Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:49, 28 June 2007

The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.

• ]

Archives

English vs. non-English sources

The current wording of that section is in direct contradiction with issues like NPOV and countering systemic bias. a "source of the same quality" isn't necessarily a "source that says the same thing with the same authority".

It's a very real issue e.g. for articles about international relations: English-speaking countries are allies, and the prevailing POV in their media and other sources is different from those in other countries. By preferring sources in English, we're preferring the POV of English-speaking countries. Zocky | picture popups 14:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why?

I am confused by this. To many people, Misplaced Pages is considered a "reliable source". If the Washington Post were to get all of it's information from the New York Times, which got all of it's information from the BBC, then by the time the story got to the Washington Post reader it would be rather skewed. And furthermore, there would be no point in reading the Washington Post because you would get more reliable info from the New York Times or the BBC. Just an example. Obviously all of these newspapers have their own journalists and researchers going out to try and find the facts. This brings us to Misplaced Pages. If we want to remain a reliable source we have to do more than just say the same thing someone else said. Time was Misplaced Pages was built by experts who knew their stuff. Now anyone can post what anything they like and rather than getting deleted it just gets a little tag. If they can find an article talking about it, then no one will ever care. We have to do more than see if one other source said it. We have to see if it is generally excepted as true amongst the experts. Plenty of things are verifiable and completely false. Plenty of things are difficult to verify and completely true. Sure more sources would be good and should be a goal for but it SHOULD NOT be the end all or the be all of this site. If it is the site will quickly degenerate into worthlessness. Olleicua 20:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the purpose of the guideline for reliable sources. While everything has to be verified with a source, the source itself must be reliable. So, while someone may be able to dig up something that says that martians landed in their backyard 50 years ago, unless it passes the standards set by that page, it can't be included. --13 20:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In theory you are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, in practice, there are pages on this site that are full of statements that are linked to sources that are not necessarily reliable or otherwise biased and that are ignored. There are also pages full of facts that are well agreed upon by experts that are full of tags added by someone who didn't know what they were talkiong about. Whether a source is reliable or not also happens to be a subjective issue and therefore should not be involved in the Misplaced Pages process. The fact that someone who some people trust said something does not mean that it should be believed by everyone. Olleicua 20:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I totally agree with you. There are definitely flaws, but that comes with the territory. When you allow anyone to edit, it's going to happen. Usually, however, I think this is caused by someone who just does not know any better. I think the best that can be hoped for is that people who understand the guidelines and know what they're doing go through those articles and tag/de-tag them as needed. If a user is seen doing these things, it should be gently brought to their attention on their talk page so they can learn from the mistake and correct themselves in the future. Unfortunately, it's a massive effort that would never end. --13 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

SPS about oneself

I've seen instances where a person has a blog or writes an article on an SPS and that article cannot be used as a source, even about the author. For example, if someone wrote a controversial opinion on a blog, why couldn't their Misplaced Pages page reflect that they made that comment? It seems that the concerns of reliability are less relevant (assuming the person actually wrote the quote in question) if the person is simply speaking about themselves. In short, can something written by a given author in an SPS be used as a source about that author or their opinions? Oren0 22:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:V makes clear that this sort of SPS is ok IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE AUTHOR, and provided all six of the conditions spelled out in WP:V are met. But it is not ok as a source in any other article (like a larger artcle that covers the author along with other topics, or as part of a larger topic). UnitedStatesian 00:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the reasoning behind the first of these criteria, "it is relevant to their notability"? Why can't we use a SPS for basic facts, biographical infromation here. Suppose someone writes on their own web site or blog that they "grew up in Hope, Arkansas," or "my latest album was influenced heavily by "Weird Al" Yankovic's Dare to be Stupid," neither fact makes them notable but it may be relevant to an article about them or their work. -MrFizyx 23:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I read the sentence differently. I read it to mean close to "it is relevant information taken into account how they are notable." Rhanyeia 14:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps we should edit the policy to make it more explicit. What do others think? -MrFizyx 14:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability of criticism?

On the article for the show Man vs. Wild, there has been some fighting recently over the "Controversy" section, which was recently removed altogether. Concerning the show, the Discovery Channel forum is packed full of viewers complaining that the show is a fraud, as are numerous other forums unrelated to the Discovery Channel. Example: google search for "Man vs Wild" and "fake"; you'll get ~17,000 hits.

The question is: how can this be reported on the article with citations -- or can it be reported at all? It's not like Discovery is going to call one of their own shows fake, and there are hardly any reviews of the show at all from "reputable" sources. As the article stands, the widespread criticism isn't even mentioned.

I added many references to the Criticisms section before it was deleted, but the whole section was deleted because the deleter didn't like the quality of the references. I didn't create the criticism section, but since it was full of "fact" requests, I filled them in and expanded the section. The types of references included:

• Links to video clips of the episodes and time offsets into the episodes to see the obvious cases of cheating that people have been complaining about on the forums (a raft supposedly lashed with hibiscus actually bound with manilla cord, a "free climb" of a waterfall actually involving a climbing harness, wearing a life jacket when swimming in a river in the Rockies, and so on.)
• Links to many, many different threads of people complaining about the episodes. This includes people who lived in the areas where he visits. Example: in one episode, he pretended to be lost in the sierras -- first climbing down from a mountain, rafting through a river, walking through a meadow, and swimming across a lake to freedom. Yet, a rafting photographer who used to work on the river that Bear went down and knows the whole area well pointed out that at no point was he far away from civilization, there was a road on the side of the river he went down, rafting companies went by it every 15 minutes, and to get to the lake, he had to walk right past several rafting companies.

Is it impossible to point out these criticisms here? Was my choice of references appropriate? I could also have linked to pictures from the host's own photo gallery clearly showing, for example, that the ends of the bamboo poles are saw cut, not burned off as presented in the episode, and the raft is tethered to the crew's boat near the island, not adrift in the ocean as presented in the episode. Would that be any better, or would that count as "original research"?

Let me know what you think the proper solution to a problem like this is. -- Rei 16:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You can only really include this kind of thing if you find a reliable source talking about it. If these criticisms about the show are relevant, I'm sure somebody (a magazine or newspaper reviewer perhaps) must have commented on them. JulesH 19:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

New Discovery Channel shows rarely get treatments like that (only the big ones like, say, MythBusters, tend to). I've searched and can't find any non-forum/non-blog reviews that are more in depth than your basic two-paragraph Discovery Channel blurb, and there's only a handful of even those. So... no way to comment on the tens of thousands of annoyed viewers posting all over the place, then, or even to note that they exist? Even though they're pointing out things that you can clearly see with your eyes in the videos (primary sources), plain as day, and commenting based on expertise (such as local residents to the areas he visits)? Also, isn't "many viewers complaining" a primary source to the claim that "many viewers are complaining"? -- Rei 21:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No. In principle, they could all be sockpuppets of a few people. Of course I don't think that is plausible, but the possibility exists.—greenrd 10:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The other question that invalidates this is what does "many" mean? It would usually be interpreted to mean a significant number, but how do we determine what a significant number of viewers is? I think any way of doing this would inevitably be original research. JulesH 10:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. So, to sum up, in the videos (available at YouTube for a reference) and stills (available at Bear's website), you can see with your eyes rope on the raft, him wearing a life jacket in a river, him wearing a climbing harness when 'free climbing' a waterfall, etc... but we can't mention this, right? Not until a newspaper decides to do a non-blurb review of the show (which may never happen) and comment on this fact, correct? -- Rei 18:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We can, as editors, make descriptive comments about an image. "This is a cat", "he is standing by a car", "this is a sunset" and so on. What we cannot do is make interpretive or evaluative comments "This is the largest cat in the universe", "This is the worst car ever made", "He will attempt to climb the waterfall but because he's a sorry-ass loser he's going to fall into the pool." Wjhonson 01:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Question: If the show is isn't discussed in any independent sources, should we include it? It's one one thing to relax our normal verifiability standards for popular entertainment that's basically fiction. But It's another to do so for anything that claims, or is believed, to be factual. Under our regular standards, we couldn't include anything that can't be independently verified. The whole purpose of verifiability is to protect against this sort of thing. If there's no really commentary on such a show at all, perhaps it simply doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. I'm not just talking about the criticism part here, I'm talking about the whole article. This article has no independent sources at all. If it can't be verified, shouldn't we delete? Best, --Shirahadasha 04:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

I had a question concerning a comicbook and I sent the writer of it an e-mail. He responded to me. I was wondering if there are any ways to cite this e-mail as the information would be relevant to the article I am working on.--CyberGhostface 15:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the e-mail is a reliable source, and on top of that it looks like you are conducting original research. I STRONGLY encourage you to leave that information out of Misplaced Pages. UnitedStatesian 18:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Idea for a tag re: reliability

There is an interesting proposal at WP:RS to creating an inline tag for situations where a source is reliable, but hardly the best of sources available. The proposed wording would be something polite and non-confrontational, like . To give you an idea of where such a tag might be used... take an article on an historical topic, containing a statment that cites to a Histroy Channel documentary as a fact source. While the History Channel is not completely unreliable, I hope you would agree that there are probably sources that are more reliable for the same information. However, more community input is needed. (Please join the discussion at Misplaced Pages Talk:Reliable sources#Inline tag?) Blueboar 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Article should discuss the subject of print sources directly

The opening paragraph of this project page is widely interpreted to mean that web sources are better than print sources because they are more easily checked by random readers. This is not the case and needs clarification.

The discussion of self-publication is sloppily written in such a way to allow for harassment of area experts who are sufficiently prominent to also be involved in the publication process of books and journals.

Also, Misplaced Pages must recognize the fact that many extremely reliable print sources are not readily accessible to random wikipedia readers. Many volumes published by prestigious university presses are printed in editions of only a few hundred copies and may cost hundreds of dollars. They are none-the-less reliable and verifiable sources. The issues arise with newspapers from the pre-web era. --Pleasantville 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pleasantville's comment concerning the opening paragraph. The phrase "any reader should be able to check" ignores the (unfortunate) fact that many of our readers don't have access to a large research library. If the best sources for a particular topic happen to be found only in a few libraries, we should use them, despite their inaccessibility. By doing this, we get a more accurate encyclopedia, and we also give the public access to information that they couldn't otherwise obtain.

Here is a possible rewording of the second sentence that would solve the problem, I believe. Instead of this:

"Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source.

this:

"Verifiable" in this context means that every addition to Misplaced Pages must be based on existing material published by a reliable source.

