Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:27, 2 September 2014

This page is not a forum for general discussion about "verifiability" as a concept. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about "verifiability" as a concept at the Reference desk.

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

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

The Verifiability page is frequently reverted in good faith. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: try it out on the Workshop page, then offer it for consensus here, before editing the actual project page.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the lead section of the verifiability policy over the years. If you want to discuss changing its wording, please first read the 2012 request for comments and the previous discussion about the first sentence. Thank you for your cooperation.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83

Archives by topic First sentence (Nov 2010–March 2011) First sentence (April–August 2011) 2012 RfC about the lead section

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

RfC, Insertion of a refimprove tag

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.

Does the insertion of a refimprove tag come with the standard requirement for article edits that such an edit requires consensus, or is the insertion of a refimprove tag a priority edit, perhaps listed at WP:Edit warring#3RR exemptions?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC), New timestamp: 16:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Neither - stop wiki-lawyering about the tag. That goes for Epeefleche as well. In the time you have spent arguing about the God-damned tag, you both could have improved the article and, thus, made the entire tag issue irrelevant. Blueboar (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• I am not here willingly.  I wanted to discuss this the first time I said "time for the talk page" in an edit summary, diff, and I wanted to discuss it at Talk:Harlequin Shopping Centre.  I have been templated twice on my talk page, even though I have made no bad edits.  You said nothing when Epeefleche stopped S Marshall from moving the discussion away from here.  You have so far ignored my post on your talk page asking you to stop implicitly defending edit warring.  Meanwhile, this is a neutrally worded question that will clarify one of the points.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Are we really having this much of an argument over a refimprove tag? What's the harm in leaving it there, exactly? Worst-case, unsourced material will be removed, which is reasonable and allowed by policy in any case (for that matter, would you prefer removal of the unsourced material to the article simply being tagged?). Best case, interested editors will actually source the unsourced material. And if there isn't any unsourced material to begin with, then nothing will be removed. If you feel the refimprove tag is inappropriate and more specific tagging should be implemented instead, talk it over with the editor(s) who feel the article overall needs to be tagged.

TL;DR: If you have a problem with any level of citation needed tagging, the best approach is to provide sources so that the tagging becomes a moot point. It's a hell of a lot more productive than arguing about whether the tagging is needed to begin with. DonIago (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Agree w/Doniago's comment, above. Epeefleche (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment  Quote without comment from ,

• Two-part answer from me. (1) On the underlying principle: Adding a "refimprove" tag is either a reasonable request for sources from a good faith editor, or else a vexatious or retributive edit by someone you've clashed with. I have personally been on the receiving end of both. I think it's important that this discussion comes to a conclusion that lets a good faith editor add a simple tag without jumping through hoops, but prevents one moron from wasting massive amounts of productive editors' time by tagging inappropriately. Fortunately this situation is dealt with in the editing policy. Adding a tag is something one editor can do. Removing a tag is something one editor can do. At that point you've passed through B and R, so you're into D. During the D phase of BRD, the status quo ante should obtain, so all other things being equal the article should not have a tag on it until a consensus in favour of the tag is reached. (2) On the question in context: We've got a policy talk page being hijacked to deal with an argument between two editors about one tag on one article and I object to that rather strongly. Will you kindly stop it and do as Blueboar asks please.—S Marshall T/C 12:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, given that we're talking about a single maintenance template here (i.e. we're not talking about either multitudinous tags or actual article content), I'd argue that it would be better to retain the tag unless there's a consensus to remove it, if it becomes controversial. To my mind, better to keep a tag in place that may not, objectively speaking, be needed, than to remove a tag that actually is needed. If nothing else, the tag's presence may encourage other editors to turn up and either contribute to the discussion or fix the problem themselves. DonIago (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• The problem with that is that it enables/empowers editors to use tags disruptively. NB: I'm not saying that Epeefleche's use of the tag in this case was disruptive.—S Marshall T/C 15:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about a single refimprove tag at the top of an article. Even if that was intended to be disruptive...and I don't really see how that would work...once it was contested it would just be a matter of obtaining a consensus for removal. If we were talking about a dozen CN tags or actual content removal it would be a different story, IMO anyhow... DonIago (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm really not seeing a pressing case for an exception from the normal BRD cycle here.—S Marshall T/C 16:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I think, with S Marshall and Blueboar that on this talkpage we should not really be taking a position about this one case. Whether a tag is justified or not is a particular case which can be different in different cases, whereas this talkpage concerns generalizable cases. Specific cases need specific discussions (the D in BRD).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think the addition of a new refimprove tag requires consensus if there is an objection to it. The following excerpt is from policy. (See WP:CONACHIEVE.)

