Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:34, 27 July 2014

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 - Do we need a new section on state owned and/or operated news agencies? Are they excluded from RS?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A number of editors have been asserting on thread at RS/N that Russia Today and the Voice of Russia, which are owned or operated by the government of Russia are not RS in an attempt to make a blanket dismissal of the source, preventing its use on Misplaced Pages for any purpose.

In light of the sprawling thread at the RS/N Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Russia_Today, which appears to involve a lot of contentious assertions not related to the Guideline, it seems that an RfC is needed to prevent the consensus building procedure at RS/N from being impeded for the same reasons.

Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

Biased or opinionated sources
Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

It has been established, for example, that RT has a well-established reputation for fact checking on a par with many RS news organizations, and the opposite having no editorial control, the claim is that they have excessive editorial control, making them biased.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 00:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (state-owned)

I might say something like state owned news agencies are in general reliable but care should be taken when dealing with content from such agencies which directly relates to controversial matters involving that state. The same sort of provisions to my mind should also apply to Xinhua and other state organs even the Voice of America and BBC. John Carter (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with John Carter. There is no such thing as a source that is 100% unreliable for absolutely all possible statements (or one that is 100% reliable, either). Biased reliable sources are still reliable. How and when you use such sources is mostly a matter for WP:NPOV. In terms of state-owned news outlets, I'd normally accept their statements for simple or uncontested facts ("Polly Politician gave a speech on the economy today") but for things that were contested, then WP:INTEXT attribution would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

First, this RfC is misfiled, and essentially illegitimate. The relevant guideline, WP:RFC, states: "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section. Ubikwit's statement with the RfC is neither "brief" nor "neutral". Indeed it contains bad faithed misrepresentations and falsehoods. For example the claim "It has been established, for example, that RT has a on a par with many RS news organizations" is complete nonsense. No such thing has been established; note the link provided is to RT itself, WP:SPS applies, and there's oodles and oodles of editors at WP:RSN trying to get it through to Ubikwit, that no, that is not the case. Basically this is a figment of Ubikwit's imagination.

Another example: "which appears to involve a lot of purely ideologically contentious assertions without addressing the Guideline". This is just a sneaky way of saying "everyone who disagrees with me is just ideologically contentious, while I am the bearer of the one pure truth!". See But I know the truth! . The statement is actually true, but not in the way that Ubikwit things. Taking a long look in the mirror would be useful.

And so on.

This is getting extremely tiresome. This is just another one of Ubikwit's unending and tedious attempts to force his way down Misplaced Pages's throat by continous WP:FORUMSHOPPING. They didn't get his way at the article on Victoria Nuland. They didn't get his way at WP:BLPN the first time. They didn't get his way at WP:AN/I the first time. They didn't get his way at WP:SPI. They didn't get his way at WP:3RR. They didn't get his He didn't get his way at WP:RSN the first time. They didn't get his way on the talk page of another article. They didn't get his way at WP:AN/I the second time. They didn't get his way posting to an open ArbCom case after the Evidence stage passed. They didn't get his way canvassing admins on their talk pages. They didn't get their way at WP:AN/I the third time. And now... they're not getting their way at WP:RSN the second time. Hence, this attempt to change the guideline to favor one's own position.

This is ridiculous, insane, tiresome, exhausting and time wasting.

At the very least someone please reformat the RfC filing so that it conforms to the actual guidelines at WP:RFC by removing all the WP:BATTLEGROUND language and false assertions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

An RfC is part of the dispute resolution process. I have defined the dispute with respect to which this RfC has been filed in a brief and neutral a manner, with a link to an ongoing RS/N discussion specifically about one such news media outlet, with this RfC addressing all state owned/operated news media outlets.

If you have a problem with the conduct involved with filing the RfC, I suggest you bring that up in the propoer forum and not disrupt the RfC with such tendentious interjections.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, an RfC is a part of the dispute resolution process when it is filed properly and in good faith. This RfC is neither! It's just more WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• What is this RFC for? Of course some news agencies are more reliable than others. State control is not black and white, there is a wide spectrum, some governments interfere more than others in the press, some governments use tame media to spread propaganda, some don't. 109.94.137.1 (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This is an "RfC of the Absurd" (apologies to Samuel Beckett). It is ill-framed and argumentative. The point is that RT is likely usable for some statements of fact, but where it delves into "opinion" it can only be used with proper ascription of such opinions. It is absolutely not RS for everything it prints, but it is RS for some things it prints, and editors are supposed to figure out the difference. The discussion at RS/N is clear, despite the argumentation about other sources -- the only proper issue at RS/N is the specific source in the context of the claim it is being used to support and the fact that it is now Misplaced Pages's "War and Peace" is not a reason for this RfC, it is a reason to tell the people there that without specifying the claim, no one will ever make an up-or-down decision on much of anything, and the fact it is full of personal attacks is to the shame of those making them. Cheers and Basta! already. Collect (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Some parts of your comment are productive, other parts less so. Why are you trying to impede the progress of this RfC? The discussion at the RfC is anything but clear, and there is no mechanism for determining consensus there, which perpetuates the recurrence of this problem at that board; thus, an RfC! --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This statement ("It has been established, for example, that RT has a well-established reputation for fact checking on a par with many RS news organizations...") alone should raise serious concerns as to the intent and motivation of the user who is filing this RfC. Limestoneforest (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The comments above by JohnCarter and Whatamidoing have it about right. I think, though, that this has become a serious energy-sink, and adding something clearer to the guideline would be appropriate. I would tentatively suggest something like:

Bias in a source is never a reason to consider it unreliable per se, but consideration should be given to whether a potentially biased source's coverage of a particular event or issue might be slanted or overblown, to such an extent that it should be either excluded or balanced using other sourcing.

Perhaps adding "without prejudice to the guidance set out at WP:FRINGE". Formerip (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this issue has become a serious energy sink, and that is largely the reason for referencing the present thread at RS/N. I think that your suggested addition to the guideline is a good start, let's see what others have to contribute in the way of concrete proposals.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't love that language because bias in a source is often a good reason to consider it unreliable. An example might be WorldNetDaily, which meets the basic qualifications for a "reliable source," but is so biased and out there that we should never, ever use it. Keeping this on topic with state-run media, there's a strong difference between RT and the BBC, for example. The BBC has a good reputation, RT is effectively the government arm of the media in a nation with basically no press freedom. We should be looking at this case by case, yes, but at some point we need to be able to say a source is simply not going to be used here because of the context in which it exists, and RT is an excellent example of this. We're mostly smart people here: if we can't figure out which nations have propaganda arms for media, we have bigger problems to deal with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree, and I think this is the nub of the problem. There will be instances where RT is reliable and instances where it isn't. Why, for example, should this not be considered a reliable source for our article on polygamy? Isn't it a total waste of everyone's time to be dealing with the issue of people just blindly deleting material sourced to RT?

I'm not a regular reader of World Net Daily, but would I be right in supposing that the reasons why it might not be reliable are to do with its lack of reputation for accuracy, rather than its bias per se? Formerip (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd throw it back at you: given RT's reputation, why should it be considered a reliable source? I don't think it's a waste of time at all to be policing articles for poor use of sources. If RT cannot be trusted to give good information, and there are other sources that provide information on the topic, we should be encouraging the latter usage. Trying to carve out exemptions is exactly why we're forced to have this discussion. Like WND, RT does not have a reputation for accuracy because of its biases: WND lets its right wing ideology stand in the way of accuracy, RT lets it state-sponsored propaganda stand in its way. Why are we even entertaining its usage? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the essay WP:Source pH has it pretty close. Collect (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, it sounds like you want to reject government-controlled "propaganda" outlets. The thing is, we accept government-controlled sources. Really: press conferences by politicians? Reliable. Government websites? Reliable. Government reports? Reliable. Take a look at the /FAQ: there is no type of published source that is absolutely unreliable for all possible purposes. So if we accept direct government publications as being reliable (for some purposes), then why wouldn't we accept 'indirect' government publications as being reliable (for some purposes)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Context matters, @WhatamIdoing:. When a government source is presenting itself as independent, there's a problem that doesn't exist with, say, a government report or a political press conference. Equating RT with a press conference isn't sensible. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that context matters, but we use that phrase to mean that whether a source is reliable depends on the exact statement that you're making, not that the source's marketing position matters.

I have no reason to believe that state-owned media is "presenting itself as independent" in any effective or meaningful sense, and certainly not any more than any other news outlet can be independent of its owners. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

John Carter and WhatamIdoing are mostly right, but the reality is more complex. For instance imho there is a huge difference between Voice of America and the BBC, though both are state funded in a way. To see the difference you have to look of the history of their reporting, their reputation, their detailed legal set up, reviews by others, etc. . It also depends on the nature of the government they operate under, a stated funded media in totalitarian or semi-totalitarian system tends to be different from state owned in a democratic state with a free press. Similarly being privately owned does by no means guarantee accuracy or reliability in reporting, just consider various yellow press outlets or Fox. There is simply no easy answer to this question, all news outlets can have issues and hence need to be treated with caution in general, however by no means this implies that the overall (reputation for) reliability or accuracy is the same for all. Overall reliability is a scale rather binary categorizations. There outlets that overall tend to be more accurate than others, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily so on a specific issue. Context and conflict of interest matter here as well, which may exist for some topics but not for others.

The suggested wording is imho maybe a bit problematic as "balanced by another source" seems to suggest we simply tell both sides (no matter the reliability of each side) and that is exactly what an encyclopedia should not do. We simply do not give equal footing to evolution and creationism in our science articles (for the sake of balancing sources or describing "both sides"). Similarly we should stay away of seeing something (solely) in a US (mainstream) media versus RT setting or framework. This for one ignores often significant differences within the US mainstream media itself and particular problematic issues of RT. But more importantly it suggests that there are only 2 sides to an issue and that there is no reporting by other media than US mainstream and RT (I mean please ...). Always use several sources on contentious issues and select them carefully considering a variety of criteria and common sense. Avoid simply picking 2 questionable sources to describe "both sides" and each based on a questionable source (that is being questionable in the given context).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW I only named those two as examples of state media from Western countries. I freely acknowledge that the BBC is in general much more highly regarded. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is an issue that disappears if we change "another source" to "other sourcing". Formerip (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: The guideline only refers to "reputation for fact checking", not "the overall (reputation for) reliability or accuracy", which is far broader in scope.