Opus33 21:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

How can a reader determine that an assertion has been published by a reliable source if they can't see the source? While academic journals, etc, may cost hundreds of dollars, most reliable ones are collected by university libraries that are accessible (albeit with difficulty) by most readers. If readers can't verify the source text then it's impossible to make sure has been accurately summarized. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the answer is that we only need to have enough editors available who can check the reference sources--as I argued above, it's hopeless and counterproductive to insist that all readers be able to check the source. In fact, however, most of the big libraries are at universities, and make these libraries available to their students--thus to a huge population of WP editors. So I don't see any real problem here. Opus33 21:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability Standard

Is it true that if a reliable source publishes a book and makes a statement in the book that he or she does not validate with any kind of proof, that this book can still be used as a source for that statement? For example, if author Smith says that Jones murdered 20 people yet offers no footnote or proof to that effect, can editor Johnson edit an article saying that Jones murdered 20 people and list author Smith as a source for this claim and that this falls within WP guidelines for Verifiability? Jtpaladin 00:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, This actually relates to the previous topic so I have juxtaposed them. I would say, you have to rely on the quality of the source. So, if Smith submitted his book to (for example) the University of Chicago Press, we can be certain that the editors of that press found qualified reviewers, who know the topic of the book, have read through the whole book (they get paid to do this) and made sure that the evidence for the claim of 20 murders was solid. This would have to have happened before the book qualified for publication. University of Chicago Press has to do this, because otherwise long-term they would lose their credibility as a serious academic publisher. On the other hand, if Smith finds a so-called "vanity press", and pays them $5000 to publish the book, then the testimony of the book is worthless.

More generally, the important criteria are: is there peer review, and does the publisher have strong motivation to adhere to the standards of scholarship? Opus33 00:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Postscript for Jtpaladin: since writing the above, I noticed that you are involved in a big controversy. My advice would be: find a biography of Joe McCarthy, published by an established academic press, that says that alcohol did not play a role in his death. Cite it, and you'll be on very solid ground for purposes of editing and debating your fellow editors. Opus33 03:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Opus33, thank you very much for your comments and taking the time to address the issue. My biggest concern is that knowing how political book publishers are more interested in making money from sensational charges and the wanton manner in which these books are released without footnotes and sources for their charges, this really speaks to the heart of Misplaced Pages's basic foundation of verifiability.

How we can allow just any author or set of authors to get away with making unsubstantiated claims when we know for a fact that they are unsubstantiated, opens Misplaced Pages for attack as a repository of fraudulent information. The standard should be, does the author provide sources for whatever charge they are making? In the case in question, you have biographers who are not doctors, who do not have access to medical records, who have never met the person of which they speak, possess no medical evaluation of the person, no authority upon which to speak regarding medical matters, and provide no source for this medical allegation. And this is supposed to be OK with Misplaced Pages rules?!! It's absurdity of the highest order. The only thing we know about this case it that the person in question died from a particular cause of death. That's it. Why we can't simply quote that fact and then allow for speculation apart from that fact is a question I can't get answered.

In my opinion, the reason for so much conflict in Misplaced Pages is because of this very loose standard regarding the use of authors who are either lying, merely copying what they heard from another author, or are simply ignorant of the matter.

Let me give another example. Let's say that 100 books have been written about a particular subject. Then, one day, key material information is discovered that make all the 100 books wrong about the subject. So you have one published source saying one thing and 100 published sources saying another. According to Misplaced Pages guidelines, "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then_whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research." Does this seem right?

I know that under "What is a reliable source?" WP:RS, it states, "The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A publication by a world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable sources available to its editors." So it appears that if you are not someone with a background in autopsies, medical examinations, medical evaluations, etc. your opinion on the cause of death of a person beyond what is stated in the coroner's report, is inadmissable as a qualified source under this rule. Does my analysis sppear correct to you? In the case in question, "the most reliable sources available to its editors" is the coroner's report since none of the authors have access to the subject's medical records or an opinion from a medical authority who has examined the person in question. Is this a correct line of thinking? I think so.

Of course, this has no bearing on the author's opinion on other issues of the biography of the person being discussed. However, I have seen flat out falsefication of the record of this person by the authors and yet the publishing company, who is principally interested in profits, allows this information to be published without proper citation. So, then the Wiki editor has in his hands, a book from a published source that even though the author is lying, distorting, or simply erring in the record of the subject, it can be used as a source in Misplaced Pages. A simple way to avoid the abuse associated with such a situation is to require that if an author is being cited as a reference for a topic, that the source that the author is using be the true piece of evidence in making the argument of the author. For example, if author Smith were to say that Mr. Jones spent 3 years in the military, that it be incumbent on author Smith to state the document or source that author Smith is using in order to make the claim that Mr. Jones was in the military for 3 years. Because as I understand the rule now, and correct me if I'm wrong (and please do so by showing me the Wiki rule regarding it), a Wiki editor can simply state that author Smith said that Mr. Jones was in the military for 3 years and that is all that is required for proper ciation in Misplaced Pages. So if author Smith has the only published source for this information then 100 other authors simply can cite author Smith as a source for the claim that Mr. Jones was in the military for 3 years. Again, does this describe Misplaced Pages's guidelines? Am I right in this assertion? Please let me know.

In summary, my concern is that as we develop more and more into a partisan world where publishing a book is a great deal more simple than it once was; where books now get published all the time with scant levels of foot-noting; where the claims of conspiracy theorists get published by reputable publishing companies; where fact-checking takes a backseat more and more in favor of releasing a book that will generate great profits for the publisher, the Wiki rule of verifiabilty without requesting access to the facts or sources upon which the claims of the author are made, will take Misplaced Pages down a slippery slope of irrelevancy. I believe this is because the current rule of verifiability seemingly omits any requirement that the author be required to provide evidence supporting their claim for a particular issue.

The simple solution would be that if author Smith is making a claim, the Wiki editor can use author A as a source for that claim by citing the publication, page number, etc. However, if that editor is challenged on author Smith's claim, that it be incumbent upon the Wiki editor to further cite the precise source upon which the author rests his claim. If the author has no source or the source is just another in a long chain of authors repeating the same thing over and over without reference to a document or other source-material which could be used as simple evidence, then the Wiki claim can be removed. In other words, just because some author in a book makes a claim of something, does not necessarily make that claim a fact. Why we would allow an author to make a claim of anything less than requiring scholarly supported proof is mystifying.

On the other hand, maybe I've missed some guideline that addresses my concern, if so, I would appreciate a link to it.

Again, I appreciate your time and help and would be very thankful if you could further address this matter. And if in fact Wiki rules are as I outlined above with the author Smith example, that perhaps some dialog be initiated to require a stricter guideline regarding the presentation of evidence to support an argument made by an author. Thank you. Jtpaladin 16:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources discussion from RS

Copy-paste from RS talk

Someone left a note on my talk page saying there was a discussion here about scholarly/non-scholarly sources, but I don't see it. The point is that we use academic and non-academic sources, obviously, and this page must reflect that. SlimVirgin 21:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Searching on scholarly would have found it, but it's #A bit that I find questionable. above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." No mention of scholarly sources. Any attempt to prioritize them over other mainstream sources flies in the face of V and NPOV. SlimVirgin 07:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If we want a caveat based on subject area it might be "Primacy should be given to scholarly sources, particularly in the sciences. Historical and arts topics will often have a greater range of reliable material, scholarly and non-scholarly." It needs a caveat if its to go in at all, but singling out Pop culture, as Tim's edit did, is not the way to do it.

But this will take up two lines on V, so I suggest moving it there. While we're at it, let's tighten the wording on Exceptional claims and move it over as well. Marskell 07:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The exceptional claims thing is already in V, as I recall. It would definitely be better to discuss this there, because this is just a guideline, and it can't contradict the policies. SlimVirgin 08:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The exceptional claims is here as a single sentence. I'd suggest unpacking it midway between the length here and at RS, and then removing it from RS. It's a little meandering over there. Marskell 08:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I can't quite follow Slim Virgin's original comment (the phrase "I don't see it" is ambiguous). For what it's worth, here is a restatement of the main content of the previous two sections:

• Publishing organizations that do a lot of prepublication peer review have special claim to our attention, and should be favored over those who don't.
• The organizations most likely to do peer review are the ones where heads roll when error is commited (example). I believe that the outlets that normally show this kind of commitment to accuracy are prestigious journalistic outlets and academic publishers. In contrast, the compilers of (for example) amateur web pages can ignore accuracy as they please.
• We need to combat the truly alarming view (see Pleasantville's contribution) that only resources available to every single reader can be used as WP reference sources. The correct criterion is to use the best sources, so long as they are accessible to at least some WP editors for checking. This is why we should change the wording of the Misplaced Pages:Verifiability page, as I suggested in italics above. Your opinion on this proposed change is solicited.

Thanks for listening. Opus33 15:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Somethingwe need to decide is if the WP:Verifiability policy should define reliable sources, or if this should be done on the WP:Reliable sources page. I think the verifiability policy should state that reliable sources should be used (as it does at the moment) and the specific page on reliable sources define what this term means and give examples of how it is applied. Does this seem reasonable? Tim Vickers 17:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a definition would be helpful, because what counts as a reliable source depends heavily on the context. What we encourage people to do is use the most appropriate sources, and then we have to leave what that means to their editorial judgment. If they don't have any editorial judgment, a guideline won't help them anyway. Anything that says peer-reviewed sources are always better in a certain context would almost certainly be wrong at least some of the time. SlimVirgin 17:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost everything in Misplaced Pages's policy will be "wrong at least some of the time", which is why we have WP:IAR. But does that mean we should give up on providing guidance? Let's work toward a useful guideline instead of leaving the question wide open to the whims of individual editors. Raymond Arritt 17:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to give some guidance on what we mean when we use the term "reliable sources" and give some examples of what is reliable and not reliable. Furthermore, I think the best place to do this is on the WP:Reliable sources page. If we give no guidance at all on this subject new editors will have no idea what the WP:Verifiability policy means when it uses this term. Tim Vickers 17:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

RS is a discredited guideline (which doesn't actually say anything that isn't in another policy), so anything added to it will be ignored by most good editors anyway. If you want to develop something, so long as it's not detailed, it's best to develop it here, but we can't, as was suggested at RS, prioritize peer-reviewed material over other reliable, mainstream sources. That idea flies in the face of everything Misplaced Pages stands for. SlimVirgin 17:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that sources can't be prioritized. Mainstream is a judgement call, and whether a source is reliable is a judgement call (which is why I think RS should me modified, not verifiability). I'm not sure why WP:RS is discredited, as a merge was tried but failed, so it seems to have some support. And I'm also not sure why saying that material (where available) produced by experts in their respective field, whose work is analyzed by their peers, all with a lot at stake to get it right would not take precedence over the work by just about anyone else ("flies in the face of everything wikipedia stands for?") R. Baley 18:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliability is in part, and I hope Slim will agree, a product of the credibility of the publishing organization and the thoroughness of the editorial review process. Peer review and publication in reputable scientific journals offers both extensive editorial oversight and a highly credible venue. For many complex scientific issues, the editorial oversight present in peer review is much more rigourous than for most other mainstream sources, e.g. newspapers and magazines. Certainly we expect the description of things like the greenhouse effect to be more complete and accurate in the the Journal of Climate than what appears in the New York Times, and in a case of conflict I would assume the journal is correct and the Times made an error or simplification. That is the kind of thing I think is intended by saying that peer reviewed works are generally more reliable when discussing scientific conclusions, because we would ordinarily expect them to be more complete and more thoroughly reviewed. Dragons flight 18:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

DF, I agree with what you wrote. Everyone sensible knows it is almost always true without adding it to a policy. The danger of adding it is that there will be exceptions, and the stress on scholarly sources will be used as a stick to beat people with. I was asked by e-mail for an example of an article that doesn't prioritize the scholarly view, so I'll paste here what I wrote in reply — For example, at Rudolf Vrba, we give the academic historians' view that the reports in 1944 of gas chambers and mass murder at Auschwitz were disseminated quickly, and that the slight delay in doing so made no difference to the number of people who were killed there. We also present the non-scholarly view that, in fact, there was a substantial delay between the information being known by governments and being distributed to the targeted Jewish communities, and that this delay meant hundreds of thousands were led to their deaths unwittingly when others knew what was going to happen to them. This is a controversial issue, which goes to the heart of the scholar-versus-survivor discourse that plagues all Holocaust historiography. We report both views, without prioritizing either of them, as do other reliable sources, possibly much to the frustration of the academic historians, many of whom see the debate as fundamentally wrong-headed.