"After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus."

The policy does not seem to distinguish between tags or article text but rather applies to any "change or addition to a page". Similarly I think that if a longstanding refimprove tag is removed and there is an objection, then its removal would require consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@ S Marshal... Re: "enables/empowers editors to use tags disruptively." I am not sure I understand how adding a refimprove tag could ever be disruptive? Please explain. Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• This happened to me in January 2012. An editor who disagreed with me about something went through everything I'd ever written adding "refimprove" tags (and other similar tags) at the rate of about one a minute, and I ended up going to AN/I to make him stop. Tagging can be retaliatory or vexatious, which is disruptive editing.—S Marshall T/C 19:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

But it's not the addition of the tag itself that's disruptive, it's the behavior that's the issue there. Though...I'm tempted to ask whether the articles that were tagged did in fact have sourcing issues... DonIago (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Whether an article has sourcing issues is always a matter of opinion. For short articles about uncontroversial things (e.g. individual asteroids, minor mediaeval saints, small towns in Ecuador, species of small brown beetle), one source in the whole article might be perfectly sufficient for most reasonable editors. For long articles about fraught subjects, you can have two citations in every paragraph and still not solve all the sourcing issues. If someone went along and tagged one of the articles I've created for sources, I would leave the tag in place until I'd provided a further source. But if someone goes along and tags all hundred-odd articles below GA level that I've ever contributed, then that's vexatious behaviour and I'm just going to revert them. And having been in that situation I definitely don't want us to come up with a rule that says I'm not allowed to remove a tag without providing a source.—S Marshall T/C 11:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

From Template:Refimprove#When_to_use,

"Please consider marking individual unreferenced statements with {{Citation needed}} instead of placing this template."

Considering the present controversy, this seems like the way to make progress. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the way the question is put. "Does this require consensus?" will be misinterpreted as meaning "Before adding this tag, do I have to get written permission to add it?" You don't need written permission to add or remove these kinds of tags. The first editor to actually address the substance of the complaint, instead of edit warring over the tag, is the real winner. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If we're talking about a pattern of adding tags, address it as a conduct issue. If not, add sources to moot the tag, or talk it over with the tagging editor and highlight the areas of the article that needs tags. It seems to me more than a bit silly to argue over the tag itself...and frankly if I were involved in the dispute and was facing this much resistance to a tag, it might encourage me to escalate the matter and start pulling the content that specifically concerned me as the next step in the process. More collaboration, less confrontation. DonIago (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Be Bold Tag if it you think the article as a whole needs more inline citations, or remove tag if you or someone else has given it some actual consideration and hopefully been able to add some and improve to where you feel the request has been filled. If there seems no need or you're not sure if tag can be removed, then I'd suggest try talk before removing it. Markbassett (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• In reviewing the shopping center talk page, my view is that template is without consensus and should be removed. In such situations where an article level request for sources is unspecific, and the article is a dozen-some-odd sentences with 5 footnotes, then the refusal by the templater to identify where a source is actually needed, means that the template is unwarranted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• To answer the specific question, which I read as "are tags exempt from 3rr restrictions" the answer is no. If we're worried that a reader might be exposed to some problematic article without warning, we can certainly tag the article or fix it. But there's no tag that absolutely positively has to be on a page (or alternately, be absent from a page). The broader question isn't really something we can answer within the scope of a discussion like this. Protonk (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of type of work

I'd like to suggest, in regard to:

The word "source" in Misplaced Pages has three meanings:

1. the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)
2. the creator of the work (for example, the writer)
3. the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press).

