decide what its "general practices" are (and at this point, many editors would just drop the source);

Second, having decided that a source doesn't "generally" reproduce press releases verbatim, an editor would (in your suggested process) still be using a verbatim excerpt from a press release as an independent secondary source, when it's clearly primary source material reproduced with no independent analysis or editorial changes. So, the author of the press release manages to get the editor to do his WP:PROMOTION for him in a[REDACTED] article. We already have too many articles that are essentially promoting their subjects. loupgarous (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

loupgarous, I stand by my view. If an editor does not know that a publication is reputable and does real reporting rather than just being a press release redistributor, the editor shouldn't be using the source. You have to know something about a source before you cite it. The fact that a reputable source passes through a press release with light editing does not mean the reputable source didn't provide independent analysis of the press release; it just means that analysis consisted of becoming familiar with, and developing a working relationship with, the issuer of the press release. Presumably such a reputable source will also review the release for any glaring errors or implausible statements. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

A press release that arrives at a reputable news source, is reviewed for obvious problems, and is reviewed for the reliability of the issuer and quality of previous releases from the same issuer, is not a self-published source, any more than a book published by a reputable publisher is self-published, even if the publisher doesn't change much in the book. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Again this is not how we think about refs here: i do understand what you are saying and there is no need to repeat it. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

"Again this is not how we think about refs here". Please don't presume to speak for the Misplaced Pages community. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for stating your view Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The prevalence of using press releases, especially on medical topics, has been found to afflict almost every "reliable source" found. See citing even back in 1998, and the problem is worse now. Collect (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I can support the updated wording as well as my support for the original. What matters it that we identify pass-through press releases and disallow them as independent RS. One editor opined that maybe the press releases could already be balanced. To that I say we have a policy of how to handle primary and self-published material and we can not know what goes into the decision to republish without additional reporting so in all cases, if the subject directed the writing ie a press release, it should be treated as self-published material no matter who the final publisher of record is. Jbh 18:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Q: re: "Be aware of the trend for so-called news websites" -- why "so-called" news websites? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

A: User:Staszek Lem See the CJR post about this - as the news industry has changed and the internet has gotten more important we have more and more of these sites that claim to offer "news" as people have always thought about that (in other words, good independent reporting )and instead offer churnalism - which costs almost nothing and get be headlined to grab eyeballs. Hence the scare quotes. If that is a deal killer they can go of course. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Not all news websites are churnalism; the suggested phrasing may be interpreted that "so called" applies to all news websites. Therefore I would suggest a slight reorder "Be aware of WP:Churnalism, a trend for some news websites to reprint lightly-edited press releases ...". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• good by me - re-rephrased to say: "Be aware of WP:Churnalism; some news websites reprint lightly-edited press releases and these pieces should be treated as press releases, not as independent news sources. A reliable news source will add independent reporting in pieces spurred by a press release." Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• No, edited press releases are not primary sources, they are secondary sources.  We depend on reliable sources to be reliable sources in the general case.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but you seem to have missed the point; essentially reprinting a press release leaves it an SPS - the key thing here is that it is not indpendent and needs to be treated as such. Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The origin of the information does not define a source as reliable or not reliable, yet this proposal would invert that relationship. 

The reference to the essay WP:INDY suggests that the proposal would require that information about a company come from someplace other than the company.  How are we going to enforce that?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Striking rhetorical question.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you are misunderstanding as well. Using the company website or other SPS material is fine within limits (of course) but it has to be acknowledged as such. The problem that has been arising, is that some editors are taking these churnalism pieces and trying to say that they are independent, when they are not. We just need to treat each source for what it is, and right now RS doesn't discuss this newish phenomenon; it should do. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

My analysis is based on reading WP:IRS in 2011, so this is not a new phenomenon.  Again, the origin of the information used by a reliable source is not what defines the source as reliable or not reliable.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It is new for this guideline, since it is silent on it. WP:INDY is definitely part of the analysis of whether something is reliable or not, and how you use it. the historiographical analysis of primary/secondary/tertiary is separate from whether something is WP:INDY or not. You are treating them as though they are the same. See WP:Secondary does not mean independent. Again all this addition is trying to do, is to say that these lightly edited press releases should not be treated as though they are independent of the issuer of the press release. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

RFC required. All. If we want to change this, it needs much wider community input and needs to go to formal RFC. I suggest a number of formal wordings be put up for comment. Aoziwe (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Was thinking that might be true eventually; for now the discussion is useful to get an early sense of some of the arguments that might be raised and confusions that might arise that can be used to refine the proposal and eventually frame an RfC, if it comes to that. We have gotten feedback from only a few experienced editors and I am looking for more before moving to an RfC (or dropping this) Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that guideline clarification is needed. It will help with quick dismissal of link bombing in our advert-articles to kill. Paid editors drain your blood with wikilawyering about sourcing. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. This is a big enough problem - not as much with us as in parts of the press itself - that it ought to be addressed. We ought to do what we can to prevent[REDACTED] being hijacked by clever corporate publicity departments to dress junk merchandise up as cutting-edge scientific gear and fringe science up as accepted science to our readers. The case I cite's probably the tip of a vast iceberg of nonsense waiting for an unwary editor to bring here as reported on by an "independent secondary source" which has (regardless of whether it generally does so) chosen to send out the text of a press release with no independent research or discernible editorial oversight.

News of Science has shown that a mere byline, especially one saying "By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor" with no actual names given, is no assurance that anyone's actually minding the editorial store. They, CNN Money, Yahoo! Finance, and many other electronic news sources were p'wned by someone selling what looks like a very modestly-sized telescope (lens and mirror only about eight inches or so wide) as being able to image "antimatter galaxies" and "Invisible Terrestrial Entities". One usually reliable guideline already serves us well in WP:FRINGE - if a statement made in a source sounds extraordinary or implausible, the source shouldn't automatically be treated as an independent secondary source. More research is needed, and a Google search turning up identical or almost identical reporting in many sources ought to be a very good sign we're working with lightly-reworded primary source information.

Going to Unscintillating's statements, I agree with Jytdog and have done so since my remarks in the essay WP:CHURNALISM - we can use this reporting. But we shouldn't use it as independent secondary source information. It needs to be given due weight. That requires the steps I outlined whenever there's cause to suspect a news agency is essentially presenting a primary source statement with no independent analysis of what is being asserted.