Also, with respect to any edits, WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT always apply, as they are essential to maintaining the balance of POVs represented in RS to produce NPOV content.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

I don't believe we need a separate section for state owned and/or operated news agencies, but I do believe we need to clarify the existing one a bit. A suggestion to the first paragraph:

Change from:

News organizations News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for the accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it.

to:

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. Even though all news organizations sometimes make errors, factual reporting from well-established news organizations is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. Factual reporting from less-established news organizations is generally considered less reliable. Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, which are responsible for the accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it, as in this reference.

1. "Former Turkish Army Chief Is Convicted in 1980 Coup". New York Times. Reuters. 18 June 2014.

Changed:

• Used News organizations instead of outlets for clarification.
• Used a clear language (if my english is bad, feel free to fix it).
• Do not list the agencies. One example is enough to get the point. Some users believe this excludes agencies that are not listed.
• Include a correct use of the Cite News Template as an example.

Erlbaeko (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but i kinda had to laugh reading this one. I guess after changes the policy according to you suggestion, you then intend to go back to the other discussion claiming RT is a "well established" news organization.

So to be clear I consider your suggestion as unacceptable, in particular the removal of the examples that outline what the policy had in mind. More importantly it simply ignores all the factors for assessing reliability that were mentioned in the various discussion regarding this issue.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but since you mention it. The direct cause of that change is this edit. I guess some users agree with you. I don't. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it will help. Also, using citation templates is optional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not much, but it is only ment to clarifiy the first paragraph a bit. It is not meant to solve the whole problem. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: I can't see I have removed anything other than the list of agencies. What do you mean with removing "factors for assessing reliability"? And also, can you clarify what you mean with "outline what the policy had in mind" with regards to the list of agencies in the News organizations section of the guideline? Erlbaeko (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• This discussion came out of the one about Russia Today on RSN here. In that discussion some sought to show that Russia Today is essentially equivalent to other government news agencies like the BBC and thus RT suffers no more from bias than the BBC. However RT goes beyond just mere bias, they actually fabricate stories to push their agenda, and have be caught out doing so here and here. This article discusses the way RT fabricates stories, which has led to high staff turnover by journalists who are confronted with the way RT operates. This proposal by Ubikwit seems essentially an attempt to lend legitimacy to RT by equating it to highly regarded government news agencies like the BBC or VoA. --Nug (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I agree with Collect; the argument as phrased by Ubikwit doesn't really exist. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard was never about calling Russia Today/RT not reliable for anything, that's a straw man that Ubikwit is creating, no one holds that position. It was about whether it is equally reliable with non-state-controlled newspapers and media outlets. If someone wants to discuss that, fine, but then the question should be phrased that way, not the way that no one is backing. --GRuban (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Fyi, the OP of the Is RT considered a RS? discussion holds that position, or at least he did a couple of month ago. Ref. diff. Erlbaeko (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@GRuban: I disagree. There a a number of people trying to complete relegate RT as non-RS in that thread (and a previous one to which I linked), and at least two (Thargor Orlando, Nug) here on this thread thus far. This RfC is framed to address the overarching issue of state owned/operated media in general in part to avoid such a narrow particularist focus. The RS/N thread is highly representative of the "energy sink" problem that needs to be addressed. Here is a comment left at that thread by Erlbaeko

Echo that. ;) Is there a way to establish a consensus on this issue? I am slightly fed up of users undoing revisions with a short "RT is not an RS." comment. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And here is a link to a revert by User:Volunteer Marek (see his first post above in this thread) deleting a quote attributed to the Russian PM in Voice of Russia that used exactly the same sort of completely dismissive edit summary VoR is not reliable..., and which led me to start the with respect to which I asked you to comment and you replied , arriving at a diametrically opposite conclusion to VM.

@Nug: You cite sensationalist sources like Buzzfeed and Gawker and a Ukraine news service to make claims about mistakes the likes of which @Viriditas: has pointed out in some detail on the RS/N thread. But let me just add one here related to fact checking and sensationalist reporting in the West. That would be the case of the blog cited by many Western news outlets at the beginning of the crisis in Syria, a fabricated blog by an American and his wife living in Scotland A gay girl in Damascus, such as this piece from the Guardian.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:22, 07:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A news agency's journalists being duped by a source that fabricated some story, as in the case of the Guardian you cite, isn't the same as a news agency actually coercing journalists to knowingly fabricate a story regardless of what a actually source says, as happens in the case of RT. There is no equivalence here. --Nug (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's put it another way. Poor fact checking by numerous Western news media outlets led them to use a fabricated online blog as a source that served as a major portion of the coverage of the biggest armed conflict in the world at present.

You haven't substantiated your allegations about RT, either, and it is basically irrelevant, because Misplaced Pages uses such sources until their reporting in any given article is revealed to contain factual inaccuracies.

That is the same for all "News organizations", as far as I can tell from the Guideline.

The assertion that Western news organizations are acting in good faith and therefore deserve to have the option to make recourse to plausible deniability when they fail, whereas RT and other state-controlled news organizations are conspiratorially criminal disinformation organizations that are going to deceive Misplaced Pages editors and the reading public and therefore should be banned from use on Misplaced Pages embodies a conspiracy theory that doesn't stand up to the light of reason.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 08:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Your repeated hyperbolic misrepresentation of what other people are actually arguing and constant attempt to frame the issue as a "west" versus Russia problem don't stand up to the light of reason.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you lost me there. Please translate into plain English. What exactly do you mean by accusing me of repeated "hyperbolic misrepresentation"? WP:NPA.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 08:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That was about as "plain English" as it can get. Perhaps you should get that wax out of your ears.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe Ubikwit is arguing very well, but I am sorry, I do not understand the phrase "hyperbolic misrepresentation" neither. Can you explain it? Erlbaeko (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW: Dictionaries generally include "exaggerated" as a definition for "hyperbolic" derived from "hyperbole." Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I think that the proposals above contain ideas that lead in the right direction, but I would think some more explicit statement(s) might be warranted to forestall the energy sink this issue causes. I think adding the underlined paragraph below might further the discussion. The Guideline already covers a portion of that in the "Biased and opinionated sources" section, so I've linked to that section in order to minimize overlap.

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. Even though all news organizations sometimes make errors, factual reporting from well-established news organizations is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. Factual reporting from less-established news organizations is generally considered less reliable.

Misplaced Pages does not distinguish between government controlled news sources and privately controlled news sources. As described in Biased and opinionated sources, bias does not make a source unreliable. Policies such as WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT play an important role in balancing the POVs represented in reliably published statements on a given subject.

Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, which are responsible for the accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it, as in this reference.

1. "Former Turkish Army Chief Is Convicted in 1980 Coup". New York Times. Reuters. 18 June 2014.

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a bad idea to foreclose inquiry into a potential COI like that -- we should use independent sources where independence is called for. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is accurate to characterize state owned/operated media outlets as having a COI. They do have an interest in ensuring that the POV of the government is disseminated, and that is a given.

The rise in the number of such English language news sources from countries like China and Russia is to help inform the reader in the West of the position of the respective government, as a balance against the POV presented in Western news media sources. Clearly that is in line with notions like internationalism and globalization. To equate such activity with a COI strikes me as off base.

One could go even further to question the characterization of "independence", because all news media in the West, for example, are dependent for advertising revenue for their very existence, so they have an editorial bias that favors the interest of their sponsors. That is a well-studied studied topic, and if you want to read a serious book that addresses the issue, see Jurgen Habermas' "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere", for example.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, state owned or operated media have a COI concerning the state, and your argument to the contrary is absurd, and then is refuted by your own second paragraph. As for "independence", that just means independent of the COI identified. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the point. There is a difference between a POV/BIAS and a COI defined in terms of the policy governing editor contributions to Misplaced Pages.

What does the POV/BIAS of a state owned operated news organization have to do with COI editing on Misplaced Pages?

I may be missing something, but it seems that you are trying to apply a COI editing policy for editors of Misplaced Pages to the journalism of a news organization. Perhaps I entertained that notion too much by discussing Habermas and advertising, but if you know of a specific COI policy that applies in the case of news organizations, please cite it. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 13:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

No. If I were discussing WP:COI, I would have referred to that. I am discussing COI. POV and Bias are effects of COI, and concerns regarding them arise from the appearance of COI. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, the concern seems to be misplaced. There is no corresponding Misplaced Pages policy.

Regarding the statement "POV and Bias are effects of COI", the introduction of COI into the equation is also inadmissible, because WP:BIASED address bias without reference to a COI. That is part of the Guideline under discussion here. Regarding bias in general, I suggest that you check the section Biased editing of the Misplaced Pages COI policy. Bias does not necessarily involve a COI, even when applied to Misplaced Pages editors, let alone professional journalists.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

No. All our editing policies require examination of sources in context. As to your second point. There is nothing "inadmissible" about it. The section you quote concerns "context" -- in this context, we are discussing state owned/operated media reporting on the state. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

All our editing policies?

It sounds like you are taking "context" on Misplaced Pages with respect to sourcing out of context with respect to the big picture.

The guideline context matters reads

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content.

That does not seem to admit to the application of a meta-analysis related to bias, for which there is a separate guideline, as a means to dismiss a source.

Rather, it seems geared toward a specific content and the applicability of the specific source to the specific content.

Meta analysis have their own problems, such as agenda driven bias. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is what's attempting to induce a meta-analysis: Misplaced Pages does not distinguish between government controlled news sources and privately controlled news sources. Of course, we distinguish sources by who published them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is a clarificatory statement, not an "attempt to induce" a meta-analysis. I see no where in policy where Misplaced Pages differentiates between state controlled news organizations and privately controlled news organizations. It is only in POV-pushing at RS/N, where there is no administrative mechanism for a determination of consensus, where the distinction has been made in an attempt to dismiss a source wholesale in order to eliminate the competition in a content dispute. The page listing awards and the like received by RT for excellence in journalism has already been linked to here, and the unsupported allegations otherwise being made about RT while media bias and error in the West is attributed to plausible deniability is another form of POV pushing.

In other words, the assertion that "we distinguish sources by who publishes them" is hollow without application to a specific source in a specific context. There is no list of sources that are reliable, only types of sources, one of which is "news organization".--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is poorly a worded way to avoid contextual analysis and to uncritically accept state propaganda and therefore should be rejected. Sure, it appears you have an agenda to bless a particular publication, RT, but this guideline is not about RT and guidelines should not be used to give RT some blessing you cannot get others to accept in your content dispute. Least of all in a way that exempts all state media. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you say the proposal is poorly worded, and then give a reason without trying to make a new proposal, then it begins to look like it is you, not me that has the agenda.