All three can affect reliability.

including the following amplification following 'reliability':
... in a way that may depend on the type of work. For example, with scientific research, published in a journal, the reliability of the journal is the most important factor since its refereeing policies are what mainly determines the standard of what is published. But in cases such as book reviews for example, since the creator is unlikely to change the quality (as opposed to the content) signficantly in accord with where it will be published, the status of the creator is more relevant, as regards reliability, than where the review is published. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree as far as reviews are concerned. A high quality publication such as the New York Times isn't going to accept a review from just anybody. It is possible for a reviewer who has established his/her credibility by publishing reviews in well-known publications, and then publishing another review in an otherwise-questionable source, such as his/her personal website. In such case the exception for self-published work by a recognized expert would apply. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine — in this case the person is a recognised expert in the field that the book being reviewed covers, with his expertise being supported by articles in reliable sources. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I still wonder if some clarification might not be in order, particularly regarding the meaning and application of "questionable sources" restrictions. For example, a well known opinion blog like rogerebert.com would presumably be an acceptable source for a film review, but someone could argue that the QS prohibition on using sources that "rely heavily on...personal opinion" for "contentious" claims about others excludes an opinion published on such a site. In some cases the topic is completely about such subjective opinions, as in sections dedicated to film/book reviews or representative pundit reactions to a political development, so the sources are necessarily opinionated, and the guiding factors should be noteworthiness as determined by popularity, citations by others, representing a significantly held viewpoint, NPOV, normal page layout concerns, etc.. An historically significant work that might normally be considered unreliable, like Hitler’s Mein Kampf or Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, might be appropriately quoted with attribution in certain situations where coverage of such opinion is warranted, and not just in the two articles about the authors, or just claims about themselves (within the quotes). Should QS policy be interpreted as preventing such citations? Because that's how some editors view it. Even quoted mainstream opinions by notable figures could arguably violate QS in the eyes of some if they're sourced to their own (third party published) books, which obviously represent their personal opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Right, I get your point (more or less). Might my proposed addition help, by establishing an additional aspect to be taken into account? The trouble is that there will always be editors who try to game the system, however you word the guidelines. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

True. I think your edit would help in the cases we both had chiefly in mind by clarifying and expanding the emphasis on the "expert exception", but I think the issue with QS is somewhat broader than that. The section could benefit from language clarifying that opinionated sources are suitable for sourcing attributed quotes of their own opinion provided that such opinions are deemed noteworthy per policies like WP:NPOV. I'm not trying to hijack your section though. Maybe I should have posted in my own instead. VictorD7 (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem! When I have the time I'll have a think about how to address the issue you raise, which I have a feeling has been a source of annoyance in connection with some of my own edits in the past. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Basically, what we want it seems to me is a statement of the order of:

"where a source makes a particular assertion, that source may be considered a reliable source for the fact that the writer asserted it, regardless of the reliability of the source concerned in general".

Is that the point that you have in mind, and might there be a better way to express it? --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. That's already my interpretation of policy for logical reasons, but plenty of other editors certainly read the text differently, so a clarification along the lines you propose would be enormously helpful. VictorD7 (talk)

I trust the first issue has been here for discussion long enough to indicate effective consensus, so I've updated the text of the guideline. With your other point, the question is where to put it. It should act as a qualification to whatever is being misinterpreted to produce an outcome of the kind we consider misconceived. Any thoughts? --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "the fact that the writer asserted it", is your text intended to allow inclusion of this fact in a Wkipedia article just about the writer or is it also intended to allow inclusion of the fact in a Misplaced Pages article about the topic that includes the writer's assertion. The point is that if it is the latter, it may be a way to include information from an unreliable source into Misplaced Pages. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

As I say below, the set of reliable sources varies by context. What's "unreliable" in a scientific context isn't when it comes to a film review. In a section dedicated to noteworthy subjective opinions there's no rational reason to limit reliable sources to opinion pieces appearing in outfits like the NY Times or Washington Post, while excluding the views of (maybe more) prominent people writing in well known opinion heavy publications (like the rogerebert.com example above), at least not for sourcing reasons per se.