The fact is that scholars are sometimes (or even often) wrong, and other publications need to be able to call them on that, without editors here shouting them down with the "not peer-reviewed!" war cry, which I've seen misused too many times. SlimVirgin 18:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Then we need to explicitly state that no primacy is given to peer-reviewed sources, because editors with scientific training will presume otherwise. If that's our policy, let's be up front about it. Raymond Arritt 21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Having thought about it, I don't agree that we need to change WP:V to modify the guidelines on WP:RS. WP:V is official policy, so it should be short and sweet so that we don't find ourselves hamstrung too often. WP:RS is refered to on this page, but simply modifying the RS guidelines doesn't contradict Verifiability. I think it is prudent to note that discussion is taking place on RS talk (maybe in a prominent position at the top in an info box?) because obviously what happens on RS affects how WP:V is interpreted/applied).

In short, people here should know about the proposed modifications to the RS guideline, but determining a source's relative reliability (when sources contridict, which one(s) should we use) is fundamentally different than verifying that a source says what we think it says. Modify the RS guideline, not WP:V, they don't contradict each other. R. Baley 18:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the way some people want to modify RS (to give priority to peer-reviewed material and, in effect, to introduce scientific point of view through a back door) contradicts V and NPOV, both policies. If people want to change policy, they have to argue for the change on the policy pages. SPOV has been rejected many times, so any attempt to reintroduce it has to take place prominently on a policy page, either here or NPOV, so lots of people see it. SlimVirgin 18:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused—how did the modification violate policies? In the sciences, the view represented by peer reviewed material is a pretty significant POV to discuss in a NPOV presentation. This doesn't mean other views are excluded, nor that unverifiable sources are being used. Gimmetrow 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like an attempt to introduce scientific point of view, or scholarly point of view, which as I said above has been rejected many times as a violation of NPOV. SlimVirgin 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed sources are considered equal, then that has to be explicitly stated. Most people with scientific training assume that peer-reviewed sources take precedence, so they (we) need to be set straight. I hope the resulting debate can remain pleasant once this becomes broad knowledge. Raymond Arritt 18:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, who decided and when that the WP:Reliable sources page is no longer an official guideline? This is marked as a guideline and linked by both Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. This is the first I have head of any such decision. Tim Vickers 18:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

RS started life as a POV fork of V. It remains a guideline because a small number of people edit warred when others tried to remove the guideline tag, and people couldn't be bothered fighting and gave up on it. There is nothing in it that isn't supported by another policy, so far as I know, so it's, at best, a useless page; at its worst, it contradicted other policies and even itself, and was very badly written, and therefore widely ignored. SlimVirgin 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you do think it is a useless page, you should propose it for deletion. That would be the best way of determining if what you say is really true. Tim Vickers 18:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

SV, I don't think you're right that WP:RS is "widely ignored". It's very frequently cited on WP:AFD for instance. If the guideline is deprecated, it should be marked as such (and I for one would welcome such a change). JulesH 19:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I too have frequently see the WP:Reliable sources page cited, it is cited on all the relevant policies and I stopped counting at 10,000 links to this page on Misplaced Pages. I can't understand how it could be thought that it is no longer applied. Tim Vickers 19:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Something we need to decide is if the WP:Verifiability policy should define reliable sources, or if this should be done on the WP:Reliable sources page?

It's helpful to have a separate page that specifically talks about reliable sources. It's a specific page to point to with WP:RS. I see the page referenced frequently on article talk pages, deletion discussions, and elsewhere. It's anything but a "useless page". And, there is no contradiction. Sources with the best "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" tend to be peer-reviewed journals and academic publishers, especially for scientific topics and less so for pop culture, biographies, and some other topics. There is no contradiction to say this on the WP:RS page. --Aude (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Should the following be added?

"Misplaced Pages welcomes material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly material published by peer-reviewed journals. Editors should be aware that these may be outdated by more recent research, or may be controversial in the sense that there are alternative treatments. Scholarly sources are preferred for the sciences. The arbitration committee has written: "What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such." In other areas, such as history and arts, a greater variety of reliable sources, both scholarly and non-scholarly, may be available. Misplaced Pages articles should represent all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, so long as the sources are reliable."

Seems perfectly agreeable to me, and would solve the current dispute. It meets the concerns re pseudoscience but still allows for reliable non-scholarly sources elsewhere. And its Arbcom wording. Marskell 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It helps a little. The Arbcom part is quite good but the stuff at the beginning and the end dilutes it. The second sentence, in particular, directly contradicts the Arbcom wording. Raymond Arritt 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In saying "or may be controversial in the sense that there are alternative treatments.", it seems like it says we should give equal treatment to "alternative" theories, such as conspiracy theories and such. WP:NPOV#Undue weight is important here. --Aude (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"...alternative treatment from sources of equal quality"? Marskell 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In the sciences there are no "sources of equal quality" compared to peer-reviewed literature. There's peer-reviewed material, then "gray literature" below that, then everything else. A far better solution would be simply to omit the first two sentences, which leaves a concise, consistent guideline instead of something that contradicts itself. The last sentence does not quite contradict the Arbcom wording, but it requires careful reading in light of the Arbcom criteria. Raymond Arritt 19:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I hadn't meant to suggest something else is equivalent. Simply removing them might be fine. Marskell 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

How about - "The most reliable material is published by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly in peer-reviewed journals and academic presses. These sources are preferred in subjects such as medicine, natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. In the sciences in particular, the arbitration committee has decided that: "What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such." In other areas, such as current affairs, popular culture and the arts, a greater variety of reliable sources, both scholarly and non-scholarly, may be acceptable." Tim Vickers 20:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer the simpler and cleaner version that comes from omitting the first two sentences and the last sentence of what Marskell proposed. (The last sentence is really WP:UNDUE territory, not sourcing.) Then we've got:

Scholarly sources are preferred for the sciences. The arbitration committee has written: "What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such." In other areas, such as history and arts, a greater variety of reliable sources, both scholarly and non-scholarly, may be available.

Clear and direct. Raymond Arritt 20:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to merely state that P-R literature, for the sciences, trumps other sources. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such is in danger of misinterpretation as forbidding reliable blogs as sources (do I have any in mind in particular? I wonder). For entire *theories* you need P-R lit; but for explication of details other sources can be useful. The distinction is likely to be lost William M. Connolley 20:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggested earlier that, wrt science articles and sourcing, we could add something like this: "Non-peer reviewed may be used where they help to explain ideas, details or jargon, but not to contradict (per undue weight)." (link diff). I think with some tweaking this could work. R. Baley 20:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "reliable blog" as a source in science, think what a Nature editor would say if you cited a blog in a paper! Tim Vickers 20:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A very broad division between science and arts / humanities is preferable to listing specific disciplines. And humanities should fall on the other side of the divide. It's perfectly possible to use non-scholarly but reliable sources on such pages. Marskell 20:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly sources, particularly publications in peer-reviewed journals, are preferred for the sciences. In particular, the arbitration committee has decided that: "What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such." In other areas, such as history and arts, a greater variety of reliable sources, both scholarly and non-scholarly, may be acceptable. - Changes bolded, we need to highlight peer-reviewed journals for the sciences, saying that the ArbCom "has written" makes them sound almost biblical, and the issue is never what is available, the issue is what is acceptable. Tim Vickers 20:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should let the arbcom speak for itself and the first "particularly" is a little difficult—given that we are a tertiary source, a secondary textbook or equivalent might actually be preferable. Marskell 20:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Scholarly publications are preferred for the sciences. In particular, the arbitration committee has decided that: "What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such." In other areas, such as history and arts, a greater variety of reliable sources, both scholarly and non-scholarly, may be acceptable." Better? Tim Vickers 20:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine be me. Marskell 20:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom doesn't make policy. Articles should reflect all majority and significant-minority views published by reliable sources within the limitations of V, where "source" can refer to the publisher or the writer. Editors should choose the most appropriate sources given the context, and which sources are appropriate is a matter of good editorial judgment. Clearly, if discussing a scientific theory, scientists who have written about that theory in peer-reviewed journals are going to be better than cleaning ladies who have blogged about it, but that's trivially true and not worth mentioning. However, there may be reliable non-scholarly challenges, and if these have been published by reliable publications, and are significant-minority, or even majority, views, they must be represented, and may not be downgraded in terms of length or tone because not scholarly. That is the very essence of NPOV. SlimVirgin 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the Arbcom doesn't make policy, but its wording is preferable to the opinion of any given editor in this discussion. It makes precedent. Given that this wording speaks directly to what we are discussing, why should it be excluded? Marskell 21:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We have three core content polices: V, NOR, and NPOV. If you want to change them, you have to argue for the change strongly, not simply state it, or initiate polls, or state that others have said it. You have to argue why it is needed, why it would be an improvement, and show that it wouldn't contradict other policies. You've done none of those things.