In more understandable terms, I'd expect our Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton articles to consist of more than a series of statements from their respective political campaigns with no dissenting views to provide balance, and with each view given due weight.

What the press - such as News of Science, CNN Money, Yahoo! Finance and other news organizations did with Thunder Energies and the Santilli Telescope was to cheat its readers by pretending to independently analyze each and every assertion made in a corporate press release and reproduced in their articles for plausibility, much less accuracy. It was probably done through laziness and stupidity, not by design, but it happened.

That's admittedly an extreme case, but maybe we ought to be grateful to Dr. Santilli and his company for showing how unreliable business news reporting is. Unscintillating, are you seriously proposing that any of the three articles I just linked to above ought to be treated as a WP:SECONDARY, reliable source? If you are, there's nothing I can say to you. loupgarous (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to defend Unscintillating here. You are looking at only one facet of primary vs. secondary. Unfortunately in other situations there should be a bright line. In the case of churnalism we are dealing with primary vs. hearsay instead of primary vs. "true secondary". But hearsay is still hearsay, not primary, and we must not treat it as primary. We must treat them as hearsay, i.e., primary+chinese whispers. While I agree they are not "true secondary", they are not "true primary" either. Hence the suggested clarification. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• fwiw there is now a case at ANI (doesn't belong there) about a nascent edit war over the use of a "churnalism" source that is especially blatantly bad - see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Zefr_removing_sourced_content.2C_claims_that_a_newspaper_is_not_WP:RS_in_the_Young_Living_article -- Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that WP:RS should mention in the WP:NEWSORG section that WP:CHURNALISM is a reason for concern, just like it mentions WP:CIRCULAR. Debresser (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose both versions. Churnalism is the lazy reproduction of PR and marketing material. This proposal suggests that all press releases and the reporting based on them are poor sources, but high-quality news reports (secondary sources) based on high-quality press releases (primary sources) are often good sources to use. A Department of Justice press release offering details about a successful prosecution is a good source, as is any high-quality secondary source that reports it accurately (although the primary source is the better source).The proposal also confuses several source types—primary, self-published, secondary, independent. For example, Jytdog wrote above: "essentially reprinting a press release leaves it an SPS", but that isn't correct. An SPS is something like a personal blog, published without editorial oversight. A company or government press release (or a newspaper reproducing it) is not what the policies mean by SPS. SarahSV 15:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV you seem to be acknowledging the problem. Please propose something you would find acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Before you changed your edit, you wrote: "your are completely wrong about what I have written - a government or company press release is definitely self-published ..."But this is false, and if you've misunderstood what an SPS is, any proposal you make based on it will be misleading. By SPS (see WP:SPS), Misplaced Pages means a personal or group blog, a Facebook post or a tweet; something produced with no professional editorial oversight. A White House press release is not a self-published source. A member of the White House press corps who faithfully reports what the White House says is not a "churnalist".An example of churnalism would be when a company's PR department sponsors "research" that suggests most users of its website are a certain type of person (male, female, brown hair, whatever). The company issues a press release to that effect, the point of which is simply to draw attention to itself. A "churnalist" then produces a news story about that website and its users. It doesn't really matter how closely the story sticks to the press release. The point is that the company wanted some attention, and a lazy journalist obliged by using the story to fill a hole. It's PR dressed as journalism.So, yes, we should avoid bad journalism and try to use only good journalism. But discussing it in terms of churnalism, press releases and primary/secondary/SPS misses that point. The danger is that the proposal would discourage editors from using press releases even when they are the most authoritative sources. If you want to add something like this, it would be better to focus on the issue of PR and marketing. SarahSV 17:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV You are still not helping solve the problem. Please propose something you would find acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV, you've missed the point of the case I originally mentioned. The White House Press Corps are expected to say "The President said 'Republicans created Donald Trump'" along with any response other people - including Republicans - may have to that statement. If they don't report a statement like that with at least an attempt to place it in context, they are vulnerable to the accusation of being the President's echo chamber. They're not allowed at all to report "Republicans created Donald Trump" in their reports on a speech by the President without correctly attributing the statement, and not simply stating it as fact.

The reports I mentioned are WP:CHURNALISM because they uncritically and with no attempt to independently confirm the fact, reported that a small Florida firm had produced an optical telescope capable of detecting "Invisible Terrestrial Entities," antimatter galaxies, and "dark matter." If you read over the articles I linked to, you don't see reporting that complies with WP:INDY and WP:SECONDARY, but mere restatement of a the company's press releases of a highly implausible and extraordinary claim. We can use these sources, but only with care to treat them according to WP:FRINGELEVEL.

A remark about why the press does things like this: for the business press, it's laziness - not wanting to pay actual reporters to do more than paraphrase a mountain of press releases. For the tabloid press, it's sensationalism, and the wilder the claim, the better copy it makes. Neither motive is acceptable in an independent secondary source.

The real problem isn't that obvious crap like the Thunder Energies press release will be believed by educated readers, but that less obviously contentious claims - such as a publicly traded company's unsupported claims for the return it gives investors - will also be reproduced with no attempt to analyze them, either. Misplaced Pages will become the megaphone for these claims if we treat articles of this type as independent secondary sources, with damage to wikipedia's reputation and possibly the finances and reputation of our readers who rely on our treatment of those sources as WP:INDY and WP:SECONDARY. loupgarous (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

loupgarous, you argue your case very well, and I don't disagree. The problem is that what you describe as churnalism covers an enormous amount of journalism, not all of it bad. Put out a well-crafted press release, and newspapers will pick it up and adhere to it closely, and sometimes it's important that they do that. It would help if you could give examples (apart from the optical telescope). Here is the Washington Post's White House bureau chief describing Obama's reaction to Sandy Hook. It's a good source, but there's no "independent" reporting. Why wouldn't that be "churnalism" under these proposals? SarahSV 18:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin what you write here is just bizarre. The 1st paragraph independently summarizes the speech. The 3rd paragraph puts his remarks in the context of past statements he has made, and characterizes them in light of those past comments. The fourth paragraph notes where he made the speech and the relevance to what he was talking about. Further down, the paragraph starting "Rather than listing the numerous tragedies..." further contextualizes what he said - adding independent reporting noting what he didn't talk about. And throughout the reporter described how he talked - Visibly frustrated", "his voice rising to a higher pitch", "punctuating the word "anger" with added emphasis", etc. All of this is independent reporting. This is the opposite of churnalism. What are you even talking about here? Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin If you read my argument closely, I mention my main desideratum for "churnalism," and that is nearly word-for-word rendition of copy from a press release, of an event which is implausible or contentious. Unless you count every reproduction of a press release in sources of information which apparently exist to give those press releases wider circulation, verbatim reproduction of a press release in reporting of an event is actually not typical journalism (of the type we encourage editors to use in documenting a fact in one of our articles under WP:RS. The Wall Street Journal and Aviation Week and Space Technology are good examples of business news sources with high journalistic standards and which do not publish articles which are mere re-hashing of press releases or other WP:PROMOTION material (apart from occasional interviews with notable people - even then, searching interview questions can save interviews from being mere WP:PROMOTION).