To answer Brian's question, I had in mind something like adding your wording (more or less) as an independent sentence in the QS section, or maybe tacking it on as a clause at the end. Maybe something like, "They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others in Misplaced Pages's voice, though they may be considered reliable for sourcing their own attributed opinions." Whether such opinions merit coverage is guided by due weight, NPOV, relevance, basic page layout concerns, editorial judgment, etc., which is what most editors use anyway. I think this tweak would clarify rather than change existing policy, as I see an attributed quote as "material on themselves", which is explicitly allowed. This would just prevent some editors from invoking QS to automatically exclude noteworthy, attributed opinions on pseudotechnical grounds simply because they come from a supposedly "QS" source. That it wouldn't lead to a flood of POV quotes across articles is evidenced by the fact that such a flood hasn't occurred with opinion writers at the NY Times, Washington Post, or other outfits not perceived as "questionable". Clearly there are plenty of safeguards in place to prevent it. This edit wouldn't have any impact except in certain niche situations where subjective opinion is explicitly called for, like the reaction to a film, and noteworthy opinions are sometimes being improperly excluded. It would also clarify that we are allowed to link directly to historically significant or otherwise noteworthy sources being covered and quoted from when appropriate per other policies/guidelines, even in articles not totally dedicated to such works or people. That routinely happens on Misplaced Pages anyway, but this would confirm that it's not a policy violation. Of course I'm willing to entertain any suggested wording tweaks that would alleviate any remaining concerns. VictorD7 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the text that you recently added to the policy, a person may be an expert in a field but not all of that person's ideas in that field may be sound and may not be accepted by reliable publications. That may be the reason why an unsound idea of the expert finds its way into an unreliable publication instead of a reliable one. Also, if it's an unreliable publication, there may be a question as to whether it is the writer's work, or whether it has been modified by someone else. I don't see a consensus for your addition and I note that someone just reverted it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

But the set of what constitutes "reliable sources" varies by context, and the edit in question did distinguish between the examples of scientific research and a book review. Of course it goes without saying that we should be confident such a source faithfully transmits the author's views; in fact that's the Verifiability page's legitimate purpose. But there's a rich gap lying between third party publications with a reputation for fact checking that ostensibly don't rely heavily on opinion and truly dubious sources, and that gap is full of material (including but not limited to self published sources) that we can be confident accurately represents its authors' views (verifiability). I'll also note that the reverting editor said he didn't completely disagree with the edit, but that he thought it merited more discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps some clarification is in order for people unfamiliar with these issues. A research paper makes certain scientific claims, and becomes part of the corpus of science when published. It is therefore important to assess the quality, and some journals may have better quality control than others. That doesn't apply with book reviews at all: they are clearly expressions of opinion. They are solicited by editors and almost certainly are not sent out to referees for vetting, though naturally the editor would look through the review first, before sending it off for processing. And the fact remains that reviewers do float their pet ideas, even in a journal like Nature. It is a totally different world to the world of research and the distinction needs to be made. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding a reviewer floating a pet idea, not in Nature but in some source that in general is unreliable — Are you suggesting that the pet idea should appear in a Misplaced Pages article on the corresponding scientific topic because it's a fact that the reviewer stated it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am. And why not? I'm only talking of ideas by acknowledged experts, of course, not yer average unqualified person. Where the idea is published should not matter. --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Re "Why not?" — Here's a previous comment I made,