As I said above, what you are pushing for is either trivially true and therefore not worth mentioning, or it's a substantive change and arguably a violation of NPOV. SlimVirgin 21:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The rationale for inclusion was that we had been arguing about it, people want some guidance at RS on the subject and this is a better place for it, editors don't agree with you wrt to science sourcing, and the wording of NPOV broadly doesn't either. You have been asked at least twice to show how it does contradict policy and I have yet to see the answer. If nothing is to go in, here or at RS, fine. But an unqualified "scholarly or non-scholarly" should not be included. The "trivially true" argument is nice. Who can argue? I wonder though, if it's so trivially true, why we needed an arb case; why we've had megs of wasted words on topics like Global Warming, Evolution, and Pseudoscience. Given that you don't edit any of these areas, I don't know why you're opposing strengthening the wording for editors who do. Marskell 07:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So NPOV means that every woo-woo idea that a crackpot manages to work into a newspaper is taken just as seriously as material in a National Academy of Sciences report. If that's true, I don't see the point in participating in the project. Raymond Arritt 21:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with SlimVirgin's statements on the need to use reliable sources - we all agree on this and the policy is clear. However, what we are trying to do is give guidance on what "reliable sources" actually are. Not to define in all cases - which would be to expand the policy - instead, add to the guideline page WP:Reliable sources some general guidance on what are usually considered to be reliable sources in various subject areas. Please read the propose addition that was voted on. It does NOT state that the only reliable sources are peer-reviewed and that non-peer-reviewed sources cannot be used. Instead it offers the general guidance on what is preferred in most cases that is appropriate to a guideline page. Tim Vickers 21:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That specific proposed addition had holes, particularly creating an abusable exception for pop culture. Broadly dividing the sciences and arts without wordiness makes more sense. I'm not particularly concerned about cleaning ladies, because they've never been at issue. I'm concerned about wheat-and-chaff on science info (as I'm sure you are, given your mainspace contributions). And I say that not being capable of adding "hard" science—it's the "soft" stuff that I edit that's most worrying (evolutionary descriptions, conjecture on astronomical findings, etc.) Reliable but generic sources are just not good: that an abstract is preferable to the reliable New York Times is a non-question for scientific info—of course we should prioritize the abstract. I followed the Arbcom ruling and it was so relieving. "Scientific theories promulgated outside are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such." Yes, thank you very much.

But we need to be sensible to the fact that arts and humanities don't work that way. Original documents, memoirs, eye-witness stories, etc. might all be acceptable per policy when published reliably. Marskell 22:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The proposed addition did not make a broad exception for pop culture, instead it just acknowledged that not all areas have scholarly studies - "...alternative reliable sources are used if scholarly publications are not available - which may be the case in topics related to popular culture or current events." We can make this more clear that this is not a blanket exception by saying "...alternative reliable sources are used if scholarly publications are not available - which may sometimes be the case in topics such as popular culture or current events." Tim Vickers 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Or we could not refer to pop culture at all. Do we need to? Marskell 22:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It was just an example, but one I thought useful to cover as it is a subject which often comes up at AfD. So you don't think the wording "...alternative reliable sources are used if scholarly publications are not available - which may sometimes be the case in topics such as popular culture or current events." is clear enough? Tim Vickers 22:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit WP:RS or WP:V ?

This is getting confusing. I would like to discuss what we want to primarily edit (either WP:RS or WP:V) with an eye towards creating a straw poll to clearly lay out choices so a decision can be made (see proposal outlined below). The addition to WP:RS that initially caught my attention was:

"Version 2 - The most reliable material is published by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly publications in peer-reviewed journals and academic presses. These sources are preferred in subjects such as medicine, natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. However, alternative reliable sources are used when scholarly publications are not available - such as in topics related to popular culture or current events."

which received unanimous support among the participating editors (link here). But while this I think embodies the type of edit we want to make, where do we want to put it? (let's argue of the wording later).

I'm ok discussing here, as this forum purportedly has a wider audience. Though it does feel odd to discuss changes to RS on the V talk page. On the other hand, as the verifiability page directly references the RS page, it might have to be tweaked to make sure they don't conflict. However, it is my opinion that creating a hierarchy of Source reliability does not go against NPOV, and this hierarchy is mostly in effect already with respect to science-oriented articles (and as noted above, this idea is endorsed by ArbCom, if that carries weight for any of you).

SlimV and I (and probably others) do agree on one point, I also think it's a bad idea to modify the official policy page with this type of text. I think it was pointed out earlier that there may be exceptions, which is why I think we should primarily modify/edit the WP:RS page (a guideline). The verafiability page seems sufficiantly broad enough to me that adding the text to RS would not create a conflict. R. Baley 20:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Catch 22. Anything that's done on WP:RS will be summarily reverted as inconsistent with WP:V (as has been done numerous times), and yet we're being told no modifications are to be made to the policy page -- even if they're consistent with what Arbcom has said in the past. Raymond Arritt 20:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The cynical side of me suspects that may be the point, I was/am hoping a straw poll could clear things up. R. Baley 21:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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.

Straw poll proposal

It looks like there are four options:

1. Modify WP:Verifiability (official policy) page -because either WP:RS isn't really relevant, or because it belongs on this page, either way.
2. Modify WP:Reliable Source (guideline) page with no changes to WP:V as none are needed.
3. No modification or edits needed with respect to the type of change quoted above, as it conflicts with NPOV.
4. We have to decide exactly what the text is, before we know where to put it.

This isn't a straw poll at this time. So please don't vote yet. I want to make sure that the above choices are (1) worded well (2) fairly reflect the positions/concerns most everybody has. Whatever we decide, I would like to keep the number of choices to a minimum so as to keep the confusion down (4 may already be too many). Thanks R. Baley 20:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the above straw poll suggestion

With due respect, that we don't need it for the timebeing. Let's get the section being discussed in. This page has primacy and discussion should proceed from it. Marskell 20:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I just think it's confusing to be discussing not only what to put in, but where. Some people may want the change, but not if it's on WP:V. Some are saying we can't modify WP:RS without discussing here. I think we can modify the RS page, but others have said that to do so violates NPOV, a core policy. That said, if people would rather get the wording right, that's ok by me too, I just thought this might be a better way to go. R. Baley 20:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea, as SlimVirgin's comments above show, some people appear confused as to if WP:Reliable sources is still being used by the community. I think core policies should be kept as clear and concise as possible, so this proposed addition should go in Reliable sources. Tim Vickers 21:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Or it should go here by the same logic. That we even need RS is an open question. Marskell 21:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've amended the first choice to reflect this. R. Baley 21:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't decide policy with straw polls. This is the kind of thing that used to happen at RS, and it's one of the reasons people don't trust it. SlimVirgin 21:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely we can poll to decide what people would like to change and where they would like to change it? I'm not even suggesting yet what the actual words are, but what ever they turn out to be ecxactly, we need to be able focus on exactly what it is we want to do. R. Baley 21:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Kill the straw poll. Policy is not designed to be discussed in polls. Discuss, debate, exchange views, listen to concerns of others and express yours. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Restart

Agreed about the straw poll, but how do we change a policy like this? I'm all for open discussion, but not to the point that discussion is an end in itself with no possibility of a substantive outcome. Raymond Arritt 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The first thing you have to do is make sure you fully understand it and its related policies, NOR and NPOV, and how they hang together. Many of the people commenting here and at RS don't. Then you'll have an idea of the full implications of any change you propose, and you'll be able to anticipate objections, which will speed up the debate. SlimVirgin 21:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:The role of policies in collaborative anarchy ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And you'll see there an explanation of the importance of the concept of attribution, and that all notable views must be included and attributed, in rough proportion to their popularity. This is the most fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages, and even if you succeeded in changing it here, and I hope you won't, it would make no difference, because NPOV is a Foundation issue. SlimVirgin 21:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We either need to clarify in the guideline page discussing reliable sources what we mean when we say reliable sources, or add such a clarification to this verifiability policy. The proposed addition to the RS page does not contradict in any way the current V policy. Please read it carefully. Tim Vickers 21:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(copied from RS talk) Tim, I see that you hadn't edited NPOV, NOR, V, RS, ATT, or their talk pages, until two days ago, yet you're rushing in to add material that was rejected a long time ago, for good reason, and asking us to go through the arguments for the millionth time, which frankly isn't fair. If you want to make big changes, can I ask you please to spend some time reading the related policies carefully and checking the archives first? SlimVirgin 22:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Popularity? Popularity among whom? Among the general public? e.g. public opinion polls? or rough proportion of coverage to views by reliable/informed sources. If the former, do you realize that nearly half of Americans mistakenly believe that surgery causes cancer? That's what a 2005 poll by the American Cancer Society found. So, do we allow half the space in the relevant articles to talk about this mistaken belief? Among medical professionals, experts, and those informed, surely they have the facts straight. Surely reliable sources, such as peer reviewed journals and those published by academic presses, don't give much weight to the myth. Though, the results of the poll were published in a scholarly journal and should be mentioned somewhere. But, WP:NPOV#Undue weight applies. This is just one example of how public opinion polls diverge from the rough proportion various views are held or discussed by reliable sources. --Aude (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC, I already wrote this so. . .) I think if carefully worded, a guideline on sourcing won't contradict NPOV. We don't fill up the Islam page with christianity's take on it in a rough proportion to it's demographic popularity. Similarly, science articles such as global warming would be a disaster if it were edited from the view of a popularity contest (US centric, I know, but even world-wide there is considerable "debate" coming from people with an agenda to push). I am hopeful that I just misunderstand what you're saying.

Also, while the above section was indeed called a "straw poll," I wasn't trying to get official policy content included based on a vote. I was just trying to find out what, if anything, people were wanting to change, and where (if anywhere) they wanted to put that change (as well as the basis of objections clearly described). R. Baley 22:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What SlimVirgin wrote wasn't entirely clear, when she said "Notable views" I'm sure she meant views that have been published in reliable sources. You see, the entire question revolves around what we consider to be reliable sources, which is why this definition is so important. Tim Vickers 21:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked again at the WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:ATT pages. None of these mention "popularity". The only policy page that does is WP:NPOV, which concerns WP:NPOV#Undue weight. There it says "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.", with "verifiable source" pointing back to this page. What is a verifiable source? One that is reliable, as explained in more detail on WP:RS. Reliability comes with good editorial process and review, which is characteristic of scholarly sources, as well as high-quality journalistic sources (e.g. New York Times). For scientific topics, scholarly, peer-reviewed publications have a more rigorous review process and would be considered even more reliable than the New York Times. --Aude (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, bizarre in one respect—popularity has nothing to do with anything, certainly not foundation issues. Marskell 22:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Popularity among reliable published sources obviously. Do not nitpick, please. SlimVirgin 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and in proportion to the prominence of each reliable source - which is where guidance on how to assess the prominence and reliability of each source would be helpful. Tim Vickers 22:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to nitpick. The strength of NPOV in many ways is its anti-popularity. Intelligent design is relatively popular after all, but those two words are (rightly, according to NPOV) not mentioned in the body of Evolution, an FA.