Jytdog said what I would have said on the article covering Obama's statement after Sandy Hook. That's not what I am talking about at all. I'll expand on this, however. If a White House correspondent ever does repeat with only minor paraphrase a press release by the White House, with no context or other views to which it can be contrasted, I would indeed be wary of using that to document more than the issuance of the statement itself. In other words, we can use the President' statements to describe his reaction to and thoughts on the Sandy Hook murders. We can't use it to affirm a flat statement of those thoughts and reaction (e.g., "Assault rifles ought to be banned.") in one of our articles without saying who said that (it can't be in wikipedia's voice because of WP:NPOV - we must say "President Obama voiced support for new restrictions on assault rifles" or something which makes it clear who's saying it. We can't be anyone's megaphone - it's not just a WP:RS issue, but WP:NPOV. loupgarous (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

loupgarous, another example: when GlaxoSmithKline was fined $3 billion in 2012, the US Justice Dept issued a press release and posted several documents. Here the Guardian reports on the material, sticking closely to the press release and the examples offered. That's good journalism. Under the proposals on offer, the Guardian article might not be an "independent" source.

My point is that we already know "don't post obvious rubbish" (e.g. the telescope). Is there any benefit to expressing that in terms of lightly edited press releases, primary/secondary/self-published/independent? That language risks drawing in situations in which the authors of independent secondary sources have judged it appropriate to stick closely to primary-source material. SarahSV 19:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

And again you are missing the point. In this case the DOJ press release itself is an extremely reliable source, even though it is primary and not independent. The problem we face, which you are refusing to address, is edits like this:

The Daily Herald (Utah) reported that the company had surpassed $1 billion in it's 2015 sales.

References

1. Neely, Karissa (10 February 2016). "Young Living tops $1 billion; Coldwell Banker Relocation Scholarship; Utah Geologists win national award". Daily Herald. Retrieved 7 October 2016.

That ref is a lightly-edited version of this press release. This is the kind of WP:Churnalism that is problematic when used as above, and likewise, when used to try to prove N at AfDs. Would you please focus on crafting language to address the actual problem? Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The language I have proposed, simply advises editors to consider a churnalistic source to be no different from the underlying source. If the underlying source is something like the DOJ press release, then people will treat it like the DOJ press release. If the underlying source is something like Young Living's press release, they would treat it like that. That is all it was trying to do. If you can find a better way to do that, that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog - we're not saying editors shouldn't use sources which are not different in their meaning to the press releases they cite. In the Thunder Energies case, nearly every one of them carried Thunder Energies' OTC stock ticker abbreviation as well as reproducing what was said in the press release with no independent analysis - no discussion of the background, no presentation of dissenting views. It's clearly not WP:RS. loupgarous (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Second bold revert

Sorry Jytdog but you cannot be so absolute, especially without broad community concensus. You might get away with something like:

Be aware of WP:Churnalism: Some items in newspapers or news websites are lightly-edited press releases and might not be able to be reliably treated as independent secondary sources. News stories based on a press release that are reliable, independent, secondary sources may typically include independent reporting on the claims made in the press release.

You really need to go to RFC on this. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hm, thanks for offering a version you would find acceptable; I don't believe that your version would find consensus. Don't know that an RfC would be necessary but we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I find Aoziwe's version unduly vague in that it qualifies what ought to be a requirement - "...include independent reporting on the claims made in the press release" with the weakening phrase "may typically". The whole point of this additional guideline is to be sure no thinly disguised primary source material gets into[REDACTED] disguised as independent secondary source material.

WP:INDY and WP:SECONDARY are already guidelines which enjoyed consensus when they were enacted. Why should adding guidance to assure those two guidelines aren't evaded in our articles require an RFC? I support Jytdog's version. loupgarous (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Look again, WP:INDY is an essay.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is, but if you think about how RS is structured, we explicitly downgrade sources that are not independent in policy (sources that are SPS or user-generated) per WP:V - that policy and this guideline both very much elevate independent sources over non-independent ones. The key issue here is that churnalistic sources are not really independent of the entity that issued the press release. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier, I agree with the underlying concern being addressed by Jytdog's initiative. My fundamental concern so far and still is that just because a secondary source publishes press release material, does not mean that it is not independently verified. I think we need to get wiki editors and contributors to look at such material on a case by case basis. Republished press release material is not always lazy journalism. Sometimes it is efficient journalism, and has been checked. We need to get wiki folk to reference press release material with their eyes open, but not "ban" its use either. Aoziwe (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in what I wrote "bans" churnalism. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Concur. What we're advising editors to do is to be cautious about treating articles which parrot press releases as WP:RS. It's just as much a guideline - WP:IGNORE frees editors from blind compliance to any guideline - as all the others. We're saying articles like this ought to be treated with the strong suspicion they're WP:PROMOTION. loupgarous (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I think my "softening" is necessary so that it is not ignored completely. We do want wiki-contributors to always take heed. How about the following:

Be aware of churnalism. Some items in newspapers or news websites are lightly-edited press releases and might not be able to be treated as independent secondary sources. News stories based on a press release that are reliable, independent, secondary sources may typically include significant independent reporting on the claims made in the press release. While matter of fact press releases, for example about the facts of a criminal matter or natural disaster by the relevant organisation are likely to be good material if republished by a secondary source, and might not be separately verifiable, self or product or service promotional press release material by an organisation should be treated with objective wariness. For the pitfalls of press release material, familiarity with this event, and its original version, will be informative.