There is nothing in the proposal that tries to "avoid contextual analysis", that is why BIASED, DUE and WEIGHT are included. Those trying to avoid contextual analysis are those that continue to try and dismiss RT (Xinhua, etc.) as not RS, but I digress.

You also accuse me of "uncritically accepting state propaganda, but I've done nothing of the sort, and you haven't produced a single incident of that, so your rhetorical flourishes are becoming personal attacks. Obviously you haven't taken the time to read either of the RS/N threads to which I've linked, yet you persist in making derogatory comments while pontificating on policy, yet resorting to ad hominems and being evasive when specifics are examined.

The title of the RfC, in case you missed it, states "state owned and/or operated news agencies", not solely RT, so your assertion that I'm trying to "bless RT" is not only groundless, it is yet another gross misrepresentation of what I've said. The content dispute I was involved in (earlier RS/N thread) has won support, basically, even from the people trying to deny it in that thread, because it was no more than an attributed quote of the Russian PM. I introduced that as an example of POV-pushers trying to dismiss a source wholesale in order to win a content dispute. The second RS/N thread was on a more general question related to RT being RS as a whole.

At least you could take the time to read what it is you purport to comment on so that you don't waste other editors' time.

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NPA.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You're the one who is not listening. I reject the proposal because it is vague, ambiguous and overboard, and contrary to WP:SOURCE. I did not accuse you of that, I accused the proposal. As for your apparent agenda with RT, it's because you keep bringing up RT, but the proposal is about all state media, so stop talking about RT, and it will no longer appear like you have an agenda with respect to RT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

While I get what you are driving at, I don't think the formulation "Misplaced Pages does not distinguish between government controlled news sources and privately controlled news sources" really nails it, firstly because it suggests there are two types of news sources (the BBC, for instance is neither controlled by the government nor privately) and secondly because I'm not sure it is strictly true. There may be some circumstances where it would be right to make this distinction - the real issue is that the line of accountability of a news organisation is not a reason to reject it as a source. We could say something like: "In general, no news source is unusable merely on the basis of its governance structure or its accountability to an owner, organisation or government." Formerip (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

My response to FormerIP is "yes, but". I think it's a bit more complicated than that. For example, HP has a corporate news publication (a magazine). It's definitely not "unusable", but it should not be handled in exactly the same way that one would use an article from The Times, precisely because of its owner. I'm concerned that writing "it's not unusable" will be misunderstood as meaning "it's exactly as usable as any other source". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried to account for that by using the word "merely", but maybe it would be better to tag on something like what I suggested half a mile up the page: "Consideration should be given to whether a potentially biased source's coverage of a particular event or issue is slanted or overblown, to such an extent that it should be either excluded or balanced using other sourcing." Formerip (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that characterizations like "slanted or overblown", in themselves highly subjective, only beg the question as to whether or not a given reliably published POV meets WP:DUE, and if so, how much weight it deserves to present an NPOV text on a given issue. You don't exclude a piece because it is biased, you present the POV in context. It will obviously appear as biased if presented in an NPOV text when contextualized according to WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT. Misplaced Pages does not censor a given POV for being "biased" or "opinionated".--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That's hitting the nail on the head and my main issue with various suggestions by Ubikwit, which always seems to drive towards "treat them all the same", i.e. treat new outlets like RT, Press TV or Xinhua exactly the same way as BBC, AP or Reuters. Exactly that is no-go from my perspective and be the analogon of your treating HP's magazine and The Times as the same in your example.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that's worthy of a direct question: Ubikwit, imagine that I have two sources about, say, a senior Ukrainian politician. Both are long newspaper stories. Both are written by experienced journalists who specialize in Russia-related political news. One is published in The Times and the other is published in RT. They agree with each other on some points, disagree on other points, and each contains some information that the other doesn't (which is all pretty typical for two sources that are completely independent of each other).

How would you advise me to handle these sources? Should I treat both of these sources the same? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Insofar as there is no representation of fact that is considered to be a misrepresentation of fact in the RT article (or the Times article, for that matter), I would advise treating them both the same, as articles from well-established news organizations. Considering that it is unusual for a misrepresentation of fact to be discovered by a Misplaced Pages editor before a professional investigative journalist, that would basically equate with simply treating both sources the same, per "News organizations".

With regard to the overlapping material with respect to which both articles are in agreement, I would think that could be used with or without attribution as straight factual news reporting (it is likely that such reportage would be found elsewhere as well).

With respect to the points of difference, insofar as they meet DUE, I would cite them with inline attribution (as editorial material, basically) in accordance with the respective weight of each point of difference. Material contained in one source but not the other would have to be considered in context and attributed inline in the appropriate context. It might be the case that some of the material not included in one but included in the other was related to a point of difference, for example. In that case, it should be cited together when describing the point of difference as corroborative material.

Given your hypothetical scenario that both articles

"are written by experienced journalists who specialize in Russia-related political news",

I've assumed that WP:FRINGE and the like shouldn't be an issue.

It just dawned on me that one other point we might want to bear in mind that I would assume (not being an attorney) that RT, for example, operating out of Washington DC, is subject to the same laws governing journalism in the USA as the Washington Post, for example.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

RT America is Washington based, RT News however is not, it is Moscow based instead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair enough.

One other point I should have made in response to WhatamIdoing's question was that with respect to WEIGHT, it might be the case that "The Times" statements should be slightly prioritized in terms of order of presentation or the like, as I assume that it would be a more "well-established" news organization than RT, which would still be a "well-established" news organization. The same would hold for assertions related to contentious issues, though I don't think such were included in the hypothetical.

In short, though I am not even that familiar with RT and don't read it regularly, some other editors have tried to equate it with FOX News. I'm inclined to think that FOX would be even more questionable on some topics, such as domestic politics in the USA, due to its highly partisan bias. The guideline does make a distinction between "well-established" and "less-established", a distinction that might become contentious at some point. I would think that sites like Buzzfeed and Gawker would definitely qualify as "less-established"--if they are considered "news organizations" at all--but perhaps it is harder to categorize news organizations like FOX and RT, which, though less established than the NYT, etc., are not exactly upstarts. I only raise this with respect to determining WEIGHT.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 13:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The equation of Fox to RT is really disingenuous. Fox, problems aside, is an independent reputable outlet with adherence to fact-checking and editorial standards. It may be biased to the right, but that does not change what it is any more than MSNBC being biased to the left doesn't change its existence as an independent reputable outlet with adherence to fact-checking and editorial standards. The problem with RT is that it is not an independent outlet, it is not considered reputable by the world in general, and it does not have any sort of journalistic standards it adheres to. That it has a United States bureau is irrelevant, as it's still run by the Russian government, a government that is not kind to press freedoms. If we want to contrast its biases, we should be looking at sources like Alternet and Truthout, which are ideologically similar and, while independent, suffer from the same lack of reputable journalistic standards and adherence to the facts. A right wing analogue might be WorldNetDaily or NewsMax, who have the same problems. RT is a poor source for any claims, controversial or not, because of its reputation. That's why we need to really consider whether we can identify it as reliable at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually while we probably agree with regard to RT, but I'd dispute that Fox is a "an independent reputable outlet with adherence to fact-checking and editorial standard". Similarly to RT there is quite an amount of evidence that suggest otherwise as far as reputation, fact checking and editorial (or journalistic) standards are concerned. It is of course independent of the government nevertheless. Whether that means that Fox is overall "as bad as" RT, I don't know, but personally I wouldn't touch neither RT nor Fox for contentious content.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You can dispute it if you wish, but the facts won't be on your side. The difference, really, is that Fox isn't really reporting anything significant that other reputable agencies aren't. Meanwhile, RT is publishing whatever its government would like it to publish, much like WND or Truthout is going to publish what serves its agenda rather than what is actually happening. The "Fox or RT" debate is a distraction from the true issue of actually contentious sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the facts are on my side actually. The problem here however is the assessment and weighting of those facts. There are enough sources about tinkering at Fox which are rather similar Rosie Gray's article about RT at buzzfeed for instance. However I agree that the discussion is a bit of distraction. Personally I find it bad enough that some people might use Fox for contentious content, but I certainly don't want see RT being used that way as well now (nor down the road Press TV or Xinhua).--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

outdent

It's probably worth pointing out here that disputes over Fox News (which I point out encompasses more than a dozen separate shows, which need to be evaluated separately) is the primary reason that WP:BIASED was written. So if the argument is that RT and Fox News should both be rejected on grounds of political (or financial) bias, then the argument is invalid and against policy.

Based on the comments here, my view is developing like this:

RT is not unusable. (See the /FAQ: no published source is unusable, although some of them can be used only for nearly pointless statements, like "This source contains the following words".) RT can probably be used (like any normally reliable source) for statements of uncontentious facts, although if another, more generally accepted source is handy, then I'd choose that instead. RT can be used with INTEXT attribution for statements of opinion and for contentious facts. When RT represents a relevant minority POV (e.g., when it probably represents how the Russian government disagrees with the entire Western media about what Russia is saying or doing), it probably should be included, with an INTEXT attribution, to reduce the pro-Western systemic bias in our articles and provide a complete summary of all POVs per WP:NPOV. However, when RT differs from all other sources, and it's not really related to Russia, then it should probably be omitted.

This is fundamentally a question of DUE weight for the (semi-)official Russian POV, not just a question of reliability. The reliability issue is not "is it reliable for everything?", but "is it reliable for what it presents, which is the Russian POV on news and events". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: That seems like an accurate encapsulation of the issues.

Do you have any thoughts as to the wording of the Guideline?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 04:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What about this?

I have included some text borrowed from the WP:5 page and changed the 2th paragraph a bit. I have also added some text to the 3th paragraph. The rest of the News organizations section is included unchanged to see it in context.

News organizations

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. Even though all news organizations sometimes make errors, factual reporting from well-established news organizations is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. Factual reporting from less-established news organizations is generally considered less reliable.

Misplaced Pages strive for articles that document and explain all major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their importance in an impartial tone. Even if some news sources may be biased, we does not distinguish between privately controlled news sources and government controlled news sources. As described in the section Biased and opinionated sources below, bias does not make a source unreliable. Policies such as WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT play an important role in balancing any article on Misplaced Pages.

Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, which are responsible for the accuracy. If the article is a reprint, the agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it, as in this reference. If the article not is a reprint, the agency can be left blank as in this reference. It is recommended, but not mandatory to use the Cite news template when referring to news articles.

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

• When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.
• For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name.
• The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate. Misplaced Pages is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.
• Some news organizations have used Misplaced Pages articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing.
• Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Misplaced Pages article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
• Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Each single story must only count as being one source.
• News organizations are not required to publish their editorial policy or editorial board online. Many major newspapers do not publish their editorial policies.
• One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections.

1. "Al Jazeera journalists jailed in Egypt, supporters stunned". THENEWS-UK. Reuters. 23 June 2014.
2. "Iraq crisis: John Kerry in Baghdad as Isis seizes more towns". BBC News. 23 June 2014.
3. Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources, and this is policy.
4. Princeton (2011). "Book reviews" (html). Scholarly definition document. Princeton. Retrieved September 22, 2011.
5. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (2011). "Book reviews" (html). Scholarly definition document. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Retrieved September 22, 2011.
6. A variety of these incidents have been documented by Private Eye and others and discussed on Misplaced Pages, where incorrect details from articles added as vandalism or otherwise have appeared in newspapers

I also believe the News organizations section should clarify the policy regarding questionable sources (with regards to news organizations). Erlbaeko (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• No. If there are so many problems with RT, why are we drafting a policy which makes no distinction between reliable independent news agencies and propaganda? 109.94.137.1 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that this will help. 109.94, the "problems with RT" appear to be in how editors are trying to use it, not with the reliability of the source itself. Erlbaeko, we do distinguish between reputable independent sources (news or otherwise) and non-independent sources (like government-controlled news outlets). Both can be reliable. Whether thy are reliable depends on what you're trying to say. RT is going to be reliable dor a statement like, "The Russian politician, Polly Politician, said that the Moon, being made of green cheese, is a strategic food resource for Russia." It would not be reliable for the statement, "The Moon is made of green cheese". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree to that. Do you have a concrete text to suggest? Maybe change the sentence "Even if some news sources may be biased, we does not distinguish between privately controlled news sources and government controlled news sources." a bit? Erlbaeko (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

But at least depending on the use/context we do distinguish between private and government controlled news outlets. I'm still not convinced that there is a need to change the current text at all, at least all suggestions so far are not really an improvement from my perspective.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing The statement above seemed a little more nuanced, but can you point to the passages where the distinction is made? I did find this essay Misplaced Pages:Independent_sources, but that is not a guideline/policy, and I am skeptical about applying it to nation states.

I'm not sure we need to go there, but considering that the same dispute about RT has apparently been recurring since 2009, the Guideline would seem to need some adjustment so as to forestall the rehashing of the same question. Introducing the distinction at the most general level seemed like a feasible route.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:Five pillars isn't a policy or guideline, either. WP:INDY is widely accepted. (See WP:PGE.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this essay as well Misplaced Pages:Potentially_unreliable_sources#News_media.

I don't think it is helpful, as it contains statements of the sort to which the disputants that have been dismissing reliable articles and statements from RT have made recourse.

Evaluation of the source cannot be made on a meta-criteria in the case of state-controlled media, as it can in the case the tabloid press, which is not a "news organization".

I maintain that all "news organizations" should be treated equally, with more WEIGHT being given to more "well-established" news organizations, and minority opinions (i.e., that of their respective governments) expressed in state-controlled news media be cited with inline attribution where they meet DUE. We cannot have editors trying to win content disputes by repeatedly issuing the "RT not RS" edit summary, for example.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're giving more weight to one than the other, then you are not (by definition) treating them equally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a given, but rests on the distinction between which source is more "well-established". In the case of newcomer sources in the USA, for example, say the Huffington Post, there could be a point of contention there.

At any rate, the focus should be on modifying the policy in a way so as to prevent the type of back-and-forth still ongoing at the RS/N thread (now in the "dead horse" section).

I don't see a problem keeping the distinction between "well-established" and "less-established", but it is probably the case that the guideline should emphasize that news organizations need to be evaluated almost exclusively on the basis of criteria such as the factual reporting to prevent POV-warriors from shouting "propaganda", etc., impeding the creation of content on relevant articles.

And I know I've said this before, but it bears repeating that editors have been arbitrarily deleting material such as the "moon is green cheese" attributed statements by Russian officials published in RT and VoR. This is not a trivial matter, and is different than the case of FOX, which seems to relate to financing (i.e., money and politics vis-a-vis the media) as opposed to state-control. One basically exists within the confines of domestic US politics, the other spans the globe and involves multiple news organizations outside the US.

It seems that a distinction has been posited here in relation to the fact that FOX and, Xinhua, for example, differ in that according to a Misplaced Pages essay, one is considered to be "independent", while the other is "state-controlled", and therefore not independent. I don't think it is possible to demonstrate that FOX is less biased than, for example RT, on the one hand, or more independent than, for example Xinhua. There are inherent systemic biases in both capitalist and communist systems with respect to new reporting. To the extent possible, Misplaced Pages needs to negotiate those with respect to the Guideline in a manner that prevents editorial strife and energy sinks that detract from content creation, while maintaining the integrity of content in relation to the sourcing. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I see the statement

Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication).

in the INDY essay, and I'm afraid that it simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny in many cases. Advertising and government connections often dictate news content in the United States. Viriditas has provided ample examples of that, and there is even a Misplaced Pages article on Media bias in the United States. Asserting that the essay is widely accepted doesn't convince me of anything. I pointed out the study by Habermas, and I am fairly well acquainted with the issues. It's almost equivalent of adopting a neo-liberal stance on the freedom of the press under capitalism.

For all intents and purposes on Misplaced Pages, there is a negligible difference between FOX and RT with respect to ideological presentation of news, and therefore of reliability. Accordingly, it is necessary that the Guideline be further adapted--as was the case regarding FOX, resulting in the addition of WP:BIASED--so that POV pushers ideologically aligned against RT can't arbitrarily prevent it from being used even for the types of statements with respect to which you have openly admitted RT is reliable.

From where I stand, it makes no sense for Misplaced Pages to discriminate between different types of bias with respect to news organizations, because DUE and WEIGHT enable COI discrepancies to be dealt with as such or at the very least be treated as minority viewpoints.

If there are no alternative wording proposals to the denial of a right to discriminate between so-called independent sources (like FOX, cough cough) and state-controlled sources, then I'm going to go back to work on that.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. Do you think that the definition at INDY is wrong, or do you think that some sources that are commonly called independent by editors might not be truly independent? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The short answer to that is, 'yes'.

Aside from the advertising revenue angle analysed by Habermas, Chomsky has analyzed NYT editorials that relate to controversial US foreign policy (Iran-Contra 1980s), for example, and found basically a 100% bias toward the government position in all editorial content, which amounts to denying the public access to alternative, competing POVs that NYT not only new existed, but knew might be more factual than the US government version.

To a certain extent, that neutralizes the argument that "editorial independence" equals more reliable. The notion of editorial independence is feeble.I won't go so far as to say that the NYT is not more reliable than RT/VoR for factual reporting, but when it comes to issues that are important to the government of the USA, the NYT is to be trusted no more to represent the "truth" than RT is regarding issues that are important to Russia. In that regard, NYT is equally as biased as RT.

Regarding the "independence" vis-a-vis advertising "not dictating content" assertion in the INDY article, it is a prima facie error that there is no financial COI in relation to advertising revenue. The profit incentive is the basis of media business, not altruism. Profits come from providing the service of advertising, not from subscriptions, even if the subscribers are interested in the truth. That essay needs to be modified, but is not a prioty like this Guideline is.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so if the definition at INDY is wrong, then a publication can be 100% independent even if the advertisers dictate the content? I don't think so, but that seems to be what you're saying. Perhaps you meant to say something else, like "the definition at INDY is completely correct, but I don't think that any ad-accepting publication can meet that standard"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

proposal three

OK, here is a reworked working version, with the scope restricted to "News organizations".

News organizations

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. Even though all news organizations sometimes make errors, factual reporting from well-established news organizations is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. Factual reporting from less-established news organizations is generally considered less reliable.

Editorial control and a reputation for fact checking are primary in considering whether a news organization is a reliable source. For the purpose of identifying news organizations as reliable sources, Misplaced Pages does not distinguish between government-controlled and privately-controlled organizations.

For the purposes of presenting factual reporting in Misplaced Pages articles, precedence should be given to more “well-established” news organizations. State-controlled news organizations are always considered to be reliable for reporting of official statements and the government POV of the respective country of the news organization.

As described in Biased and opinionated sources, bias does not make a source unreliable. Policies such as WP:YESPOV and WP:DUE play an important role in helping editors balance the POVs represented in reliably published statements on a given subject in order to present the POVs in a neutral manner.

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, which are responsible for the accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it, as in this reference.

1. "Former Turkish Army Chief Is Convicted in 1980 Coup". New York Times. Reuters. 18 June 2014.

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is now reaching the point where "tendentious" is an understatement. This discussion has been rehashed at great length, and no matter how many "proposals" you give, the result will be the same, so verb sap applies -- which is "stop beating a dead horse" as so many others have stated. Will someone hat this entire discussion, please? Collect (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I like the sentence "Editorial control and a reputation for fact checking are primary in considering whether a news organization is a reliable source.". The policy states "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.", but it also gives some examples. "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." I belive the sentense may be changed to something like:

Some news sources may have a poor reputation for fact checking. Such sources includes news sources expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or news source that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinions.

With regard to "Questionable sources", it seems that the only point that might apply to news organizations would be the potential for a COI. The difference between "independent" and "state-controlled" is purported to lie in "editorial independence", but that is a flimsy distinction that doesn't hold up well under the scrutiny of scholarship. Since news organizations without a reputation for fact checking aren't reliable, and editorial control is what prevents wildly inaccurate stories from being printed, I left out the COI part, as the so-called attribution of "editorial independence" is of questionable significance for Misplaced Pages's purposes.

Second, I can't think of any successful news organizations with a poor reputation for fact checking. Do you know of any?

Recall that state-controlled news organizations have very strong editorial control, making fact checking easier for them, to some extent.