Perhaps another way to put it: if "sources should be appropriate to the claims made" and scholarly sources are appropriate to claims made in the sciences, then the "popularity" of claims is determined by scholarly sources. That seems very simple, and the Arb ruling clearly buttresses it. Marskell 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Writing policies

For the editors who've not been involved in writing policies before, but who want to add changes here, the essence of successful policy writing is brevity. Every time you add a word or a sentence, you're opening up misunderstandings or unforeseen consequences, not to mention loopholes for deliberate wikilawyers. Therefore, you have to be a good writer who's in command of his vocabulary, who knows how to make sure every word counts, who understands the wider implications of each change, and who's completely familiar with NOR, V, and NPOV, and the way they work in practice, not just in theory. That means understanding all the things those pages say, and all the things they deliberately don't say, all the reasons for both, and how editors use those additions and omissions for good and for bad.

Anyone trying to whack in a sentence here or there without being totally familiar with the situation is like someone wandering in off the street to bet a pile of money on a horse without knowing the first thing about horse-racing. It's senseless, and it won't lead to anything good. Some reflection would therefore be appreciated. SlimVirgin 23:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

1. What does "no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight." mean? What are "fact-checking facilities"? Do telephones and Google count as facilities that could be used for fact checking? Does anybody object to the removal of the word "facilities"? Is what is meant "fact-checking procedures"? Tim Vickers 00:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
2. What examples might there be of a non-scholarly professional researcher? As a scholar is usually defined as a learned person or a specialist in a given area, how is it possible to be a professional researcher and not be a scholar? Tim Vickers 01:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Professional writers and publications have standard processes for fact-checking. That's what we're referring to. A journalist is a non-scholarly professional researcher; most people paid to do research outside a university would count as a non-scholarly researcher. Tim, this really isn't helpful. You seem to be trying to reinvent the wheel. SlimVirgin 01:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Professional writers and journalists are only fact-checked when writing for relaible sources. When writing a blog there may be no fact-checking whatsoever. In those cases we're relying purely on their own integrity and professionalism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Journalists go through a rigorous review and editorial process, albeit not quite as extensive as scholarly peer review. For many topics, a New York Times article would be a good, reliable source. Someone outside of a university, but with a think tank, would go through some reputable publisher that has a rigorous review/editorial process. But "professional researcher" is a vague term that I really don't think is helpful. --Aude (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This gentleman calls himself a professional 9/11 researcher. But, has nothing peer reviewed or scholarly to show for it. I think we need to stick with the term "scholarly". --Aude (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He also has nothing published in a reliable source to show for it, so our current exception wouldn't apply to him. JulesH 08:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that we need to consider possible unforeseen consequences of modifying a guideline or policy. That's why I'm nervous about the "scholarly and non-scholarly" phrase. I think we're just coming at this from different fields of editing. Yes, on the Holocaust (to take an example from above), non-scholarly sources (e.g. survivors) may have much to say that is of equal or greater value to what scholars have written. However, as an editor who works primarily on medical and scientific articles, I can tell you that opening the door to "non-scholarly" sources will make it even more difficult to enforce WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and the other policies try to ensure that such articles are truly summaries of the current state of knowledge. Clearly, "reliable sources" on historical topics, people, places, events etc are not quite the same as "reliable sources" on medical/scientific topics. Yes, an intelligent and scrupulous editor realizes this intuitively, but guidelines are still useful. One solution might be to develop subpages (for instance, WP:MEDRS, which is a proposal under construction to guide the use of "reliable sources" on medically-related articles). I really get the sense, though, that the proposed wording ("scholarly and non-scholarly") is geared toward fixing a problem some editors have encountered, without perhaps a full consideration of its effects on editors in other areas. MastCell 02:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Subpages for specific topic areas is not a good idea. Do we want specific guidelines for 9/11 conspiracy theories, and how they should be covered in the main 9/11 articles? What about specific guidelines for global warming? evolution? etc. A general guideline on reliable sources that discusses what would be considered reliable for various topics would be best. To do that on a page entitled "Reliable sources" give extra emphasis and helps reiterate the fact that we want people to use reliable sources. It's a helpful guideline page. --Aude (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say that if there were to be a special page, it would have to be about all conspiracy theories, not just those related to the events of 9/11. See other articles such as Area 51, Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, etc.--MONGO 07:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've worked on gun violence and criminology topics. There are special interests with strong POVs at work on those pages. High standards for reliable sources has been set on the gun violence pages and understood that it's expected. That has helped maintain stability on those pages, even in the midst of the recent VA Tech shootings, the gun violence pages are still stable. Diminishing and depreciating the WP:RS page or redirecting it won't be helpful. --Aude (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced "fact-checking facilities" with "fact-checking procedures" as this is closer to the meaning that is intended. I agree that a journalist is a non-scholarly researcher. I think the next sentence covers the concerns expressed above about crank "researchers", so what about just saying "a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field."? Tim Vickers 02:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources by well-known, professional journalists are entirely acceptable. "Non scholarly" still throws in a loophole. Instead of "Well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field.", how about "Well-known, scholarly researcher or professional journalist in a relevant field." --Aude (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So in an article about physics, a journalist's interpretation is as good as a peer-reviewed article by a physicist? How accurate are the science articles in your newspaper? They must be a lot better than the ones I read... Raymond Arritt 02:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why trying to sum up reliable sources here is problematic. Simply saying reliable sources with a link to the guideline page would be best. The guideline page can say something like "The most reliable material for subjects such as medicine, natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities are published by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly publications in peer-reviewed journals and academic presses. However, alternative reliable sources are used if scholarly publications are not available - which may sometimes be the case in topics such as popular culture or current events." can be stated, with further examples and discussion covering various topics. --Aude (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I like that formulation! :) I'm also OK with ""Well-known, professional journalist or an academic researcher in a relevant field." Tim Vickers 02:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Aude put it very well. Opus33 03:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Social sciences and humanities should not be included in any formulation. Marskell 07:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think simply removing "(scholarly or non-scholarly)" is an appropriate solution to this problem. Journalists are acceptable sources for many articles. Other kinds of experts may be acceptable for other articles (e.g. professional antique valuers for articles on antiques, lawyers for articles on law, etc.). It has previously been argued that these kinds of sources are accepted as non-scholarly examples of professional researchers. If we are to remove the text, we must have a method of rephrasing that accepts the work of these kinds of experts. The phrasing that User:Marskell recently introduced is a blatant example of systematic bias towards scholarly subjects, and must therefore be rejected. JulesH 08:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the potential for misuse (just think of the words "self-published non-scholar" strung together) it needs to be much better incorporated and explained. After the many debates of the last two days, we presently have nothing added wrt to this; for now, that's probably the best compromise. Marskell 09:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's "self-published non-scholar professional researcher who has been previously published by reliable sources". I don't have a problem with this. I do have a problem with the policy changing so that it isn't acceptable. JulesH 10:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're convinced this is a problem, please provide an example of an unacceptable source that is permitted under this definition. Then we can work to ensure that such a source is not allowable. JulesH 10:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To be clear about one thing, the bit is barely two months old. Placing it in, not removing it, is what's changing policy. This idea that we should make no distinction between scholarly and non-scholarly is a development I have seen nothing of before (with middle-of-the-road policy watching). And "self-published non-scholar professional researcher" is something of a contradiction in terms.

Anyhow, was I wrong here? I'm not pulling the pseudoscience argument out of nowhere—these people turn up constantly. My principal argument had been that because we weren't talking about something for which academic scholarship exists, you can't call the man a scholar on the topic. But now we want to deliberately remove that distinction in policy? (See also this lunatic).

And the "relevant field" bit does not cover it—the ufology or astrology editor will argue "no, no in this 'field' this man is very well known, perfectly relevant." Marskell 12:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have gone back and looked at previous versions of WP:RS, from the fall, before much content of that page was eliminated. One thing it used to say:

"Reliability is a spectrum, and must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Typically peer reviewed publications are considered to be the most reliable, with established professional publications next. Government publications are often reliable, but governments vary widely in their level of reliability, and often have their own interests which will explicitly allow for withholding of information, or motives."

Something like this might be good to say somewhere. It would be good to bring this back on the WP:RS guideline and maybe say something here. --Aude (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This change was made shortly following a number of other changes, specifically one that removed other exceptions that previously existed. It was argued at the time that the people who were covered by the previous exceptions were "non-scholarly researchers" and therefore this phrase was introduced to disambiguate the fact that researcher was being used in an inclusive, rather than exclusive sense. Feel free to look back at the archives.

As to whether you were wrong in the Exopolitics article, without reading more than I have time to I can't be certain but my feeling is, yes, you were. As I see it, the author of the self-published book in question is accepted as an important figure in the history the subject, and therefore anything he has published on the subject should be considered for inclusion. Certainly it should not be eliminated merely on the grounds of self-publication. It doesn't help that we're talking about a fringe subject, but that's an issue of NPOV, not verifiability. My opinion is that the book should be used as a source, but we should be careful to ensure prose attribution is used for its contents (again, as an issue of NPOV).

But, in the end, I'm not suggesting the text should remain as it is: I'm suggesting that we come up with an alternative that strikes a middle ground, which allows for self-published sources written by experts who don't happen to be employed in the position that the majority of people will think of on reading the word "researcher". There are certainly plenty of experts whose opinions are worth including who don't fit this description, and we shouldn't have to ignore this policy to use those experts in an article.

I've thought for a while that this entire section on self-published sources needs a total rethink, and now might be the best time to start it. But I don't think we should be making any changes until we know what the outcome should be. JulesH 14:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If fringe, self-published sources on non-academic topics become includable simply because a fringe community calls the info relevant to the history of their non-academic research...we would have a very serious problem. The P&Gs and, as noted above, Arbcom, do not agree with you.

As for a middle ground, let me invert and ask for a "self-published non-scholar professional researcher" that should be included but wouldn't be without that bracket. I believe survivor stories were mentioned. Marskell 14:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

One such source is the use of Teresa Nielsen Hayden's essay on Roger Elwood. While I accept that it may not have been wise to use while the subject was still alive, I can see no argument against it now. Nielsen Hayden is, without doubt, an expert on the workings of science fiction publishing, and her analysis of the influence of Elwood's publications on that field is, as far as I am aware, impossible to replace, because nobody else has done the research to catalogue those effects. JulesH 16:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Well-known" (as in "well known journalists") is too vague to be a standard. The problem with journalism is that there is no clear criteria for that profession. Have Jayson Blair, Hunter S. Thompson, and Bill White (neo-Nazi) been published in reliable sources? Yes. But I wouldn't use anything any of them wrote as a plain source. As for Nielsen Hayden, she admitted that she had not actually researched the catalogs, but was basing her essay on her recollections and is what we often call "original research". However even the original research opinions of experts are often worth quoting with attribution ("According to longtime SF editor TNH, ..."). But does being an acknowledged expert on SF anthologies make one an expert on animal hoarding? We need to maintain clear language that experts are only experts within their field. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Was it original research? Of course: that's my primary contention. She's the one who performed the research, she's an expert in the subject, so we should quote her research. I'm all for the use of prose attribution when relying on a self-published source, I think it is usually a good idea (see my suggested changes to the policy below). As for animal hoarding, I would suggest anything in that article that's sourced to her essay on the subject should probably be removed as she isn't an expert on it, but as I recall the article merely contained an external link to her essay, rather than used it as a source. JulesH 08:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Will vs May

I have to agree with SlimVirgin on this one Diff 22:54, 26 June 2007 unreferenced may be removed or it may be referenced. The project Misplaced Pages:Unreferenced articles is here to begin referencing everything that is unreferenced (there are others also). Though not to long ago (days) it was strongly (and wrongly) attacked for Deleting articles. Jeepday (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources: suggestion

I suggest the following phrasing for this section:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are not usually acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by a well-known expert on the topic of the article whose work has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: information in self-published sources has not been subject to independent fact checking, and may be less reliable than professional-published work by the same author. For this reason, it is usually necessary to provide a prose attribution for material sourced to self-published works. Self-published works that make controversial claims are not usually considered reliable sources.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP.