Aoziwe (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not bad at all. Thanks for reaching out!! But This part: "News stories based on a press release that are reliable, independent, secondary sources may typically include significant independent reporting on the claims made in the press release." is where this needs to be tighter. If there is no independent reporting, then the source needs to be treated as non-independent -- it should be treated like the underlying source. As you well note (and thanks for that!) the underlying source may or may not be useful as a source in an article or a discussion about notability; the goal here is to definitively remove the "mask" of the churnalism source. (a press release by an organization about something like a criminal matter (if that organization is say the DOJ) or a natural disaster (if that organization is say NOAA) doesn't need the mask. Thanks again!! Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

How about ' . . may typically include significant . . ' becomes ' . . should be expected to include some non trivial . . '? We need to lead wiki-contributors without being absolute. There will always and frequently be exceptions. Aoziwe (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That is much better. So now we have " News stories based on a press release that are reliable, independent, secondary sources should be expected to include significant independent reporting on the claims made in the press release.". We are still diagreeing on the rest. In my view the rest should simply say something like: "If there is little to no independent reporting, the source should be treated like the underlying press release" That still leaves lots of room for editors to apply judgement about the quality of the underlying source and whether there is independent reporting or not. Does that work for you? Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment — Words like "churnalism" or "tabloid" or "sensationalist" or "propaganda" are so much name-calling, that is, an argument without an argument. It is begging the question of why a source should not be cited. Instead of saying "Don't cite it, it's churnalism", at least say, "Don't cite it: it's churnalism because ________." Or more economically: "Don't cite it because _________." The label -- churnalism, tabloid, press release -- adds nothing but drama. It's a distraction from the real reasons (if any) for citing or not citing a source. We should be encouraging editors to stay away from these kinds of fallacies. We end up with unhelpful !votes like "oppose per WP:NEWSORG".

If you know content found in a newspaper came directly from a third party, then attribute it to that party, which means treating it as self-published. We can cite self-published sources for certain things, such as facts about the sources themselves, if they're not too extraordinary, or self-serving, etc. The usual name a company prefers to call itself, or the location of its main office, for example. Verifability, maybe; notability, no.

Consider also the difference between a press release that is ignored by all media, versus a press release that is passed along by questionable media, versus a press release that is widely passed along in reputable, fact-checked media. The information might come straight from a company's PR department, but if respectable sources put their reputation behind it by re-publishing it, that indicates that that source thinks the information is true, or at least worthy of public notice. One of the ways you can recognize a fact-checked source is that they'll tell the reader if the information from the company or politician or whatever is widely accepted as true, or false, or is widely disputed. Similarly, a wire service story picked up by few media is not the same as one that every major outlet carries. We might count a single AP or Reuters story as "one source", but take into account how many other respectable sources choose to carry that story. It adds credibility when they do, because they stake their reputation on it — if they have (or care) about their good reputation. Do they? That's the question, not so much where the content originated. It's not quite as strong as a truly independent report that corroborates other sources, but it's stronger than a press release or wire service report that is not widely re-published.

So saying "be wary of churnalism" or "be wary of tabloid newspapers" is only teaching editors pejoratives they can throw at sources they don't like. Advice on identifying reliable sources should steer editors to identify and talk about the underlying characteristics of the content that makes it reliable or unreliable, and arguments about those sources should name those underlying characteristics, not merely toss out a pejorative. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it "name-calling" call a flower a "flower"? Churnalism is a thing, and it is a problem. You are also distracting from the issue here, which is that this guideline needs to address the problem. The exact issue is that a press release is still a "press release" and we know how to handle that kind of thing. A real news article reacting to a press release - doing what we are used to quality news sources doing and adding plenty of independent reporting - is a "news source" and we know how to deal with them. The exact reason I opened this thread is that fake news sources that just lightly edit press releases - the thing called "churnalism" -- is fairly new and is causing problems at articles and in dealing with notablilty at AfD and AfC etc. We need to deal with it. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It's name calling to call a flower a "weed" instead of a "plant". I don't think churnalism is a problem, any more than a spokesperson or the subject of an article making a statement to a reporter or reporters, and having them write up what they said. You're getting hung up on the provenance of the words instead of the quality of the medium itself. There are media that aren't journalism at all; they are nothing but conduits for press releases. Others, like local or neighborhood newspapers and blogs, mix press releases, reworded press releases, and original reporting. Major national media typically work to make their stories more original in their wording, even if the content is the same. I don't think captive media are anything new at all. Biblical kings have ordered scribes to write new books and add them the Torah to serve political ends. There's no magic word that lets you avoid asking hard questions about what a text means. Is PR Newswire an indiscriminate conduit for press releases? Yes, as far as I can tell. Is CNN Money or Yahoo Finance? Maybe. Is CNN? Not likely. But how do you know? A label doesn't tell you. You have to dig in and examine the source. Do established reliable sources trust them, and cite them? Is there transparency in their editorial process? Do they issue corrections? Etc. Those are the questions, not "should we call it a flower or a weed?" --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You do not seem to be actually looking at the kind of sources that are under discussion here nor what is even being proposed. Please actually look at the ANI example provided above. Please actually look at the example provided at WP:Churnalism. Please actually read the proposal, which you will note says "be aware" and "consider". It calls for judgement; by providing a name and a description of what-is-named it allowshelps people to apply judgement. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC) redact Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: re: "You have to dig in and examine the source" -- this is exactly the gist of the amendment: be aware of churnalism and actually verify that the source does indeed provide independent info rather than regurgitating the PR babble. It covers the major problem with AfDs of nonnotable companies: keepers-voters just say "plenty of references" without bothering to verify promotion dressed in the rags of churnalism. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess we have to disagree, and also disagree about what we disagree about. That ANI was an example of editors with poor dispute resolution skills, edit warring instead of discussing, and obsession with a single source when they could have exercised better research skills, or sought help from editors who have those skills. Why is an ANI thread that was peacefully closed, and returned to the article talk page in the space of 3 hours is a "problem"? I think your examples, and others, are best resolved by helping editors understand how we identify reliable sources, and how we attribute facts. The churnalism essay says it's unfalsifiable (I'd have stopped right there) and, and then proceeds to ramble on pointlessly, confusing verifiability with notability, and not understanding what self-published and independent sources are good for. I think the thesis of WP:CHURN is "be afraid" or something. I reiterate, this churnalism issue is a distraction from the basic bread and butter of identifying a reliable source, and verifying a fact, and reaching consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Dropping another oppose and plug for a RfC, for the reasons elaborated upon by Jc3s5h, SarahSV, and so on. I also think that this type of thing is just plain better handled on a case-by-case basis with some common sense, rather than adding another bureaucratic item to the wikilawyering toolbox, particularly given that this seems likely to be used aggressively. II | (t - c) 21:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• it looks like this is indeed going to require an RfC. will consider options and post soon. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• agreed. This is a good idea, but it needs clarification and broader discussion. If pinging previously involved users, count me in - Nabla (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sorry I missed this thread. It is, indeed, a serious problem. Reuters has a section of its website devoted to press releases. Who's to say that other reputable news media or "wire" services have such a section, but inadequately marked. Count me in for a ping, as well.