I made an initial attempt at prioritizing "more well-established" news organizations for factual reporting, as it seems that generally speaking, on the English Misplaced Pages, we want to use RT/VoR for the POV of the Russian government or statements by Russian officials, not general news reporting. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess there are some tabloids in that category. I would prefer to prioritize "well-established" news organizations for factual reporting, and only use the more subjective "reputation for fact checking" to rule out some poor sources. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, but tabloids don't count as news organizations.

At any rate, I think we basically are aiming at the same objective, and we have a little time before the RfC closes, so let's keep brainstorming the wording.

Prioritizing "well-established" was intended to appease those that might fear the aim of the proposed wording was to displace standard sources with English language versions of state-controlled news sources. That's not the objective, obviously, but we need to account for the concern, which is valid.

I see the prioritization issue as secondary, however, to the question as to the establishment of reliability per se. The objective is to make it a violation of policy to issue a blanket dismissal of state-controlled news organizations as not RS.

So editorial control seems important. Fact checking is related to that, so we should be able to come up with a text that integrates these points.

I want to watch a little of the World Cup now!--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know tabloids didn't count as news organizations.

I do see editorial control and fact checking as important. It is more the "reputation" part I find to be too subjective. It may be enough to replace "reputation" with "good routines" or something like that.

Regarding conflict of interest; I am not sure it should be included, but some news sources may have a potential conflict of interest. A possible text, mostly copied from Note 8 in the verifiability policy, may be: "A potential conflict of interest does not make a news source unreliable with regards to factual reporting, as a conflict of interest is not considered to be misconduct in research. The definition for misconduct is currently limited to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism." Regards. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the term reputation seems problematic. I even mentioned it at the RS/N, but the point was that since it is qualified by "for fact checking", it's scope is limited to that. Also, there is the question of who assesses fact checking and how, and I guess that comes down to accuracy over the years. Viriditas provided this link in relation to RT, for example. Who would evaluate "good routines" would become another point of contention. One more point I see relates to the footnote. News organizations don't necessarily conduct research (except in some forms of investigative journalism), so the verifiability policy footnote may be geared at other types of publications. There was an editor above who raised the COI question, and it is raised on the INDY essay and I saw it one other place as well. I agree that we shouldn't introduce that because for our purposes, it is a nebulous characterization to make solely on the basis of whether the organization is commercially controlled or state controlled. State controlled news organizations are definitely reliable sources on Misplaced Pages for certain statements, such as the government POV and pronouncements/statements by government officials. I think if we minimize the scope to achieving that goal there might be a chance of success.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Tabloid news is still news. Also, gossip columns are "news", and they wouldn't be possible if fact-checking was enforced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. There is nothing in the Guideline at present about tabloids.

At any rate, assuming that tabloids fall under the news organization umbrella, then there would be an area of overlap with "Questionable sources".

Any thoughts on whether a distinction should be made under "News organizations", or tabloids mentioned explicitly under "Questionable sources"?

Note that there were attempts to write RT off as a tabloid/"yellow journalism" in the RS/N thread.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 02:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

proposal 4

I've integrated some basic changes according to the preceding discussions, as per the underlined portions. I added a remark on tabloids that might necessitate making mention in the "Questionable sources" section if deemed appropriate.

News organizations

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. Even though all news organizations sometimes make errors, factual reporting from well-established news organizations is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. Factual reporting from less-established news organizations is generally considered less reliable.

Editorial control and a reputation for fact checking are primary considerations in evaluating whether a news organization is a reliable source. For the purpose of identifying news organizations as reliable sources, Misplaced Pages does not distinguish between government-controlled and privately-controlled organizations.

As described in Biased and opinionated sources, bias does not make a source unreliable. Policies such as WP:YESPOV and WP:DUE play an important role in helping editors balance the POVs represented in reliably published statements on a given subject in order to present the POVs in a neutral manner.

For the purposes of presenting factual reporting in Misplaced Pages articles, precedence should be given to more “well-established” news organizations. State-controlled news organizations are generally considered to be reliable for attributed statements of government officials, the POV of the respective government, and uncontroversial statements, but should be used with caution in relation to controversial events as they unfold.

Unlike tabloids, state-controlled news organizations with a reputation for fact checking and editorial control are not considered to be questionable sources.

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, which are responsible for the accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it, as in this reference.

1. "Former Turkish Army Chief Is Convicted in 1980 Coup". New York Times. Reuters. 18 June 2014.

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 08:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I fear you will not gain consensus here even at proposal 2001 with such a basis. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if not, it is a worthwhile exercise considering the energy sink that this issue represents. Someone else might revisist it later.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 13:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This is now well over 12,000 words now - with most being written by a single editor. I would wager 100 to 1 that no one will wade through it at all. Collect (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Three editors have actively participated in the discussion leading to the production of the current proposed text. It is not necessary for everyone to wade through the entire discussion when there is a proposed text posted for evaluation.

This is an RfC related to an important Guideline, wordcount is irrelevant. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Just my two cents: I use Notimex, the Mexican state news agency on occasion when I am writing articles in a specialty area, Mexican broadcasting (especially television). For instance, XHHCU-TDT includes two articles from Notimex, and Organismo Promotor de Medios Audiovisuales also includes one Notimex piece. The articles are dry but they're solid, reliable, and while certainly the Mexican government has an interest in promoting public television in Mexico, it's not like that interest makes the articles unreliable. Raymie (t • c) 23:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Another two cents from a disinterested editor (I've just been invited to comment via the Feedback Request Service): This looks to me like a remarkably long debate by a small number of slightly obsessed editors to advance a particular point about RT and VoR. Any attempt to claim that the proposals here are in any sense general is disingenuous: this discussion, although it purports to be about what constitutes a reliable source in general, is clearly pushing for a particular result with respect to RT and VoR.

As for RT and VoR, it's fairly clear to most adults that they are propaganda outlets, but in propaganda it is well-known that "if you add some truth to the lie, it makes the lie stronger" (I can't remember the exact phrase, but that's the sense of it). Of course there will be true items on RT and VoR, but tremendous discrimination must be used, and because of this it's probably wiser to treat these sources are generally unreliable.

I see that this discussion grew out of an earlier discussion here, where RGloucester makes the following sensible remark: "All intelligent people are skeptical of the news media. Everyone knows where the stuff comes from. However, that doesn't mean that usually reliable sources that are known to be largely independent and acclaimed by the vast majority of people can suddenly be equated with a state-run sensationalist outlet that is widely questioned in reliable sources across the English-speaking world." Or, to put it another way, RT is not, and should not be treated as, a reliable source in the same way that we treat (say) the BBC.

I'm broadly opposed to any changes to current policies or guidelines that might be proposed in the present discussion, as I feel that a small number of editors on one side of the debate aren't acting in good faith, but are pushing for a particular change so that it will benefit their particular position in an earlier discussion. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The point is not whether they are "propaganda outlets" or not, it is whether Misplaced Pages presents their POV in a neutral manner balanced with other respective POVs. You don't have to agree with or like the POV of any news organizations/government to present it according to NPOV. A lot of editors seem intent on simply denying that the government of Venezuela, for example, has a POV, resulting in an editing environment where only POVs contra that of the government of Venezuela can be presented to the reader, making NPOV a dead letter.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The last couple proposals sounded good. Additionally, it wouldn't hurt to mention that most private media is heavily govt regulated. Hopefully one or two final ones will be proposed in an RfC and brought to community since I'd like to see this issue a bit more settled. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional comments

1. News outlets are often very bad at people's ages, number of children and biographical details.
2. News outlets are often wrong about breaking news (extreme example, on 11 September 2001, one major on-line news outlet initially recycled the story about a light aircraft colliding with WTC, form several years before)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC).

Anent the RT "reliability" The Malaysian plane may have been shot down by official Ukrainian forces. And the plane had questionable motives for flying in a war zone in the first place.

So far no official explanation has been given as to the unusual flight path. But a conflict between Russia and Ukraine over the airspace above Crimea may have played a role. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAN), a UN watchdog, considers the airspace over the region part of Ukraine’s national traffic control responsibility. Russia has contested this ever since the former Ukrainian region became part of Russia.

appears to imply the plane was deliberately sent over the "war zone" by Ukrainian authorities, and that the airspace is Russian. Is there any wonder why RT may appear to fail WP:RS for many purposes on Misplaced Pages? Collect (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I will point to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE... It isn't just RT... all of the news orgs are currently spouting out sensationalist speculation in the absence of real "news". None of them are giving actual facts yet... because few concrete facts have yet to emerge. At the moment, including any media speculation (regardless of who's view point it supports) is UNDUE. I have often wished we had a rule saying that Misplaced Pages should not create an article on any event until a month after it happens... just so we can sift out the speculation and false reports, and gain some historical perspective on the event. I know that will never gain consensus, but I still wish we had such a rule. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar, and would add that in a case such as this, I would think we would use other sources for the general info, including US sources such as this, in relation to the reason for using the flight path, and only use RT in the case that there was something of relevance in their reporting of the POV of the Russian government, assuming that it doesn't change after the reporting has settled down.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

A month? I'd be happy with just three days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This guideline contains a redundant content fork

Two of these sections are almost entirely redundant. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Sources that are usually not reliable contains much of the same text as Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources#Questionable and self-published sources. Should these sections be merged? Jarble (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Some things are worth stating more than once, and in more than one place. I would leave them as is. Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:Content fork applies to Misplaced Pages articles, not to Misplaced Pages policy or guideline pages. Furthermore, like the Related articles section of WP:Content fork states, "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

(E/C) First, if there is any substantive difference, this guideline should be changed to conform with the policy. I don't think you can call a guideline a fork of a policy, in the usual sense of fork. Second, it's not bad to say it again, as it were, and someday we may come up with a more detailed guideline to go along with the policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is no issue with relevant info being on two pages if it is pertinent to both of them. Now, if the two sections significantly contradicted each other then therecis a problem.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"scholarship" section

My attention was just called to this section and I was bold and edited it.. First bullet point made a meaningful distinction between secondary and primary sources, and from there the distinction went out the window, which made this self-contradictory. WP prefers secondary sources always, to avoid OR and giving UNDUE weight. So I added the primary/secondary distinction in the bullets that followed. I hope this makes sense to everybody. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

What basis is there to claim that all dissertations are themselves primary sources? That cannot be true. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't really claim to be supportive of this. What's a "research paper"? Also, I suspect that the reason that the primary/secondary/tertiary stuff "went out the window" after the first bullet point is because it was assumed to have been dealt with adequately there, and the rest proceeded to discuss other factors that need to be considered. "Secondary" is not a synonym for reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The edit seems fine to me. It might be a good idea to clarify that dissertations are primary sources specifically on the research being reported. (They may be secondary where they merely report the results of previous research, e.g. in the background section. But of course, whether it would meet RS is another matter.)