"a person may be an expert in a field but not all of that person's ideas in that field may be sound and may not be accepted by reliable publications. That may be the reason why an unsound idea of the expert finds its way into an unreliable publication instead of a reliable one. Also, if it's an unreliable publication, there may be a question as to whether it is the writer's work, or whether it has been modified by someone else."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this even something that belongs in wp:V, or rather in wp:RS? The latter is normally sufficient for addressing the "is this source reliable" class of questions and it provides much more nuanced guidance than this policy can. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It is very curious that people raise no objections to these proposals for change when they are brought up on a talk page, but then suddenly object as soon as they are implemented. Is that normal on wikipedia? Is there something I am missing here? To my naive way of thinking, the idea behind 'before editing an article, put your proposals on the talk page of an article so they can be discussed' is that proposed changes are discussed before they are implemented so any desirable changes can be made before editing, not afterwards. It can't be that the objectors were not watching the article, because they responded immediately when I made the edit.
However, I am quite used to the fact that w'pedia operates in ways that anywhere else would be regarded as most odd, so what has just happened does not surprise me in the least (more sinister explanations for what happened also come to mind, but I will refrain from putting them in writing). --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a bit curious. You propose a change, people tell you it has problems, you add it anyway, with the edit summary "added detail as per discussion on talk page" which falsely indicates the change was agreed to on the talk page, and the change was reverted. What else did you expect? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I responded to user Jc3s5h's objection and he did not come back to me, so I assumed he accepted my response. And to the best of my knowledge user VictorD7 is in agreement with my edit (I changed my wording a little from that on the talk page, but not any significant way). --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I generally support your edit, though I still think a tweak to the QS section along the lines you suggested above would be helpful (see my new post above). VictorD7 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Changes to content in policies require a fair amount of input from the community and very clear agreement that the change is acceptable not just to one or two editors but to many. This can be very different from changes one might want to make to an article. What ends up in a policy will be used all over Misplaced Pages so the content and nuances of content must be accurate and there must be agreement that the content is accurate. Even if one or two editors did agree here on a content change its possible and even likely that others would change that content if added. I know very well how frustrating Misplaced Pages can be, and even unfair, but here what you've run in to is a legitimate caution we all have to take to ensure policies are not misused. I'd just keep discussing your proposal until there is agreement here on what should if anything be added. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC))

Thanks for the clarification. I don't know if I want to waste my time arguing with the editors who have raised objections, but your comments raise the question of what one can do if pretty well nobody registers an opinion unless you go ahead and post a change? It really looks as if you have to do change the project page to get people to take notice! --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Brian Josephson, Re "curious..." I only saw this section shortly before I made my comments above. Feel free to respond to my comments above about the substance of your proposals. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel it is not worth it now that others have muscled in, and I know what they are like, howling their disagreement. The two of us could probably have had a reasonable discussion and come to agreement as to what should be done, but now as it is that would be pointless. Thanks for your consideration, anyway! --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Active editors can be pretty busy here and in their off-Misplaced Pages lives so sometimes discussion edit summaries don't catch their eyes while a change will. Blueboar is a highly experienced editor in terms of policy, an expert, in my opinion, so perhaps engage him and see what he thinks, see what nuances he'd suggest if any. Often policies and guidelines intersect so added wording may be repetitive or redundant. An experienced policy/guideline expert may be more aware of those intersections or redundancies. There is also a desire in general to stay away from too much information in policies. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC))

I want to clarify that my comments are not meant in any way to be critical of your own experience. There are a very few long-time editors who seem to have specialized in policy and in some cases written many of them so they tend to have long time experience. Slim Virgin and BlueBoar come to mind. This doesn't make them right or wrong, of course, just that one can debate with them knowing they have this kind of experience. Anyway, hope you continue to comment on policy.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC))

I think most editors would resent being expected to repeat their objections over and over again. I think most editors consider their objection to be still in force unless they either strike it out or explicitly write that they have changed their mind. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