Current Mayor of Casiguran, Aurora

Hi Misplaced Pages,

Just to correct what is stated inyour page of the current Mayor of the Municipality of Casiguran in Aurora Province, Philippines. Please change it from: REYNALDO T. BITONG to RICARDO A. BITONG.

I was just corrected by his office after getting this infor from your page.

Thank you and more power.

Lorena S. Lindo utp@ezmaps.ph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.125.99.42 (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Electronic magazines

As there is no separate article about identifying reliable sources in (ta.wikipedia) Tamil, I thought of raising this question here. There is an article about a University professor (https://ta.wikipedia.org/s/3nvx) who is also a radio enthusiast. He created a DXers club and is publishing a newsletter in Tamil and in English for more than 10 years. He publishes them electronically. 1. http://dxersguide.blogspot.in/ - updated regularly since 2005 2. http://sarvadesavaanoli.blogspot.in/ - - updated regularly since 2005 All the entries are there for anyone to see. However, an editor has placed a dubious tag for the citations. The publication is published electronically only. Please clarify why the electronic publication cannot be shown as a citation. - Uksharma3 (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

If someone wanted to cite the newsletter at the English Misplaced Pages, it would be regarded as a self-published source. See the "Exceptions" section of this guideline. Chances are, the professor's academic expertise is not in the area of long distance radio communication (which is what "DX" means among radio enthusiasts), so his academic publications would not qualify him as an expert in the area of radio. If the professor has published in radio-related publications, such as QST, then he could be considered an expert in the field and his blog could be cited, with the precautions described in the "Experts" section of this guideline. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sharma sir, is this answer satisfactory? In fact, I believe any article written by a scholar, regardless of which medium it is published in, qualifies as RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

My question is misunderstood by User:Jc3s5h. The question of whether the person is a professor or not does not arise. I will explain it further. A publication (let me say) "Beach boy" is published electronically by whomever it may be. I am writing an article about beach. I say in the article that a there is a publication called Beach boy. Now, can I give the URL of the electronic publication to prove that there is a publication by that name? I think it can be done.

You can see in the article that he did his M.A., M.Phil and Ph.D all in radio/communication related subjects. His research paper for M.A. was on 'Foreign Tamil language Radio Broadcasts'. For M.Phil he did research on Community Radio. Finally for his Doctorate he did research on Green FM Community Radio in Dindigul.

He worked in the B.B.C. World Service. Then he worked in the Dept. of Visual Communication at Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in Tirunelvely, TN. Now he is Asst. Professor in the Dept. of Journalism and Communication at Madras University.

A person of such standing is publishing two publications, one in English and the other in Tamil, electronically. He is doing it regularly since 2005. The publications are in a blog run by Google. Each entry is dated and timed. Can anyone say that he is doing it for more than 10 years just to have an article in Misplaced Pages? He is doing it as a service and the publications are available for anyone to see. There is no subscription fee. One need not even register to read the contents.

But an Editor in Tamil Wiki said the citation is unreliable.

Anyway, now I have removed those section about the publication in the article.

The Professor is not interested in the article. I only wrote the article because I thought Wiki should have articles about such remarkable persons.

But my question still remains - whether a publication published electronically, can be given as a citation to prove such a publication exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uksharma3 (talk • contribs)

Please clarify the following:

• Why you think that Tamil[REDACTED] will listen to opinion of English wikipedia? Each[REDACTED] has its own rules.
• Did you invite the person you disagree to join this discussion?

That asked, since you claim that the professor in question has expertise in radio communication, his opinion on the subject may be considered reliable, unless there is a strong agreement in radio communication community that this professor is gravely mistaken. (The latter controversy does happen from time to time in various areas of knowledge). BTW User:Jc3s5h did not misunderstand your question, rather you misunderstood Jc3s5h's answer. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Uksharma3 asked "But my question still remains - whether a publication published electronically, can be given as a citation to prove such a publication exists?" If an English Wipedia editor were writing an article about the electronic publication, and it was notable enough to be worthy of an article in the encyclopedia, certainly the wikipedian could cite it, along with other independent publications showing that it is important enough to have its own article.

But if the article were about something else, lets say, the ionosphere, and the editor wanted to make a claim about the ionosphere and use an article from the electronic publication to support our claim, the editor should make sure the source meets the criteria in Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources. It wouldn't satisfy the Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources unless the professor had published relevant articles in reliable sources (other than the one he publishes himself). Those other publications would demonstrate the professor's expertise.

Uksharma3 also wrote

You can see in the article that he did his M.A., M.Phil and Ph.D all in radio/communication related subjects. His research paper for M.A. was on 'Foreign Tamil language Radio Broadcasts'. For M.Phil he did research on Community Radio. Finally for his Doctorate he did research on Green FM Community Radio in Dindigul.

He worked in the B.B.C. World Service. Then he worked in the Dept. of Visual Communication at Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in Tirunelvely, TN. Now he is Asst. Professor in the Dept. of Journalism and Communication at Madras University.