I can think of a few ways to define "research paper," but off the top of my head I would say "description of new knowledge published in an academic journal." The term was already used by the policy, under the first bullet point. Sunrise (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree that the edit is somewhat problematic, as there are too many gray zones, and we shouldn't be giving the impression that research papers are to be dismissed as "primary sources". Review practices vary from field to field, but such papers are often peer-reviewed, especially if they are published in journals, and even PhD theses are "peer-reviewed" to some extent. There are probably too many gradations between primary and secondary when it comes to "research papers" to make the distinction itself very useful. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 02:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Odd. I agree with you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't: Ubikwit seems to be confusing peer review with review articles. A non-peer-reviewed review article is a secondary source. A peer-reviewed report of new experimental results is a primary source. There really aren't any "gradations" between "reporting this new information from my own lab" and "analyzing what multiple labs have already reported". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

My academic training is in the humanities and social sciences, primarily. Reporting on experimental results in applied sciences is different from reporting on survey results in social sciences. The differences inhere in both the framing of the evaluative lens through with the data is examined, and the nature of the data itself.

I'm not arguing that where there is meta-analysis on a given topic it should not be prioritized over the studies it analyzes; however, even meta-analysis should not be used as a reason not to cite more recent research--with attribution, as appropriate--because meta-analysis are few and far between. Peer-reviewed review articles, while meta-analysis, are not books, so there is another gradation.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ubukwit. I think the preference for secondary sources is just as crucial (maybe more so) in the social sciences and these survey reports (primary sources for us). On outcomes of children of gay parents.. do we cite the publication of survey results by Mark Regnerus or the June 2014 Crouch study or both? How much weight do we give them? This is what reviews is the expert literature are for. Those reviews are where the field "maps" where it stands. The popular (and partisan) press is unreliable for providing those maps - for helping us contextualize primary sources, which we are not allowed to do. (I haven't looked but i am scared to see how this stuff has been handled in WP). Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@jytdog: The problematic point is the "always". While it is true that WP in general prefers secondary sources, it is not true (in particular in the context of scholarly publications) that the secondary source is always better, instead peer review status, reputation of author and publisher and date matter as well. For instance clearly outdated secondary meta-analysis is not to be preferred over a recent highly reputable primary source. A similar argument could possibly be made for non peer reviewed meta analysis of rather low reputation. In other words when assessing such scholarly sources one cannot only consider primary versus secondary (as an absolute) but the other factors need to be considered as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

WAID, I just dealt with a new-ish, non-scientifically-educated editor who was flummoxed by the inconsistency in this section, where yes the essential distinction between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is discarded after the first paragraph. Everybody (especially the scientists among you) please try to put aside what you already know and try to read this section with fresh eyes. It is really confusing, especially with the switching of terminology. I am reinstating but removing the "always" that provoked kmhkmh to revert... thanks for considering this!! Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The change is strange. PhD dissertations can be primary or secondary sources. If we want to write about the philosophy of David Chalmers, Chalmers' 1993 dissertation is a primary source. If we want to write about the philosophy of Saul Kripke, Chalmers' 1993 dissertation is a secondary source.

Mutatis mutandis for "Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The section is seriously broken, both before and after the changes. The attempt to shoehorn the primary/secondary divide into the rules at every opportunity is fundamentally flawed. What counts as a primary source in, say, history (eg. an ancient manuscript or an internal memo in a government archive) is not at all similar to what counts as a primary source in, say, physics (an original research article in a journal). Trying to make the rules fit both is a waste of time at best. A recent physics article in Nature is definitely not inferior to a 10-year old survey article. The key to the problem is not classification as primary or secondary, but classification as to the eminence and currency of the source together with the degree of interpretation required in order to present it in Misplaced Pages. We have to avoid original research, not avoid the research of experts. The depiction of "research papers" as to be avoided is particularly shocking to a scientist — actually many scientific parts of Misplaced Pages are great mainly because editors there do not follow the principles suggested here. Also, the difference between dissertations and other research is that they are written by less experienced scholars and may have been subject to less expert scrutiny; nothing to do with being primary or secondary (agree with Atethnekos on this). Zero 07:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree (see my posting above). The problem is that exactly those unexperienced, confused ediots jytdog seems to refer to are likely to misread a seemingly "consistent and simple" by insisting on the superiority of secondary source or meta analysis no matter the context (such as being clearly outdated or not being peer reviewed) and on applying rule's for their own sake (rather than as tool to assure a good encyclopedic article). While our guideline should be as easy as possible, the should not provide a misleading simplicity.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It is important to remember why we have a caution about using primary sources in the first place... it isn't that we consider primary sources unreliable (some are, others are not. That has to be determined on a case by case basis, and context matters a lot). The reason why we favor secondary sources and caution the use of primary sources is that primary sources can easily be misused in support of Original research. If you do use them appropriately and carefully, we actually allow primary sources.
I often see comments saying that a primary source is not allowed because it contains research that is original. That is a misunderstanding of the NOR policy... it is OK for a source to contain research that is original (and in the case of dissertations, they are often supposed to contain original research). Remember that it's not a violation of NOR to cite someone else's published original research... the caution is to prevent our editors from misusing primary sources in support their own original research (ie we don't want our editors to come up with their own conclusions and analysis ... conclusions and analysis that are not contained in the source they are citing). Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly true that some types of primary source, such as original documents that need expert interpretation, can too easily lead editors into the sin of original research. However, I don't know why a dissertation that is a primary source would have this effect any more than a dissertation that is a secondary source. Zero 12:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Jytdog. The issue is not whether primary sources are reliable, but whether presenting them complies with neutrality. "Balancing aspects" says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." If a new study returns results that differ from previous studies, it could be used to challenge scientific consensus. But until and if the scientific community responds to the study, or at least it gets press coverage, there is no justification for including it. Typical areas where this becomes a problem are in racial studies, aspartame, water fluoridation, global warming and alternative medicine.

Most people are aware of the qualification in opinion polls: "accurate within x percentage points, 19 out of 20 times." Studies using samples will in some cases return results that do not accurately reflect the population.

In social sciences, there are numerous examples of scholars who present new interpretations, few of which gain any acceptance in mainstream scholarship. A recent book for example claimed that fascism was a form of democracy. A few of the most prominent fascism scholars reviewed the book and all dismissed the view. Subsequent studies on fascism ignored it. Only by consulting secondary sources can we determine what weight the theory deserves.

In conclusion, if a new study receives no acceptance or even notice from the academic community, then it does not belong in articles.

TFD (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually while I agree with most of what you've said in general there are nevertheless 2 issues here.

One is stating that it isn't a question of reliability but neutrality. This seems to imply that WP may forgo reliability for neutrality's sake or polemically speaking we would intentionally include scientifically false material just to make an article neutral (or drop material known be scientifically to be true). I'd strongly disagree which any such tendency, reliability trumps neutrality in doubt not the other way around. Also this policy deals with the reliability requirements and not with neutrality, there's a separate policy for that.

Another problem is that this approach to the policy frames it under the consideration of classic fields of conflict in WP. While arguably this is this important application of the policies, they nevertheless apply for the rest of Misplaced Pages as well where they can pose problem to keep articles comprehensive and up-to-date.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I'm not finding the "inconsistency". There are multiple, independent factors that must be considered. The historiography axis is only one (usually important) factor among many. You need to consider historiographic classification, but you also and simultaneously consider whether it's been peer-reviewed (or the equivalent), and also and simultaneously consider whether it's an isolated publication, and whether it's been published by a reputable publisher, and so forth. It's not good enough to say, "secondary source, so no more editorial judgment needed!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

exactly--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that 100%, WAID! But in my mind, the first filter should always be "is this a secondary source that provides insight into how the field views idea X?" after that, the other things should definitely kick in. So, so much of the policies and guidelines urge us to reach first for secondary sources, and there is real wisdom in that. WP's mission is to express the sum of human knowledge. We are all editors. Our role is to read and understand the reliable secondary and tertiary sources in which experts have pulled the basic research together into a coherent picture, and summarize and edit together what those sources say, in clear English that a person with a decent education can understand. In my experience, editors who insist on basing content on primary sources and on creating extensive or strong content based on them, are often agenda-driven — there is something in the real world that is very important to them, and they want that idea expressed in WP and given strong WP:WEIGHT. In the very act of doing that — in selecting a given primary source over others that say different or even contradictory things, and giving their chosen source a lot of weight (any weight at all, actually!) — they are performing original research. (Blueboar the OR is on the meta-level, not on the level of the content itself) It is hard to get people to see this. It is hard for people to think like scholars, with discipline, and actually listen to and be taught by reliable secondary sources, instead of acting like barroom philosophers who shoot from the hip, or grabbing the latest headline or press release about a new study - that happens to support some cause they believe in or some other reason - and add content to Misplaced Pages based on that primary source. The discipline of studying secondary sources and editing content based on them - in putting egos aside and letting the secondary sources speak - is probably the key thing that saves Misplaced Pages from the prison of its editors' personal, limited perspectives. We are in no hurry and we want to provide reliable, NPOV information. I think it is really important that this guideline help editors (especially new ones!) understand the importance of secondary sources, and gives guidance to editors to help them understand not only how various kinds of sources fit into the primary/secondary/tertiary categories, but also provide other key guidance as well (peer review, citations, etc). I really hope we express all this stuff in this section, as clearly as possible. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

sorry this was very long and kind of preachy. But to me, the issue of secondary sources goes to the heart of what it means to be an editor at Misplaced Pages - this crazy place where anyone can edit and where your RL identity doesn't matter a hoot. It is not like any other place - nothing like being author of an article or book in RL. ( Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, obviously we should use the most reliable sources where available. But what justification could there be in including a research study that has received no attention in secondary sources? For example, suppose Dr. X found that 8 out of 100 students who drank colas during the month got colds, compared with 10 out of 100 who did not drink colas. Dr. X then concludes that colas may help prevent colds.

Some one reads "Coca-Cola for Common Cold, Flu & Diarrhea" at the Natural Remedies Center website, and decides to search for a "reliable source" for the medicinal values of colas.

