Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:48, 2 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

Coverage by citation indexes

I modified an earlier change to indicate that not all academic fields are covered adequately by such indexes. I am open to other wording, because I think the problem here is a little complicated. For one thing, the competition between Scopus and Web of Science has caused them both to increase coverage, which is good for indexing, but somewhat decreases the quality distinction. Then, Google Scholar is among other things a citation index, and we do not mean to include it here. Third, it's not covered/uncovered--the coverage in, say , biochemistry , is not as complete as in mathematics where there are more small journals. Fourth, the distinction can not deal with the problem of journals of high quality from the first. fifth, the less developed countries are poorly represented (China though has one of its own--does anyone know about Japan?). The general principle that a source is reliable if qualified people think it is, is certainly true, but inherently a little circular. . DGG (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't determine that based on what other reliable sources say about it, because then you're stuck in circular justification, because you then have to demonstrate that the sources you're using as evidence of how reliable a source is are reliable, themselves. We're left with awards, but like I said, that creates their own major problems, which you haven't yet addressed (the rarity of them, subjectivity, and lack of a way to determine what awards are reliable). What does a physical address have to do with the quality of a website? How are you determining if they are "professional writers? Snopes.com fails ALL of those. It has only two writers (not professional) and no prizes. Snopes is considered reliable by web users and we know that based on site usage statistics, which is the criteria I proposed before.

DGG, I think you misunderstood the purpose of a citation index. A good citation index will tell you how many times an article is cited and even how much an author's articles as a whole are cited, as well as other citation measures. The more they index, the better the data. It's about how much scientists cite other scientists, not how much they've been indexed in search engines. They're usually pretty complete. You could also check other media sources that cite certain journal articles. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for some confusion. I was not talking about web sites, anyway, or about snopes. I forgot to put in a heading, so it looked like my discussion followed on to that one. I've put it in now.

I think I know very well the purpose -- and limitations-- of a citation index, having seen and used them since the very beginning of SCI, and having taught their use at 3 universities. And having written a multi-part peer-reviewed comparative review on them-, , . There's also 2 nice papers by a student of mine , .

Incidentally, i fully support the employment of site usage statistics to determine notability of a web site. It does not however determine reliability, or WP would be a RS. DGG (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision Articles

I should probably have posted this here before. RfC on the reliability of sources such as ESCToday, oikiotimes is open at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

When a reliable source clearly is not

I originally tried to post on this topic in RS/N but it got hijacked by a specific case and didn't attract disinterested commentary, so it might be best discussed here in the broad sense. I reasonably regularly come across ostensibly RS/V sources, for example articles in journals or newspaper reports, however the articles have obvious, glaring factual errors (usually without citation) that are easily disproved through better sources. In journals these usually occur when discussing cross-discipline topics, such as a pyschology journal discussing business. In newsmedia, well they occur all over the place! How should these types of sources be handled? Someone wanting to use them to support some fact can clearly claim they're from an ostensibly RS/V source and want to use it on WP. On the other hand, clear evidence the article is not reliable can not be included in WP as it would be OR. The current guidelines don't seem to address this problem. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What you are essentially discussing is comparative reliability... ie determining whether one source more reliable than another. The reason why we don't get into this in the guideline, or at places like RSN, is that such determinations simply can't be mandated by policy... they have to be discussed and determined at the article level, by those who know the subject and the specific sources under discussion. All we can say at a guideline level is that we hope that our articles to be based upon the most reliable sources available. We leave it to our editors to figure out what those sources should be. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages allows source-based research, but not original research. If I find one apparently reliable source that says the first human moon landing was in 1996, and 25 reliable sources that say it was in 1969, it is source-based research to write in Misplaced Pages that it happened in 1969, with no mention of 1996. On the other hand, if a reliable source says an automotive headlight draws 2 MA of current, it would be original research to measure the current drawn in a headlight of my personal vehicle and write in Misplaced Pages that automovive headlights draw about 2 A of current. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

However, we can use original research on the article talk page when disussing the relative merits of a source in comparison to another. We can't put any OR in the article itself, but OR arguments that point out the flaws of a source can help us determine which source might be more reliable than another.

Also... something I forgot to mention... when I say we strive to use the most reliable sources possible, we also have to take into account WP:NPOV... if the two sources are expressing equally significant, but differing points of view on a topic we should mention what both sources have to say on the matter, even if one is considered more reliable than the other. Balancing POVs is important (and not always easy). Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that with regard using the source for a specific fact or point. My question is more when someone wants to use a source to support claim A, and there are few or no sources to either support or oppose the assertion - but elsewhere in the source there is also assertions B,C,D - and there are many sources showing the source is wrong on B,C,D. It would seem to me that this would question the reliability of using the source for claim A. So if you read an article that says "there's a tea cup orbiting the moon", and you can't find anything that says its wrong, but elsewhere the article also states "the moon is made of green cheese", "Neil Armstrong was the first mouse in space" etc - clearly this would weaken claims of reliability for the first assertion. An exaggerated example, but hopefully you get my point. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that it would weaken claims of reliablilty for the first assertion. However, whether it weakens them enough to exclude the source (and the statement) from use in the article has to be determined by debate and consensus on the article's talk page. It isn't something we can determine at a policy level because the issue is specific to the particular source. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but at present the guidelines don't really speak to this at all. It talks about the author and the publishers contributing (or otherwise), but not the text itself. Perhaps the problem is more that the guidelines as written imply that if it's published in a peer-reviewed journal, then it's ok no question. Now they don't actually say that, but it's easy to understand how editors could interpret it that way. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Policy statements have to be based on normal conditions and situations... and you are discussing an abnormal one... an exception to the norm (a source that dispite being in a peer reviewed journal may not be reliable). If you look hard enough, you can probably find exceptions to every policy statement on Misplaced Pages. These exceptions don't invalidate the policy statements. Most papers that appear in peer reviewed journals are going to be highly reliable sources. Look to the intent of the policy, and less to the narrow wording. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Unfortunately not so abnormal in some of the areas I'm often dealing with.:( So it's off to RS/N to duke it out on a case by case basis I guess. Thanks for your input. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:17, 10 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)

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)

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)

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)

eddie cowart jim's best friend at syracuse

kfksr@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.181.230 (talk) 03:34, 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)