This seems to me to be a reasonable start. It relaxes the requirements on the writer of the source to be a professional researcher, now only requiring them to be a "well-known expert" (i.e., it must be documented somewhere reliable that they are an expert on the subject), but requiring them to have been published on the same topic by a reliable source (rather than merely having been published as is in the current text). It also requires a prose attribution and suggests that controversial claims should not be sourced from self published works, both of which should help reduce the problems of undue weight being placed on contentious sources.

Any comments on this suggestion? JulesH 14:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. The word "expert" is good, especially "expert" and "same topic" and "reliable source" all mentioned together. --Aude (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"whose work in the relevant field has previously been published..." I'd also suggest dropping "well-known" for "established". Marskell 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd also leave in "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Another formulation I've thought of previously "editors should ask themselves if the person needs to self-publish because reliable publishers would reject the material" or some such thing. Marskell 14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Scholarly or non-scholarly" - I see no reason to say this. It is likely to encourage yet more use of dubious sources, which we have a problem with already. If it's either/or, then let's not mention it at all. Tom Harrison 19:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Examples

Many of the people involved in this discussion have done excellent work writing articles, with many featured articles, though covering different topic areas with different issues. I haven't followed SlimVirgin's articles closely, so not familiar with what problems she has had with WP:RS and guidelines/policies on self-published sources. I'm more familiar with what Tim Vickers has worked on, the climate/global warming articles that Raymond has worked on, and some of the work done by Marskell. Reliable sources definitely follows a continuum, from scholarly peer reviewed works (should generally be expected on science articles), to reputable journalists and news media outlets, to some other works (e.g. blogs or other material published by known experts in a field; for biographies and history articles, books and material written by people involved in the event likely would be good sources, etc.) But then we have the arbcom case on pseudosciences that should also guide us. What other examples and situations do people have? --Aude (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• For social sciences, I still think scholarly peer reviewed material should be preferred. For topics like criminology, there is scientific rigor in studying topics like gun violence that help elevate the article above a political debate - for political aspects of the topic we have the article on gun politics. The topic also is looked at from a public health/epidemiology standpoint, with scientific rigor. There may be room for some exceptions to scholarly sources, but it is wise to stay above politics with such articles. --Aude (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• • On medical topics, obviously, peer-reviewed journal articles are generally the best source of information. Review articles or textbooks are best, because they're secondary sources, generally written by recognized experts, and draw conclusions (thus avoiding problems with synthesizing primary sources ourselves). Not all peer-reviewed material is created equal - after all, both the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of Scientific Exploration claim to be peer-reviewed - but it's a start. There are far too many instances of self-published health-related websites being cited as equivalently reliable sources of medical information, being given equal weight, and being used to challenge or "rebut" accepted medical consensus. WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE are already nearly completely disregarded on many medical topics. Giving "non-scholarly" sources essentially equivalent weight, in this sub-area, will worsen the problem. MastCell 15:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • Perhaps there should be a requirement not to use self-published sources where they are contradicted by professionally published sources? Would this help with this issue? JulesH 15:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• For science articles, current scientific data, hypotheses and theories should be taken from peer-reviewed publications such as scholarly reviews and research papers. General information on the background of a topic can come from textbooks, but these should not be used to support specific arguments if these points of view conflict with the peer-reviewed literature. For example, the standard undergraduate biochemistry textbook written by Stryer is wrong when it classifies ribozymes as enzymes, a mistake which has caused much discussion on at Talk:Enzyme#Ribozymes. The history of scientific ideas is usually covered in books by historians. The only place where a significant amount of non-academic sources is appropriate would be in discussing people's opinions about science, for example in the Green Movement. Tim Vickers 15:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• In regards to the other side of the spectrum where there are sources we may be sometimes in danger of excluding, are the societies that are organized around different authors or types of literature which publish, sometimes self-publish, quality material. The material can range from 8-volume books, to monthly or quarterly journals, to websites. Although I have not used these sources to write a Misplaced Pages article, I have relied research from such sites for misc. stuff at Wikisource. One extreme example the Kipling Society which in the process of developing a web-only "New Readers' Guide" to update and replace the self-published "Readers' Guide" from the 60's of which only few of 100 copies are publicly available. An example of the detailed information that is unlikely to found outside of these sources are these notes on a poem.--BirgitteSB 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sources/publishers such as the Kipling Society have been mentioned many times by reputable news media such as the New York Times and the BBC. This BBC news article, for example, mentions the society in a way that indicates it is indeed a reliable source and authority on the topic. No reason that we can't include such societies in the guideline. --Aude (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, this might be covered by an exception saying that if multiple reliable sources cite a self-published source as an authority, this source may be used in a similar manner on Misplaced Pages. Tim Vickers 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• The Old Readers Guide was supported by the society, but it was definitely self-published. (I am lucky enough to live near a University that has a copy and have personally seen it; every page is printed with something along the lines of "For private use only"). The New Readers Guide gets a lot of information from this Old Readers Guide, but it is far from complete currently, so in some case you will have to refer to the Old Readers' Guide. This is the most extreme example of a source I can think of which, I feel people use and regard as reliable, but has few of the benchmarks that are used here to judge reliability.--BirgitteSB 17:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Aude raises an interesting point above. Where there are reliable sources that give a self-published source a good review, it should usually be considered reliable, IMO. Should this rule-of-thumb be added to the policy? It would certainly help with cases like the one Birgitte mentions. JulesH 18:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a way of formulating language to cover that issue. Many blogs get some kind of favorable nod from columnists writing in reliable sources. We don't have a system where a reliable source can make another source reliable by giving it a good review. The trouble with self-published sources is that they may not be consistent from one period of time to another. We already exempt self-published people who are acknowledged experts writing within their field of expertise. Why wouldn't that cover the Old Readers Guide? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we really "exempt self-published people who are acknowledged experts writing within their field of expertise"? I don't see anything in WP:V, WP:NOR, or WP:RS that says so. Raymond Arritt 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The man behind the Old Readers Guide is described here when he became president of the Society:He was a Banker all his working life, and retired in 1946 after twenty years as Manager of West End Branches. From 1911 he was an officer in a Territorial Battalion of The Buffs, and served for over five years during and after World War One, mostly in the East and much of the time as a Brigade Major. Then it describes his work done for the Society or towards the Society's goals (amoung others things For many years he has given invaluable help to the past two Hon. Librarians, and his knowledge of our Library and indeed of all Kipling's writings is encyclopaedic.). I guess the real question is where does someone cross the line from "enthusiast" to "expert". I honestly don't know how we judging if someone qualifies as an expert right now.--BirgitteSB 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new draft

Incorporating the suggestions generated in the discussion above. Please edit and comment. Tim Vickers 19:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

• WP:SOURCE

See also: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made, with exceptional claims requiring multiple, independent reliable sources. The most reliable sources for subjects such as medicine and natural sciences are generally published by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly peer-reviewed publications in academic journals, textbooks, and books published by academic presses. However, alternative reliable sources can be used if scholarly publications do not cover a topic - which may sometimes be the case in the arts, humanities or current events.

Sources of questionable reliability

In general, sources of questionable reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking procedures or editorial oversight. Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libelous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

Self-published sources (online and paper)

• WP:SPS

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are usually unacceptable as sources.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an experienced professional researcher, well-known journalist, or other expert in a relevant field. Such authors should have previously published work in that specific field, in publications that are clearly reliable sources. In this case, citation of these self-published sources may be acceptable, particularly if these sources have previously been cited by other reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in such a self-published source is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so in a reliable source.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. Such sources are also unacceptable as support for exceptional claims, as these require multiple, independent reliable sources.

Comments on the new draft

Please comment on the new draft here:

Tim, while your suggestions are an improvement over the existing policy, the problem that we continue to run into is with regard to judging the reliability of the fact checking sources. I have seen greatly extended arguments dealing with who or what is a reliable fact checking source. And the arguments go nowhere. If we require that the WP editor has to source the specific fact that they are alleging in the WP article, then we bypass a great deal of debate. For example, imagine a book appearing saying that the earth revolves around the sun in a book publishing environment where the common conception is that the sun revolves around the earth. We know that this one book is right but by WP standards, this book is not a reliable source. Unless I'm mistaken in my understanding of the policy, this simply is an afront to new and provable research. Again, my I suggest this article as a source about the state of reliable sources and fact checking: "The Factchecking Facts"? It's quite an eye-opener and a serious wake up call to the Verifiability vs. Truth discussion. Thank you for your time and effort. Jtpaladin 19:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is only the one book which makes the claim, then, yes, it couldn't be used as a source. But it could be used as an article on its own, so long as it was published by a reputable publisher. But if it's the embodiment of a movement which says that the earth revolves around the sun, then the book could be used in an article about counterexamples, i.e., 'In his book The Solar Sytem, Nicholas Copernicus asserts that, in fact, the Earth revolves around the Sun. The theory has been supported by Galileo Galilei, Fred Hoyle and ..." (then provide references). Do you see where I'm going with this? Corvus cornix 20:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Tim, you've never edited any of the content policies before, and it's showing in some of the edits you're making, which are causing subtle contradictions in some areas, both internally and across policies. SlimVirgin 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, could you be more specific? Tim Vickers 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly respect User:SlimVirgin's experience in crafting policies, but it would be more useful to identify specific failings of the draft rather than simply reasserting her greater experience. MastCell 21:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the preference for academic sources should be restricted to natural science and medicine, as it is in TimVickers' current draft. IMHO, academic sources, if they are present at all, will tend to be at least preferable in almost any field. "Popular views" and crank theories are extremely dangerous in the social sciences and in history, and I can imagine them causing problems in the humanities as well. As for SV's Holocaust issue (which seems to be the main example of an alternative non-scholarly view that the policies must endorse): I find it difficult to believe that no scholar at all, of any conviction or affiliation, has ever defended what she describes as "the non-scholarly view". But if that is indeed the case, then I just don't see how that view could claim extensive coverage in Misplaced Pages (it would inevitably get some coverage, since even the fact that it is dismissed by scholars implies that it has to be described). --Anonymous44 02:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There are academics who support it, but Holocaust historians do not, because they say it relies on a simplistic understanding of the material. Regardless of their views, the debate is an important one, and it would be obtuse of us to leave it out. One of the editors supporting the change to this page said today that alternative views have been deliberately kept out of Global warming, even though there exist good non-scholarly sources for those views. That's the kind of thing I find very objectionable. We are here as librarians only, as Crum375 said. We're not scientists or researchers who are trying to promote certain views and suppress others. We're here only to direct people to good sources of all kinds and persuasions, and allow readers to read about the debates and judge for themselves. That doesn't mean we let in nonsense, but we're not allowed to keep something out just because it didn't emanate from an ivory tower. SlimVirgin 03:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is precisely how a source, especially in a scientific filed such as global warming, can be "good" without being scholarly. I don't see that. As for letting wikipedians "judge for themselves", your version is the one that gives more of a researcher's "freedom" and "autonomy" in that respect. The editor is left almost completely free to decide arbitrarily what constitutes a "reliable" or "good" source and is likely to be influenced by his own agenda. We always have to decide which sources/views deserve more trust/attention, how "significant/prominent" they are per WP:Undue Weight etc. In Vickers' proposal, there is some guidance for that. To me, reliability is associated with academic, peer-reviewed stuff, and with reputed media. If we stop preferring this "ivory tower", there are just too few objective barriers against the tsunamis of "alternative" nonsense coming from outside. --Anonymous44 12:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentally, the question is whether "good non-scholarly sources" are equal to scholarly sources. Some of us have a hard time accepting that an interview with Dr. Krakpott in USA Today has to be considered on the same level as a report from the National Academy of Sciences. It will be interesting to see how this ends up. Raymond Arritt 03:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody says that an interview with a single eccentric scientist on USA Today carries the same weight as a report published in a reputable peer reviewed journal. The point is that we need to assign to each source a weight, compare them all, try to gauge the prevailing views based on these sources, and then present a neutral and balanced picture of the state of the published literature. A tiny minority, such as Dr. Krakpott, could well be excluded, per WP:UNDUE, despite being published in a newspaper. But the point is that all significant views should be represented, per WP:NPOV. It is up to us as editors to assign these weights and decide how to meet our NPOV requirement. Crum375 04:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec)My experience editing highly disputatious articles such as global warming and medical scams tells me that your view of how the process works is touchingly naive. If primacy isn't given to peer-reviewed science, we'll have even more of a struggle against tenacious POV-pushers. I can bet you as surely as the sun rises in the east that they'll holler "You can't leave out Dr. Krakpott! USA Today is a perfectly good newspaper, and according to WP:V you can't say that the Journal of Climate carries any more weight just because it's peer reviewed!" (Actually many of their favorite sources are worse than USA Today, but they still meet the very weak requirements established for WP:V.) Raymond Arritt 04:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I don't want to sound apocalyptic, but the truth is that there is always literally an ocean of nonsense and agenda-driven stuff out there, threatening to engulf us and turn us into just another place that makes the Internet suck (paraphrasing Jimbo). --Anonymous44 12:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the problem is that the current policy gives no guidance on how to assess sources for relative weight - a critical omission. It does a reasonably good job of explaining what cannot be included, but does not help a reader who is wondering how to apply the statement that the "relative weight" of sources must be considered. I have tried to fix this omission in this new wording. However, nothing in the proposed wording on which sources are usually most reliable makes fixed rules, instead it offers general and useful guidance. Tim Vickers 04:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My own opinion is that we should not constrain editors from using their common sense, as each context may be different. But in general, mainstream reputable sources with more vetting layers carry more weight than others. Crum375 04:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very true. This is why the propose wording allows editors to use their common sense and include alternative sources if they are needed to cover aspects that are not dealt with in the higher-quality sources. However, I'm sure you see my point in that giving no guidance at all on an relative weight - an important point made explicitly in WP:NPOV - is a major omission. However, as you say, this can't be any more than guidance and needs to allow editors to use their own judgement. I get the feeling we may be coming close to agreement. Tim Vickers 05:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

An alternative is to omit any mention of subject areas:

The most reliable sources for subjects are generally published by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly peer-reviewed publications in academic journals, textbooks, and books published by academic presses. However, alternative reliable sources such as newspaper or magazine articles, books from non-academic publishers and government reports can be used if scholarly publications do not cover all aspects of a topic.

Tim Vickers 04:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that I like that wording, because my own preference is to give more weight to mainstream, well vetted, reputable publications. So you could have an obscure scientific journal, with 2 peers who are in collusion with the author, on one side, and reports in the Washington Post and the New York Times on the other. I would not give the obscure journal any more weight than the papers, yet your proposed wording relegates the papers to a lower tier, while promoting the obscure journal. In my opinion, we need to decide which sources are significant and discard those that aren't, and then we need to prioritize the survivors, and present them based on their prevalence and quality. To blindly declare that a scientific journal trumps other publications is wrong, and would violate NPOV. The bottom line is that we need common sense, not an exact prescription. Crum375 05:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that common sense is so uncommon. If guidelines can be disqualified by the presence of absurd counterexamples (such as your two-author "journal"), why have guidelines at all? Why not just replace WP:V with a one-sentence statement "Use whatever sources you think best"? Raymond Arritt 05:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with just saying "mainstream" and "reputable" is that these are very woolly concepts and impossible in practice to define or apply. But the point you raise is a good one - there may be the occasional exception to this general statement, but do you agree that this is true in most cases? I've made the change to "generally published by", which will allow editors to use this guidance (which is not worded to be at all prescriptive) flexibly to accommodate the rare exceptions, such as the one you raise. Tim Vickers 05:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, what is excluded on Global warming is non-science sources to introduce scientific skepticism. The principal alternative to human-induced warming, solar variation, has a nice, tidy section, properly sourced to scholarly material, which introduces a note of skepticism without relying on conservative newspapers. The section on global political issues is also of appropriate scope for an introductory page, and here newspapers are used, because newspapers are appropriate for describing politics.

I did not want to introduce the example only to have it twisted. This is top of google on easily one of the top-ten issues of our time and, having gone through it extensively on FAR, I think it's a fine example of our best work. If it's not clear, prioritizing textbooks and peer-reviewed journals is a no-brainer for scientific theory itself. A science page in its entirety may, of course, have other material where we have no need to demand peer-reviewed work. Marskell 13:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability vs. Truth

So, is the Jim Wales comment still the rule of law here? I'm referring to:

If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research.'

Truth is an irrelevancy, only sheer volume of sources matters. It is original research to expect an WP editor to show proof of a source in a book. Is this still the rule?

My concern regarding published sources is the ease to which sources get published. Someone who has written a non-fiction book stating that George Bush is from the planet Zandar and he has come to earth to save 1,934,918 people so he can transport them on his silver surf-board back to Zandar so they can be eaten during the "Festival of O'poza", can get it published by any publishing house that thinks they can make a lot of money with the book.

The standards to get a book published have fallen substantially in recent years so the reputation of the publishing houses are about as good as the reputations of the accounting firms who took money during the late 1990's to inflate the balance sheets of various scandal-ridden corporations.

Also, the growth of publishing companies has exploded in recent years. I know about the rules of self-publishing but anyone who knows how to create their own publishing house can easily get around this rule. But more importantly, the assumption that the publishing houses are doing their job with regard to fact checking is inceasingly becoming a large leap of faith. People who think that publishers are more interested in fact checking than they are in making profits are putting far too much faith in the publishers. If the fact checking of a book that could potentially make multi-million Dollars domestically and internationally would stand in the way of those profits, does anyone seriously think fact checking will prevail in the decision of whether or not to release the book?

My point is that I think the rule regarding Verifiability should be modified. I think that an editor here should be able to reference a book for an article but if challenged on the book, the editor should be required to provide the source of the information used in the book. For example, if we are dealing with an article about Global Warming and an editor posts a book that says that Global Warming is caused by Al Gore's invention of the internet, the editor should be required to point to the scientific source used in proving that Al Gore's invention of the internet is what is causing Global Warming. The way it stands right now, all the editor has to do is point to the page number in the book where the author makes this claim, i.e. the source is irrelevant; only the fact that the author has made that claim is all that matters.

If we require editors to "prove up" their sources, we are going to see a lot less arguing on the Discussion pages of each article. Just the mere fact that people spend so much time arguing about the reliability of a source takes up a serious amount of time.

For anyone interested in reading about the fact checking disaster in the publishing houses, I urge you to please read, "The Factchecking Facts". It's quite an eye-opener and a serious wake up call to the Verifiability vs. Truth discussion. Thank you. Jtpaladin 19:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You are simply way off the mark. You are assuming that WP is seeking truth, and that by going after verifiable sources it believes it will find it. But that is not the case. WP is seeking verifiable sources, period. We assume that information that comes from such sources has been vetted by multiple persons, with specific focus on legal liability in the case of making fraudulent claims. But we do not expect perfection, and in fact by allowing and even requiring multiple points of view, we expect and welcome contradictions. Obviously when there are contradictions, there must be at least one vetted fact that is wrong, so we expect wrong information. Our goal is simply to represent the reliably published information, not to seek the truth. Think of us as a helpful librarian, who helps an interested reader to the best available published sources that cover a given topic. No guarantees are made as to 'correctness' or 'truth', only our best effort to find and present the best published sources neutrally and in a balanced fashion. An equivalent way to state our mission: we are librarians, not scientists. Crum375 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Crum375, that's not what I'm assuming. I'm clear that WP is after Verifiability and not necessarily truth. My point is the faith in fact-checkers is a mistake. I'm simply questioning the process. I have no interest in changing policy. That's up to you guys. Jtpaladin 23:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Then we'd better advertise that widely to the public. A lot of people think that Misplaced Pages is concerned with accuracy. It's troubling that there's little effort to disabuse people of that notion -- it's almost like we're willing to let the misperception go on, because it's to our benefit. Raymond Arritt 20:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But we are concerned with accuracy - accurately reflecting the verifiably published literature on a given subject, and presenting it neutrally and in a balanced fashion. Accuracy and truth are different concepts. Crum375 20:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The distinction may be clear to us Wikignomes, but I wonder how many casual readers recognize the difference. Misplaced Pages:About says we try to avoid "misinformation" (conventionally defined as "false or misleading information") and the like. Why not be clear up front in saying that we may knowingly include false or misleading information in order to fairly represent all points of view? Raymond Arritt 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If we're presenting false information, it should be made clear that the information is generally considered false. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case. As to Jtpaladin's initial argument, this appears to be a serious case of forum-shopping regarding a dispute at Talk:Joseph McCarthy, in which Jtpaladin is soldiering on against a consensus. MastCell 21:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, sorry but that's not the case. I'm trying to gain a better understanding of a policy that puts verifiability over the establishment of truth by examining sources. This has nothing to do with your absurd claim of forum-shopping (I mean, come on) since I'm not even mentioning the article in any other place other than in that particular discussion board. However, I am concerned that an author can make a claim and not have to prove the claim and yet that author's claim is used as a source for a WP article. As the article I posted above "The Factchecking Facts" demonstrates, putting your faith in fact-checkers is bound to lead to disappointment. Jtpaladin 23:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Scholarship