A reasonable approach by editors would be to consult secondary sources to see what reception the original study received and whether there were other studies that had different results. But with your approach, that becomes unnecessary. Dr. X's study is a reliable source (he probably did conduct the test as described) and bingo! into all the articles about colds and colas it goes.

TFD (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you consider "my approach" since i didn't really suggest one, other that you cannot always/solely rely on the difference between secondary and primary.

As far as your reasonable approach is concerned, I have no issue with that. I'm merely saying there are other the editor should look at other criteria as well, such as the reputation of the author and publisher and the date of the publication. The former most likely disqualifies your coca-cola study already.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Then you do not appear to understand the difference between a primary study and a secondary source. There is nothing about studying connections between cola consumption and the common cold that reflects on the reputation of the author or the publisher. How else would we learn about the affects of foods if researchers did not conduct studies and academic journals publish their results? It could be that the researcher had believed and still believed there was no connection, but it would be unethical for him or her to suppress the results. OTOH if he or she were to write a textbook (a tertiary source) he or she would probably ignore their own primary study unless it had received attention in secondary sources and its significance and degree of acceptance could be assessed. Which is exactly what we should do. TFD (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Kmhkmh was saying that the website in question was already such a lousy source for health information that it doesn't even matter if the particular page is a primary or secondary source: you shouldn't use it, even if it were a secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Even more let's assume that website would have published a "meta-analysis" on that subject, a review article or any other type of secondary source. Should we really prefer that website than over a primary source, which happens to be a peer reviewed article published by a well established author in a rather reputable science magazine? I think not. However this is exactly what we would get if you only look at primary versus secondary and ignore everything else.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

An alternative medicine website is not a "meta-analysis." Scientists write meta-analyses and publish them in peer-reviewed journals. They explain the various studies that have been conducted and the degree of acceptence their results have had.

However alternative medicine websites are often resources for finding obscure primary studies of the highest quality that have findings contrary to generally accepted views. For example, an anti-aspartame website has a list of 68 primary studies, most of which are reliable primary studies, that suggest aspartame is harmful. Yet there have been thousands of studies which disagree and review studies show that the adverse findings have not been accepted. Unless you think editors should read all the thousands of studies and form their own conclusions, none of these studies are helpful. How else would we determine what weight to provide these studies?

TFD (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we are talking about a different things. Obviously a "website" is not "meta-analysis". The website can be used for "publishing" a "meta-analysis". However now I'm not sure what you want with the website at all if you meant to refer to publication merely linked or republished on the website. In that case we website is completely irrelevant and we just need to look at the linked publications. Obviously you need primarily secondary sources to determine the weight of various primary studies. But even there in doubt you should not look primary versus secondary only. But look at reputation of the publications and their dates. What do you do in the case of review study that is 10 years old and new highly reputable primary covering aspects that weren't even considered 10 years ago?--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

kmhkmh, nobody is saying "ignore everything else"....Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, the first points on my screening process are usually not primary vs secondary, but published vs self-published and independent vs affiliated. Primary vs secondary (WP:Secondary does not mean independent, of course) is usually my third point, assuming that the source hasn't failed already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

that makes sense! Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to a primary research study of 32 subjects published in a peer-reviewed journal that concludes "It appears that some people are particularly susceptible to headaches caused by aspartame and may want to limit their consumption." And here is a link to a review study of 20 years of aspartame primary research studies, including the one linked to above. It was also published in a peer-reviewed journal. It concludes, "When all the research on aspartame, including evaluations in both the premarketing and postmarketing periods, is examined as a whole, it is clear that aspartame is safe, and there are no unresolved questions regarding its safety under conditions of intended use."

Both are equally reliable sources. Please tell me why we should provide equal weight to the first primary study and the second review study.

TFD (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the second. I don't think there is any dispute regarding this. The issue is that you seem to want to generalize the proper treatment of this particular scenario for all possible scenarios in WP, that's where people disagree.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

My point is that in order to present the findings of primary studies, and that includes opinions in original papers in social sciences, we need to establish the degree of acceptance they have. And that can only be done by referencing secondary sources that address that issue. Often of course primary studies will provide an overview of the opinions of experts to date, which can be very useful. But in that case we are using them as secondary sources. TFD (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Demur. The true "Degree of acceptance" is not determined by "how many others cite the same source." In fact there have been recent cases where a group of researchers in a small field routinely "peer reviewed" themselves - thus - by that standard - making all of their own papers "more reliable" per Misplaced Pages policy. Rather, it is likely better to assign greater weight proportionately where criticisms of a source have been made than just to rely on number of usages. This is true of empirical research papers, and, also IMO, for "social sciences" where groups of writers routinely cite one another to increase their "weight." Some might note that this is especially true in economics and political articles, and more rarely in ethnographic studies. Collect (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not say "The true "Degree of acceptance" is...determined by "how many others cite the same source."" In fact I provided an example of an oft-cited (86 results on Google scholar) study whose conclusions are not accepted. And the fact that the results of a primary study have been accepted or rejected has no bearing of its reliability. No one has ever questioned the validity of the testing conducted. TFD (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The complicated case is when you're deciding between a good primary and a poor secondary. For example, imagine that your choices are a peer-reviewed primary in a prestigious academic journal vs an article in a regular magazine that criticizes it in detail. (I've seen this for psychiatric and sexual research topics that make a splash in the media, but I expect that it's true for any hot-button research, like whether to use nuclear reactors to mitigate climate change.) There's no simple rule of thumb for that situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The answer to that hypothetical seems somewhat obvious, with the academic source being more reliable in every case.

I wouldn't consider the academic source to be primary here, either, unless it was reporting on experimental results, for example. And if that were the case in the field of psychology, for example, then you would use both the study and the criticism, and provide in-line attribution of the criticism found in the popular media (magazine) source. Moreover, it's hard to see how a popular media source could be consider a valid "secondary" source when commenting on a research paper--which generally would seem to fall outside the scope of such publications, unless they bring on a guest commentator with expertise in the relevant field.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you consider the academic source to be primary? I directly specified that it was "a peer-reviewed primary" source. I'm going to assume that you weren't reading very carefully.

Guest authors are fairly common, and when the subject is popular material about health, some qualified scientists prefer to address the public directly, and not only their professional colleagues. In other cases, you will get responses from well-informed lay people. Breast cancer activists sometimes take apart cancer studies in a very competent manner. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this a false dilemma driven by WP:RECENTISM? Why not wait for a review in the biomedical literature... We are in no hurry. Jytdog (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: OK, I acknowledge your distinction of "peer-reviewed primary" source, but I think that the distinction is generally of more relevance to the applied sciences (and some social sciences, such as economics, based on statistical data).

Studies in the social sciences or papers in the humanities, say in the field of Comparative Literature, for example, as primary sources is because they are highly subjective interpretations of data that is subject to other highly subjective determinations through different theoretical lenses, and generally have a longer shelf life, so to speak, than works in the applied sciences. A review of such a work is sometimes more indicative of the mindset of the reviewer than the quality of the work being scrutinized. That applies to books as well as papers, with meta-analysis publications being few and far between. I'm tempted to say that there is a different sociology of knowledge in the humanities/social sciences, and that it can be found in the publications

WP:RECENTISM is a case in point, because in a field, such as breast cancer research, where there is research being published every month, versus a field like historical linguistics, where there may only be a couple of papers published in a given year on a given topic (e.g., in national level journals). Those papers have to be deemed reliable on Misplaced Pages, and if they are peer-reviewed, I am inclined to consider them secondary instead of primary, depending on the nature of the journal and review process. Is there no significant difference in gradation (between primary and secondary) in relation to paper published in a national (or international level) academic journals and a PhD dissertations reviewed only by faculty at a given university, for example? --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have noted this before, but it is worth noting again. It is a bit silly to talk of academic works as being "primary" or "secondary"... because they usually include both primary material and secondary material. For example, a historian writing a paper about a collection of old documents may include an examination the previous analyses that past historians have done, and then reach the novel conclusion that all those prior historians got it wrong. Is his paper primary or secondary? Well, it's actually a bit of both. His discussion of what prior historians have said is secondary... but his paper is the primary source for his conclusion. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No.

Really: no.

You don't have to "consider them secondary". You don't need to tell fairy tales about their historiographical classification. You don't have to wave your hands and say the magic word ("secondary") over the source. When you've got good sources, you can just WP:USEPRIMARY sources. Using primary sources is not prohibited. (You do have to be a bit more careful with how you use them, because the average primary is easier to misuse than the average secondary, especially where neutrality issues are concerned.)

WP:Secondary does not mean good. Primary does not mean bad. If you've got a highly relevant, properly published, carefully fact-checked, independent primary source in a reputable journal, then you may use it (appropriately, of course), even though it's a primary source. If you've got a garbage secondary published online with a "review" process consisting of blog comments, then you should not use it, even though it's a secondary source. Primary and secondary are not magic words. Classification into primary and secondary is only one of the factors you should consider when selecting sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, in your hypothetical example, scientists conduct a survey of psychiatric patients and reach a conclusions hitherto unknown to pyschiatry, and publish their findings in a prestigious journal. There is absolutely no response to the paper by any experts and the only mention of it is in a down-market tabloid. You rightly say that the original study is a better source than the unreliable secondary source. But that misses the point. If the academic community ignores the paper, why are we adding it to articles about psychiatry and giving it attention that experts do not? Blueboar, certainly primary sources can sometimes also be used as secondary sources. That happens when they provide a background to the literature before describing their own experiments/surveys. The issue though is what to do with the part of the paper which can only be seen as a primary source. TFD (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

For tiny subfields, the review cycle can be very long indeed. For something that gets a lot of attention in the popular press, it is appropriate to have an up-to-date article. In some cases, this means using the latest research (at least to acknowledge that it exists) rather than only reviews.