No, I don't know any of that stuff. If all those claims are on his self-published webstite, how do I know he didn't make it all up? Of course, if those claims are on a web page at Madras University, that would be a different story. Professors usually have lists of their publications on their university webpages, and those could be looked at to verify his expertise. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The University webpage showing his qualifications and position, was cited in the article. The electronic magazine is published in Google's Blogger site. Each entry is dated and timed automatically. The very first post is dated in the year 2005 and anyone could see that the entries were made at regular intervals for more than 10 years. In the article I cited its URL as reference to my statement that he publishes an electronic magazine, not as reference to his qualification or position.
The said article is now removed from Wiki on my request and therefore, please treat this conversation as closed. -Uksharma3 (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Government ministry sources

I'm working on improving the bio pages on current Cabinet members of Pakistan. But at times I cannot able to find third party reliable sources which can backup the material that I want to add to article. I found that some information available about each ministers on their relevant ministry's official website. I wonder if we can use the ministry source to support the material added into WP pages? For instance, here is bio of Ishaq Dar. --Saqib (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-promotional non-extraordinary (and otherwise non-controversial) factual material about an organization (including its members) is usually OK to reference from the organization itself. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It is ok to use such sources for simple matters of fact, such as which portfolios they held and when. It is less ok to use such sources for matters like what policies the politician has supported. As we know, politicians are rather well known as rewriters of history. Zero 23:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If come source, e.g., gov't, contradicts other sources, we know how to handle this, right? For example, we will never believe a ru:president website when it says it brings democracy to Crimea, although it certain contexts we may cite (with attribution) e.g., "Putin says Russia brought historical justice to Crimea". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

And of course we will never believe Pakistan gov't website if it say that "this politician didn't take a single bribe in his life". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Document as source for facts mentioned in passing

I edit primarily in historical articles and have from time to time come across examples of citations from sources that incidentally provide historical information more in the sense of background than as well-documented facts. Sometimes these can be from otherwise well-regarded sources. What I have in mind would be a passage in a scientific treatise giving the historical background to a modern discovery or a comment about a historical site that a travel writer for a respected newspaper mentioned in describing a particular tourist attraction. It seems that such incidental mentions should be treated with caution, even though they appear in otherwise reliable sources. Here are a few comments on this issue in discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard (there are more but a sampling should suffice):

• "While I disagree that Kirchick's article is an opinion piece rather than a news article, and therefore would not be reliable for facts, per the "Statements of opinion" section of the Reliable Sources policy, I would generally not use a news article for something that had occured over twenty years before the article was written and that only mentions Rothbard in passing."
• "Only one caveat, that you avoid giving prominence to any points that these sources only mention in passing."
• "scholarly articles often make points not "in their areas" of expertise, such as mentioning certain facts or disputes in passing, or in footnotes, or just ranging afield. Where they range beyond the author's special field of expertise, I'm saying that they are outside their area and have no special claim of being a superior source."
• "Do any of those have the information that you're wanting to add to the article? I'm assuming you've reviewed those to make sure there's more than just a passing mention."

This article does not directly address this issue, although the section that context matters seems an appropriate place to discuss it. I propose adding something to the effect that:

Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable, especially when they address areas outside the author's area of expertise.

be added to the section on context. I'd like comments from editors working on this page before making the change. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I've often wished there was such a statement. A big problem with mentions-in-passing is that they are so many and so varied (due to lack of specialisation of the author) that pov-pushers can always find one that matches their requirements. Editors should seek sources specifically on the topic at hand where possible. Zero 00:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose instruction creep. The policy already says that each source is reliable within its area of expertise, regardless was it in passing or in painstaking detail. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Zero0000 nicely phrases the problem, that it's the focus of the source as much as the expertise of the author that underlies the "in passing" problem. As to the adequacy of the present version on expertise, the few scattered mentions of expert authors don't really address the use of "in passing" comments by POV pushers. Here's a revised proposal that reflects the comments:

Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

With no further comment, I've added the above version to the context section. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

SteveMcCluskey, I sort of agree with this edit you made and I sort of don't agree with it. Where I disagree is the fact that "passing mention" type of sourcing is validly used for a variety of things; for example, when naming a character as an anti-hero (see List of fictional antiheroes) or as a sex symbol, or similar. I think that your wording might complicate cases such as those, causing people to be overly strict. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

In other words, a source might confirm a matter without the matter being the focus of the source. Who is to state that we shouldn't use that source for the matter that is being confirmed? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I've unfortunately come across a case and had to argue against inclusion of a particular factoid at Talk:Tower defense#DotA isn't a TD. In it, a particular source, in-passing, stated a particular video game to be in a particular genre (wrongly so, though there are parallels). It was correct then, and would be correct now, to argue that the game is not in that genre, based on the WP:WEIGHT assigned to the statement by the usually-reliable source--as in, it was made in passing. --Izno (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the edit in question is probably just a restating of WP:WEIGHT, and especially Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. as well as Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public. If, say, only one source says something specific about a topic, is it appropriate weight to include that factoid in an article about that topic? Probably not. --Izno (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

And perhaps also WP:EXCEPTIONAL. --Izno (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

And perhaps also WP:ONUS. --Izno (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Izno, I still don't fully support the edit. The edit in question does not make anything clear about WP:WEIGHT; it simply makes it seem that all "passing mention" sources are bad or likely to be bad. And that isn't the case. So I think that Staszek Lem was correct to cite it as instruction creep. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The definition of "reliable source" has been broken for ages

Some key text on this page has bothered me for years.
Page starts: "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published sources..." (OK, we all agree that's the policy.)
Definition of "reliable source": "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."
Reading the latter sentence very carefully, a source can be reliable by having a reliable publication process. Having an expert author is an option but not a requirement. Therefore, if an academic publishing house publishes Mein Kampf (as one is doing right now), that edition of Mein Kampf is a reliable source!!

I'm sure that whoever wrote that section was just intending to explain that in Misplaced Pages talk the word "reliable" has various meanings. That is true, but this page should be about the meaning required by "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published sources". Being "reliably published" is definitely not enough. Zero 03:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The key word is "may." The edition of Mein Kampf you describe would (regardless of whether or not its reliable) be a primary source, interpretation of which would amount to original research. The most it could be used for is to verify "Hitler wrote this in Mein Kampf." It could not be used to support any claims outside of that. Scholarly annotations would qualify as a secondary source, and they would not be written by Hitler. IIRC, considering the academic publishing house coming out with an edition of Mein Kampf is German, their stated motive is to point out that Hitler was batshit, and Germany has all kinds of laws prohibiting publishing stuff in support of Hitler or Nazism, those annotations by themselves would be the sort of stuff that we would normally cite in an article without any complaint (except from neo-Nazis, holocaust deniers, and trolls).