The following language has wide support at WT:RS. It originally derives from this page, and is general; it should, in some form be here as well:

The most reliable material is published by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly publications in peer-reviewed journals and academic presses. These sources are preferred in subjects such as medicine, natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. However, alternative reliable sources are used when scholarly publications are not available, such as in topics related to popular culture or current events.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This wording forms part of the proposed new section which is being discussed above. Tim Vickers 20:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

I've protected the page for a few days. There seems to be an edit war going on. I had actually been hoping to take a closer look at this page some time, but there's so much going on that I wouldn't know where to begin or which side I'm on. Can you come to some agreement without reverting? The protection expires in four days, but if you most of you want it unprotected sooner, just let me know. ElinorD (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was probably a good idea. I expect you will have protected the wrong version, but that's to be expected. Tim Vickers 21:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for reversion to a non-contentious version

{{editprotected}}

The current version of this page removes the long-standing exemption that applies to professional journalists. Can it please be reverted to a version that includes such an exemption until the discussions above have been concluded? I would suggest any of the following revisions:

SlimVirgin at 19:11, 27 June 2007

JulesH at 14:24, 27 June 2007

Johan Lont at 12:12, 26 June 2007

My preference (obviously) is for the second. This is a reversion to an earlier state of the article, which to me seems substantially less contentious than any of the recent phrasings, and fixes the issues some editors have had with the policy while not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The first is the most recent phrasing that does not include any of the recent contentious changes, the last is the state of the article before the current edit war began. JulesH 07:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone object to this change? --ais523 08:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't need "(scholarly or non-scholarly)" as in SlimVirgin's edit, but your version is acceptable since it reflected discussion on the talk page. --Aude (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We might again wring our hands over "expert", but if people believe that it meets some of the examples that have been presented, I won't quibble. It's certainly preferable to the "non-scholarly" innovation. (The example is a bit wordy, though.) Marskell 13:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The JulesH version is OK. The "scholarly or non-scholarly" wording is inappropriate. Raymond Arritt 13:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't remember anybody arguing seriously against JulesH's version. --Anonymous44 13:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done, to the JulesH version. --ais523 14:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to what you did, Ais. The journalism thing was removed months ago after an agreement to do so, but was recently restored without agreement, and was therefore removed again. Please leave the page alone until the protection is lifted. SlimVirgin 16:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Checking through the history, it appears that the (scholarly or non-scholarly) text was the one present a month ago (to pick an arbitrary figure), so the 'original version' is not clear and both versions that have been recently reverted to are 'innovations' in some sense. (Having now actually read the affected versions, rather than merely trying to gauge consensus, it would seem that at least one of the causes of the dispute is a disagreement on whether this text excluded journalists or not; the claim would seem to be that the version SlimVirgin reverted to just now excludes journalists whilst the long-standing version didn't. Note that the removal of the (scholarly or non-scholarly) text is the last edit before protection of the page; the version on which a page is protected during a dispute is often a matter of chance.)

Trying to piece together the chronology of what happened; this edit by SlimVirgin is a revert to what SlimVirgin apparently believes is the old version of the policy (and is above in a shortlist of possible versions to revert to, so this text, which some people think is inappropriate above but does seem to be longstanding, seems to be believed by JulesH to contain an exemption for journalists). The most recent revert by SlimVirgin is to similar text, but doesn't contain the exemption from JulesH's point of view (see the diff between the two versions SlimVirgin reverted to). What is SlimVirgin's objection to the way I fulfilled the editprotected; was it concerns with the content (in which case, there seems to be a misunderstanding about whether the month-old version that I'm using as a reference actually excluded journalists or not, and whether the version I reverted to or the version that SlimVirgin just reverted to reflects the longstanding version)? Was it an attempt to revert to a longstanding version due to no consensus with the version I reverted to, but not noticing that the version reverted to was a slightly modified version just (3 minutes) before the protection, not a longstanding one? Was it a purely procedural revert due to the page being edited while it was protected? (In this case, I'd point out that one of the two main purposes of editprotected is precisely to correct a case when a page has been protected on The Wrong Version and many editors agree that it's the wrong version that's been protected.) Or was it something else? See also my explanation on User talk:Marskell as to why I answered the editprotected request.

However, I would ask that you at least correct the interwiki to nl: (it's going to their equivalent of Misplaced Pages:Citing sources at the moment); I can't even read the language, but the content of the page can be deduced by looking at its structure and checking the interwikis back to en:. (Probably a minor matter, I just noticed this looking over the diffs.) --ais523 17:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with the JulesH version, the "non-scholarly" addition was not an improvement. Tim Vickers 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) ais523, I believe your edits of a protected page were totally out of order. We clearly have disputes over various issues here, and the page was protected. Many of us here are admins who can physically edit this page, and of course we all refrain from doing so. The only way a protected page can be modified beyond a trivial edit (e.g. spelling fix) is via a clear and unambiguous unanimous consent of all editors. There is clearly no such consent, and for you to perform edits that are taking part in a content dispute while using your admin tools is absolutely unacceptable. Crum375 17:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ais, you really shouldn't be editing protected policy pages when you're clearly not familiar with the dispute. There are two main issues: 1. Here is Marskell's removal on June 27, without consensus, of "scholarly or non-scholarly," which has been in the policy for some time. 2. Here is JulesH on June 27 restoring an old version that made an exception for professional journalists; this had been removed in April after agreement on talk.

My guess is that JulesH did this in order to restore the "scholarly and non-scholarly" distinction that Marskell is trying to remove. If that was his motivation, I agree with him, but in so doing he (perhaps inadvertently) restored a version that was problematic for other reasons.

This is the kind of chaos we end up with when people turn up to edit war. I hope everyone will stop, read the archives, read the other policies, see how they hang together, and then discuss intelligently on talk, rather than forcing us to regurgitate discussions that have taken place many times already. SlimVirgin 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You should not be editing protected pages, in which you are involved in the dispute. --Aude (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's all just take a step back here and to try to WP:assume good faith and not seek to own this page in any way. I am not here to edit war and I do not think any of the other editors who are trying to improve the deficiencies listed above are here to edit war either. Repeated assertions of authority without any attempt to explain what the problems are not entirely constructive. Tim Vickers 17:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources (online and paper)

A number of users who are editing the article St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide) have used the College Roll to demonstrate the attendance of certain individuals at the college. The roll is where students sign up to the college (actually a residential institution). A particular user claims that this use is not acceptable. Any comments from other users? Ozdaren 12:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a reliable primary source. Blueboar 14:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ozdaren, this is a difficult one, and it would depend how the source was being used. First, it may not be notable that the individuals attended that college. Secondly, they may only have registered, then left. Third, they may not be the same individuals you think you're writing about. If there's an objection, it's always better to find a secondary source, particularly if it concerns living persons. SlimVirgin 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Accessibility?

Is accessibility part of the WP:V policy? I am presently trying to collaborate with another editor about the meaning of a word. I am relying upon the definition and etymology provided in the Oxford English Dictionary. Yet I am told that because the online access to the OED is by subscription, or by membership in a library which has a subscription, the OED is therefore not accessible to some editors and therefore not verifiable per WP:V. Also, the OED is not physically available in a convenient local library to some editors. What is the WP:V policy about this? SaltyBoatr 14:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Such a requirement is plainly absurd, of course, and it's not in the policy. BTW, I think it is reasonable to ask an editor to explain exactly what his source says, or possibly to request a precise quotation (there is a handy template for that ). It might make sense to mention this in the policy.--Anonymous44 14:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that you can cut and paste from the online OED. I would add that much of the online stuff is in draft; it may be better to cite the Second Edition, if it differs. That is, of course, in print; and is an eminently reliable source (and available at many public libraries). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I have initially refrained from cutting and pasting from a copyrighted dictionary. I still am not sure this is legal, and have asked for permission over here. SaltyBoatr 15:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources must be published; easy accessability is not a requirement but we are not required to believe a contributor's claim that a source says what he says it says if there is evidence to support doubt. Sources must reliable but reliability is relative - an expert in a peer reviewed respected published source trumps a dictionary and a dictionary trumps an offhand comment in a newspaper. Fair use covers short quotes and statements of fact without creativity (regardless of effort expended in compiling the facts) are not covered by copyright in the first place. WAS 4.250 15:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The OED definition I am looking at is 2,700 words long. Is that 'short' in context of fair use? Also, I am concerned that my cut and paste to the talk page, to save the subscription fee for other editors, violates item #2 of the WP:Fair_Use#Policy. SaltyBoatr 16:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Web Archive Sources

Can an web archived source be used, when there is a superseding that would appear to contradict it? The case in point is as follows:

The Web Archive source is as follows:

16 April 1999

Leonard Peltier has now spent twenty-three years in prison. Amnesty International considers Peltier to be a political prisoner whose avenues to legal redress have long been exhausted. The US Government has repeatedly denied requests for a special executive review. Amnesty International recognizes that a retrial is no longer a feasible option and believes that Peltier should be immediately and unconditionally released.

Now, from a AI Bulletin on April 30, 1999

USA: Amnesty International calls for release of Leonard Peltier . Amnesty International is not able to take a position regarding Leonard Peltier's guilt or innocence, and does not consider him a prisoner of conscience, but has decided to call for his release from prison because of continuing doubts about the fairness of the legal proceedings against him. A retrial no longer seems a feasible option.

Now, an AI July 15, 2007 statement:

Amnesty International has investigated this case for many years. Although Amnesty International has not adopted Leonard Peltier as a prisoner of conscience, the organization remains concerned about the fairness of the proceedings leading to his conviction and believes that political factors may have influenced the way in which the case was prosecuted.

I suppose my question would be, can we use a dead link as a source stating that AI believes Leonard Peltier to be a political prisoner, even when the source is no longer active, and material published at a later date would indicate that AI takes the opposite position?

Thanks. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your sources indicate that AI's position on Leonard Peltier status as a political prisoner is unclear. Say so and use all three sources as your reference. WAS 4.250 16:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Would not the two more recent statements, where they do not take the position that he is a PP or PoC, be the current position of AI considering that the first link has been taken down by AI? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. See e.g., Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/The_Game_(game)_(6th_nomination) for an often-cited example deletion discussion covering this matter. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control; that is, when it isn't really a blog. Posts left on these columns by readers may never be used as sources.