BTW, in case it's ever useful to you, ODDD is my favorite example of primary/secondary combination sources. There are only about 100 people in the world with that rare disease. The few review articles are also case studies—usually, n=1 (one family, sometimes just one person) case studies. A case study of n=1 is simultaneously as weak a level of evidence as exists, and as strong a level of evidence as you are likely to see for such a rare disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Addressing "cannibalistic" tertiary sources

Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#Cannibalistic tertiary sources should be of interest to many participants here, and mentioned RS's as well as NOR's handling of tertiary sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  15:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Cocatalog.loc.gov

Shouldn't this be unreliable as it does feature bad qualities like on Disney Jessie it has Jessie's Big Break written as 299 but it also has it listed as 210/211 when it is actually 216/217 and 210 and 211 are Teachers Pest and To Be Me, or Not to Be Me(http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?ti=26,0&Search%5FArg=disney%20jessie&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=tXaZrOZgwO-4iU_gSF-xM7OZp164z&SEQ=20140718020644&SID=1) CHall2002 (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

cherrypicking primary sources

In this dif I added "Also be wary of using a primary source that supports a particular point of view when there are others that support different or contradictory point of views; one of the key reasons that all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines urge reliance on secondary sources, is to avoid this kind of cherrypicking among primary sources and instead rely on secondary sources that show what weight (if any) are given to various primary sources by experts in the field." with edit note "add bit about cherrypicking primary sources and importance of 2ndary sources in determining what weight if any to give primaries"

In this dif Blueboar reverted, with edit note "Instruction creep... Already covered at WP:UNDUE... cherry picking primary sources is a neutrality issue, not a reliability issue, and so should not be mentioned here."

I think it is important to have this here, since editors cherrypick primary sources frequently, and cite this passage as justification for it. As per WP:BRD am opening a discussion. Happy to amend/shorten but I feel strongly about that cherrypicking in this way damages the encyclopedia and we should state this here. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The thing is... what you are concerned about isn't really a reliability issue. When we say: "According to primary source X, blah blah is true", primary source X is a reliable source for that statement (in fact, it is the single most reliable source possible for that statement). Now, there may be many reasons why we should not include that statement in the first place (WP:UNDUE being a prominent one)... but the reliability of primary source X isn't one of those reasons. As used... it is very reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I hear you on that. very much. but i think it is better for the encyclopedia to have these two notions knitted together clearly - many editors fail to see the way this guideline and the NPOV policy work together, and won't listen, just saying "I can use this, in this way -- it says so in RS". is there a way you can see a way to knit the guideline and policy together here? like i said happy to make it shorter... and i fully understand the concern with creep. Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I'd appreciate if text suggestions are discussed here first and preferably edits occur only after a consensus of sorts is reached. The bold editing approach which is fine for articles is imho less suited for (core) policies. In fact that they sometimes might feel like a moving target is really annoying for other editors looking them up. The core policies should be conservatively edited and remain as stable as possible.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, it's still unnecessary instruction creep to discuss it here. The problem is that someone can improperly cherry pick from a primary source and actually be correct in saying that the source passes WP:RS... that's because cherry picking isn't really a reliability issue. Yes, cherry picking is a problem, but it is a problem that has nothing to do with whether the source is reliable or not.

To combat cherry picking, what you need to do is point the editor at the policies and guidelines that actually do apply... WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, etc. You want to move the cherry picker away from his/her focus on WP:IRS... and help that editor to understand that there are other policies and guidelines that apply. Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we do that like this?

"When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view."

That will point the editor at the policies that do apply, and also help out Jytdog. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be lovely and fine by me. Thank you. Blueboar can you live with that? thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Meh... I would prefer to not mention NPOV at all in that paragraph... but I can live with a simple link. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

thank you for wikicompromising. implementing. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What really is a reliable source?

I'm not really sure if there are any when it comes to government related issues, and most of those topics brand editors conspiracy theorist nutters if you don't include an article from a well known organization. Misplaced Pages tells you to include reliable sources such as articles from news sites, but what if those articles are government-related topics? You would call for the reliable sources, but they are government-run news companies. So what then? It's a really confusing issue because you don't know what is reliable as news companies have a tendency to cover up the truth when governments come into those types of issues because they have been told to. Eck 08:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckstasy (talk • contribs)

Um... most news companies tend to expose the truth, not cover it up... (catching the government in a lie sells more papers). Blueboar (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Eckstasy I reviewed your recent edit histories to see what specific issues might be driving your question. Our sourcing requirements are built exactly to ascertain what ideas are WP:FRINGE and which are mainstream and to treat them as such in Misplaced Pages. Holocaust denial will not get far here. Jytdog (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Those Holocaust s/denials/revisions/ were nothing to do with this question, but thanks. I also fail to understand why you guys call it that, it's as if Misplaced Pages doesn't support the academics of this subject in the words of "here, take this fact, don't try to look into it further" - also, I'm Jewish so that doesn't work atall. Eck (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who you are here - it is not verifiable and no one cares. What matters is what you do, and how you do it. Misplaced Pages is built from the ground up to provide reliable information to the public, as determined by reliable sources produced by the institutions that generate and validate knowledge in our society. This is not a place to right great wrongs of any kind - you cannot fight those battles here. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

So we only take large media output and common knowledge as reliable sources? That's alot of room for corruption and false stories which may one day even render Misplaced Pages's integrity obsolete on certain topics. The best reliable sources are the scientifically proven ones. Eck (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Done here. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A sample edit from this poster to clarify his position: ",It is believed that around 1.1 million Jews died during WW2 as a result from disease and malnutrition in camps due to the Nazi's being unable to make deliveries of food and medicine as major roads were bombed by the Allies <ref> An 'Unknown Holocaust' and the Hijacking of History</ref><ref> The lie of the century, 2014</ref>" Not surprisingly that replaced "Around 6 million Jews were killed during the Holocaust,". Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, what does this have to do with this? Eck (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

First, I note that you reverted my edit above, from your talk page partially in response to your being reverted, and you commented there " Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue." Next time ask me first. It's clearly relevant as it seems to demonstrates the type of sources that you think should be considered reliable sources to back statements of fact. That seems blatantly obvious as I made sure the sources could easily be seen. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I only reverted it because this is closely becoming a personal attack, The comment I made was entirely irrelevant to my past edits and it was just a general question about the entirety of reliable sources; as I already stated above in reply to Jytdog, you technically reposted Jytdog's question by copying the source of an edit. Eck (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Eckstasy, given the vagueness of your initial question, it is unsurprising that other contributors would look at your editing history to see if they could figure out what you were referring to. Maybe you should have enquired about Misplaced Pages policy on identifying reliable sources before making what was clearly going to be a controversial edit to the Holocaust page... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to government related issues in general including the existence of scientific evidence but the media still gets gagged and in turn renders no reliable sources. Throughout history institutions have attempted to verify things the scientific way but they still get black markers because the government/mass media deny it. I have read alot of WP:IRS but it doesn't cover this. Eck (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, the acceptability of a scientific source is dependant on its credibility within the relevant academic field. If you want an encyclopaedia that bases its assessment of sources on vague assertions about 'government gagging' and similar conspiratorial premises, you will need to look elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

On the original question, in case anyone ever looks through the archives for help:

Question: "What really is a reliable source?"

Answer: It depends entirely on the statement you're trying to support. A type of source that is unreliable for X may be authoritative for Y. There is no source that is reliable for all possible statements, and no published source that is unreliable for all possible statements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well said, thanks Eck (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

Some administrator tell me if IBOS is a reliable source. Because I found they have all the details of Bollywood box office collections with inflation adjusted--Enterths300000 (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Enterths300000, you want to ask at WP:RSN. Any editor can respond, we Admins don't have special rights to declare something reliable. Dougweller (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Undergraduate honors theses

I would like to propose an edit to the guildelines:

• old: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence"

to

• new: "Masters dissertations, theses and honors undergraduate theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."

Rationale: Some colleges and universities have undergraduate honors programs where students undertake a year of rigorous study working closely with faculty advisor, in the end producing an honors undergraduate theses. While perhaps some do not rise to the level of making an original significant contribution to the scholarly community, some have. The following are examples of such undergraduate theses which represent a small sample of the many undergraduate theses that should be considered reliable sources per this wikipedia policy:

• Merchant, Karima (2012). How Men And Women Differ: Gender Differences in Communication Styles, Influence Tactics, and Leadership Styles (B.A. thesis). Claremont McKenna College.

Cited 8 times in Google Scholar

• Moore, Anne (2008). Representations of the Temperley-Lieb Algebra (B.A. thesis). Macalester College. {{cite thesis}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Cited 4 times in Google Scholar

• Orr, Kaitlyn (2008). Spatial Patterns of Foreign Direct Investment: Do Agglomeration Effects Explain the Spatial Pattern of FDI in Latin America and Asia: a Spatial Econometric Analysis (B.A. thesis). Macalester College.

Cited 3 times in Google Scholar

Hi. Your change doesn't accomplish your goal (a "Masters thesis" is what you do in a masters program, not a BS or BA program). And google scholar is no measure of much anything, especially when you look closely at the results. None of your examples had serious impact. (the first one is cited by what appear to be 6 other undergrad theses, a popular book, and a blog) Jytdog (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair point on the first example, I was doing a quick site search in Google Scholar from well known undergraduate theses repositories looking for examples that have been cited in peer reviewed journal articles. The 3rd one definitely has. I didn't do an exhaustive search on the matter. Regardless, I still think the policy should be open to allow for undergraduate theses with a significant scholarly impact to be cited, similar to master's theses.Xavier86 (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

sorry i see that you did add "undergraduate" so the amendment does accomplish what you wanted. on the third dissertation, it was cited in one published paper, and that paper discusses the dissertation primarily to criticize its methodology. the 2nd link is dead (goes to the guys' linked in page instead of his website) but in any case the article at the dead link appears to have been writteb by the same person who cited the dissertation in the published paper. the third link is to a paper presented at a conference. you call that "significant scholarly impact"? in general i am opposed to this. there is already so much schlock that people try to bring as sources. and if folks are going to have as low a bar as you do for "significant" i think this will just open the door to more bad sources. and finally, if the work really does have big impact it will surely be cited by reliable sources and the results can come in that way. that is my take. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm wary of this as well. Normally theses aren't considered part of the literature even at the graduate level until they are published in a peer-reviewed journal. Partly that's because an advisory committee technically does peer-review the content (usually with a degree of rigor), but people uninvolved with the work or person aren't involved. Undergrad theses typically aren't as rigorous as grad level theses because they usually (to my knowledge) lack a committee and typically just have an advisor. A graduate thesis is already a step below our typical primary sources within journal articles, so it'd seem like we'd be knocking down the reliability of sources even further to include undergrad work.

On a slight side note, is there supposed to be a distinction between a PhD and Masters thesis/dissertation? There doesn't appear to be a functional difference in reliability between the Masters and PhD level when it comes to why we consider some sources unreliable on Misplaced Pages. The two vary in the amount of work and depth into the topic, but the two appear inherently the same when it comes to reliability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)