The Reductio ad Hitlerum does not demonstrate a flaw in the definition. A single brick is indeed an ineffective wall, but you are not looking at it in relation to the other bricks and mortar used to build this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

What exactly does "reliable publication process" mean? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Your reply does not answer my objection. It is nothing to do with the primary/secondary divide. The annotations in the new publication of Mein Kampf are presumably written by expert commentators, so they are reliable on that account and not just because they are "reliably published". The rule should say that the publication process must be reliable (which I take to mean that what we see is really what it purports to be) AND (not OR) the human source of the information is qualified to provide it. Not one or the other, but both. Zero 06:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

If it did not address your objection, then you have either failed to clearly state the exact concern or else are deliberately ignoring part of my response. Saying this "has nothing to do with the primary/secondary divide" is disingenuous -- the fact that Mein Kampf is a primary source is exactly why your complaint is without merit. Even if you meant that as just an example, you've yet to show how the current standards for reliability are a problem.

As I said already, WP:No original research (which is policy, unlike this guideline we are discussing) says that primary sources can only be used when there is no interpretation involved. In the case of Mein Kampf, even if there was no scholarly annotation but it was just a straight reprint, it could only be used to verify "Hitler wrote this exact quote in Mein Kampf." Any claims about those quotes, or even whether those quotes are necessary would fall on secondary and tertiary sources. An academic printing of Mein Kampf could not be used to support any of the claims that Hitler made in that book, nor even claims about what Hitler wrote or thought. Your objection completely ignores a fundamental site policy that we've had in place for over a decade.

Oh, and this very guideline likewise explains that primary sources cannot be interpreted and secondary sources are preferred. And to go further, WP:DUE (which is a part of another foundational site policy that we've had for over a decade) is another reason why this isn't a problem. Supposing for a moment that the current definition given in this guideline does somehow allow a book by a crazy murderer to be cited as a reliable source for claims beyond "this is what the crazy murderer wrote," we cannot give that author's views more prominence than they are given in the relevant academic field. So if someone cited Hitler for, say, claims about Jewish religious doctrine, his view would be dismissed as WP:UNDUE (not to mention WP:FRINGE). Ian.thomson (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

"deliberately ignoring", "disingenuous"? Does anyone want to reply to my comment politely? Zero 07:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

If someone else does, are you going to deny that the very answer to your problem has anything to do with your complaint and fail to address why there's still somehow a problem? Ian.thomson (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you give another example than Mein Kampf, which apparently worked as a red herring and rather confused whatever you may have been wanting to ask?

As for "The rule should say that the publication process must be reliable (which I take to mean that what we see is really what it purports to be) AND (not OR) the human source of the information is qualified to provide it": every once and awhile someone comes around to this talk page, lifts part of a sentence out of context and declares it a problem. What a reliable publication process entails in the WP:RS/WP:V logic is amply illustrated in various places: e.g., was there any peer review involved in the publication process? Editorial oversight (e.g. a board of editors taking responsibility in case an error is published)? Reputable fact checking mechanism prior to publication?... (depending on type of source) etc. WP:RS is a long page, and what a reliable publication process is (apart from the reliability of the author etc.) can't be explained in one catch-phrase I suppose. It certainly can't be reduced to "what we see is really what it purports to be" (how would one check that?) plus "the human source of the information is qualified to provide it" (which is reliability of the author, not reliability of the publication process). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Any "reliably published" text by an unreliable author will do instead of MK. I know I won't get anywhere with this complaint, so I'll be brief. "Reliable publication process" is not a phrase with a common English meaning, unless it is just that we can be sure the novel we are reading is really a book written by the person whose name is on the cover. Nor is "reliable publication process" concisely defined anywhere. You take it to mean something like "publication process that promotes reliability" and I'm sure you are right that that is the intention. But it isn't what the phrase means in English, so the phrase should be changed to something else. We should not be using wiki-jargon on policy pages. Zero 14:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems that what is intended by "reliable publication process" is a process that involves fact-checking, whether by external referees (common in academic publishing) or internal / editorial fact checkers (common in journalistic or other non-academic contexts). Wouldn't it be possible to craft an acceptable short sentence involving these two approaches? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

A novel is a primary source on itself... Pretending for a moment we had, like, Brill publishers release a book where Gene Ray's "research" on chronometry, politics, and educational psychology was organized, edited, and annotated by leading professors in relevant fields as if Ray was a foremost authority on those topics, and that book was given good reviews in all the academic journals... WP:DUE steps in enough that WP:FRINGE applies (and that's ignoring the "it's just the best primary source" argument that we'd use for a Brill translation of a religious text). This house ain't made of just one brick. A Brill edition of Timecube would be restricted to the Time Cube article (replacing most of the Internet Archive links). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@SteveMcCluskey: That's a good start, but I'd like to reveal a little secret: actually there is quite little fact-checking in academic publication (which I have decades of experience with, including as editor). Let's take the example of a research monograph published by a university press, which[REDACTED] will for sure judge to be "reliable". What usually happens is that the manuscript is sent to several subject experts who are asked whether the book should be published. I myself examined a manuscript quite recently in my area of expertise from a famous academic press and I was specifically told that I was not expected to check it, but only to advise the publisher whether it was well-written, satisfied a need in the literature, and would be well-received by the community (i.e. enough people would buy it, though those words were not used). Instead of the several months it would have taken to check all the facts in the book (which all reviewers would refuse), I was given two weeks. In addition to this, the publisher will assign an editorial assistant to go through the book and fix the grammar, advise on structure, etc, but that person is not an expert on the subject of the book. All of this means that the publication process by itself does not guarantee the reliability of the content. The reliability comes almost entirely from the expertise and care of the author, and that of the author's colleagues who have commented on drafts of the book at the author's (not publisher's) request.
Considering instead academic journals, there will be a bit more fact-checking going on, but, depending on the field, most facts are not checked. The peer-review process of a history journal does not involve anyone visiting an archive to check whether the documents cited by the author actually say what the author claims, nor does any reviewer for a chemistry journal repeat the experiment to see if the results are as claimed. The reviewer will just check if the description of the experiment suggests that it was carried out competently. Moreover, even if the reviewer does assert that a claimed fact is wrong, the author can refuse to accept it and the editor has the discretion to allow the author's version (commonplace). Of course, sometimes reviewers will notice clear errors that can be corrected, but mostly the peer-review system enhances reliability because the pooled brains of the authors, reviewers and editors is more likely to result in a good product than the author's brain alone. In summary, I don't have a good working suggestion in my mind yet but think it is more about expert oversight than about fact-checking. Zero 12:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

There is also post-publication review that is regularized for much of what you are describing, sometimes even 'popularly' by which I am thinking of a review I just read: Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC) I will add, although not directly as a response but as a further observation that it has always seemed good to me that reputation is a consideration here, as the author, the publisher, and even the reviewers all have a valuable reputation to protect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

In occurs to me that the issue at hand with reliable sources is stated kinda upside down. Debates arise when someone declares a source to be non-reliable and hence must be disqualified as a reference. From this perspective the decision process is more straightforward:

a source is unreliable if any of the items below are true:

• a publisher is unreliable (e.g., has no peer review)
• a writer is unreliable (e.g., writing outside of their area of expertise)
• the text is unreliable (eg. when the cited statement of an otherwise reliable author is mistaken)

Staszek Lem (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Published sources too old - companies/publishers out-of-business, no website - Location of Reprinted Articles

I understand that published "reliable" sources are required. However, what if the original publishers / companies have gone out-of-business? Knight-Ridder newspaper articles might be a large example of this. Reprints of articles from magazines or technical journals may be another example on smaller scale. What if the only web-available reprints of original articles are maintained and hosted by a company whose products those articles concern? I'm requesting public clarification of what Misplaced Pages officially considers to be 'reliable availability of published sources'. TubeGod (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be "web-available". --Izno (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@TubeGod: There's a faq at the top of this page about this. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Saying "reliable for" is not correct in English, as illogical

I made 2 edits of obvious errors at 23:06, 14 November 2016‎ and at 03:33, 15 November 2016‎, and both were reverted for the reasons of "the current wording is standard; see WP:RSN" and "hanges to core policies while in edit-warring disputes across several articles is tendentious editing" respectively. The justification for the edits were: "logical error of repetition removed; "reliability" cannot be defined by "reliable", as a term cannot be defined by itself" and "Language error correction; "reliable for" is not proper in English; logical error of repetition removed; "reliability" cannot be defined by "reliable", as a term cannot be defined by itself" respectively.

Additionally, it is not correct in English (and any other language) to say "reliable for", as "reliable" meaning "trustworthy" relates to the source and not to destination/application (trustworthy by the means of its quality and thus independently, regardless of anything else, always) that is disqualifying adding the preposition "for" afterwords. Is there anyone who understands that?--07:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicalgenius3 (talk • contribs)

Hi, I'm a native English speaker with a degree in English who teaches English and hangs out with other English teachers (one of them technically a linguist). Under Linguistic prescriptivism, you may or may not have a case that something can't be "reliable for" something (though it would be easier to find prescriptivists who would allow it). However, under descriptivism, English does allow "(noun) is reliable for (purpose)" to be used to mean "(noun) is a reliable implement to achieve (purpose)," especially when the larger context of a work has already defined reliable. Your change here misses the point of the section -- a source may be reliable within a particular context and may be unreliable in another. That is what that sentence is trying to say. That sentence is not the sole definition of reliability in the page, it is an elaboration on the more open definition that constitutes the whole page. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

English is not a logical language: it is a result the Brits getting Anglo-Saxon and Norman French mixed up and deciding to patch the whole thing with loanwords (even if we already have a word or words for what the loan word covers). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree, thank you Ian. In addition, this grammar website lists "reliable for" as the second most popular preposition combination for the adjective. Dr. K. 14:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is correct, the edit in question apparently changed the meaning of the section. Furthermore, if "reliable for" is incorrect, then surely "applicable for" and "meaningful for" are even more so. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I. Hello Ian.thomson. A bit of good faith would be appreciated. The title here "Saying "reliable for" is not correct in English, as illogical" was meant for that particular use in that specific Context matters provision, though I admit spelling out the issue in general. But, the clarification was just under the title in the 1st par.

A. You did not comment on the 2nd aspect of the issue, namely that "The reliability" on the beginning should not be explained by the following "reliable for", as a term cannot be defined by itself. That is a clear linguistic logical error. Do you agree?

B. Oxford Learner's Dictionaries provide for "reliable": (1) "that can be trusted to do something well", (2) "that is likely correct or true" and, (3) "able to work or operate for long periods without breaking down or needing attention". Nether the meaning (1) nor the meaning (3) (e.g. "reliable for" excavation of stones), which allow conditions (e.g. adversities), are used in the "Context matters" provision, but only the (2), which is unconditional, i.e. endures always and thus not only for anything specific. So, for the purpose of clarity, the provision's phrase "reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article" should be replaced by "likely correct or true", similarly to what I proposed in my edit. Do you agree?

II. User:Dr.K., please see the learned explanation in pt (B) just above. Nevertheless, the discussion here seems addressing meaningful issue proving that my edits on the subject were reasonable and in good faith and thus not tendentious. So, your revert of one of my editing justified by: "hanges to core policies while in edit-warring disputes across several articles is tendentious editing" seems to be made in bad faith maybe in support of your misguided warnings made on my talk page in support of your Misplaced Pages's unwarranted position on considering unreliable secondary sources over the only credible primary source on Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp#Death toll.

III. User:Sławomir Biały, you did not provide and reasoning making your statement a blind support not consistent with WP:Talk page guidelines#Maintain Misplaced Pages policy, as WP:CONSENSUS "does not mean... nor is it the result of a vote".

I think, the matter of clarity and explicitness of Misplaced Pages's rules seems important.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I: I personally find the original to be easier to understand than what you changed it to; II: Any edit warring (with rare exception) to a policy/guideline page is tendentious. For the sake of the project, such pages need to be stable, and no remotely controversial changes should be made without consensus; III: It's hard to get beyond a mere vote in things like this. Ultimately the purpose of this guideline is to accurately reflect the project's consensus on reliable sources, and be written in a way that gets that consensus across to our editors. Being grammatically perfect is desirable, but not required. Since "what makes more sense" or "what gets the point across better" is subjective, it's completely appropriate to have people just voice an opinion with no great reasoning behind it. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The "edit-warring disputes across several articles" that User:Dr.K. referred to were not "to a policy/guideline page" (please read carefully), so your argument (II) was moot and thus in bad faith. I accept the rest. Nevertheless, my suggestion to replace "reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article" with "likely correct or true" would benefit Misplaced Pages, as the former just does not make sense and the later is simple, clear, and actually says exactly what intended, for "likely correct or true" is just the used meaning of "reliable".--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Input sought for a GAR re use of sources

Interested editors are invited to comment:

• At the GAR: Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Joachim Helbig/1
• Or at RSN: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Additional_input_sought_for_a_GAR_re_sources

Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)