In saying 'In such case the exception for self-published work by a recognized expert would apply' you appeared to have accepted my point. However, it is a gray area. Are you regarding a book review in a journal as self-published? That seems odd. And if it is not considered self-published then the exception would not apply so it would need separate coverage.
I agree that RS would be a better place to make the change as has been suggested. Had I looked further on that page, I'd have seen that that list I quoted is there as well, but it said at the top 'The policy on sourcing is Misplaced Pages:Verifiability', so I ended up here instead. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I would agree in part, but also, this is a collaborative situation which means to me that If someone objects ask them what they could agree to, talk to them, discuss, compromise. A encyclopedia anyone can edit means everyone can discuss, can have an opinion. Respect for those opinions means talk it out. There is no definitive position.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC))

I note that my above met with a rather pointed rejoinder, which I assume was intended in good humour. While I endeavour to spend at least 170 hours/week on Misplaced Pages, somehow I still fall short, particularly when the weather is nice or the television is dreadful. Feel free to wp:TROUT me as needed. So far as I am aware, the community has as yet refused to fire me, or even cut my wages ;\)

Much of the proposed change is already substantially present in wp:RS at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Definition of a source, Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Context matters, Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Biased or opinionated sources, and particularly Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Statements of opinion. It is not at all clear to me why the particular bit of wp:RS being proposed should be needed directly in wp:V in preference to all the other bits. It has the appearance of policy creep. If there is a good reason, let's hear what it is so that a consensus for the change can be built. Who knows, we might even find a better way to state it. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, every time I talk to engineering about getting you more than the usual 168 hours in a week, I get complaints about the budget. We're also getting some pushback from legal, too; they're worried about liability if orbital changes affect the planet's climate (although enlarging the orbit ought to cool it slightly, which you'd think they'd all be grateful for). I'm working on it, I promise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Question: Is that normal on wikipedia? Answer: Yes.

In fact, the WP:Bold, revert, discuss idea is built on this idea: discussions may be overlooked or stall, but changing the article or policy gets people's attention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The following is regarding one of the points I tried to make in my previous messages. (There's another point too.) For reference, here's the proposed addition again.

"where a source makes a particular assertion, that source may be considered a reliable source for the fact that the writer asserted it, regardless of the reliability of the source concerned in general"

This could reasonably be interpreted to mean that a source is reliable for "the fact that the writer asserted it" even if it is an unreliable source, which I don't think was the intended meaning. I think what was intended was the following.

"where a source makes a particular assertion, the question of whether the source is reliable for the fact that the writer asserted it, is independent of whether the source is reliable in general"

Unfortunately, I don't think this is OK either because the reliability of the source in general might imply that it isn't reliable for "the fact that...". --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

(Regarding the other point I referred to in my parenthetical remark above, I continued that discussion up the page with a message with the same time stamp as this message. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC))

Both that and my suggested QS addition above..."They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others in Misplaced Pages's voice, though they may be considered reliable for sourcing their own attributed opinions."...use "may", which simply acknowledges what's confirmed elsewhere in Misplaced Pages policy, that a source can be deemed reliable for facts about itself (including its own opinions) even if it's self published, published by a site that relies heavily on opinion, is seen as "extremist", or is perceived as being "QS" in some other way. The idea is to clarify QS so it isn't invoked to automatically disqualify sources that are perfectly appropriate for a certain section. VictorD7 (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the part of QS that says, "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves", I'd like to check with you that we interpret this the same way. For example, going by this part of QS, I think that if a questionable source gives an opinion regarding something to do with a given topic, the fact that the questionable source has that opinion should not be allowed in an article on that topic but possibly could be allowed in an article about the questionable source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

So you would prohibit, for example, coverage of film reviews published by prominent figures in well known but opinionated sites like rogerebert.com, Breitbart, the Huffington Post, etc..? Or do you not see such sites as "questionable"? How about quoting directly from sources deemed pertinent to a section outside of their own articles, like Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto, or even The Declaration of Independence? What if, when covering an issue with multiple significant opposing views, editors understandably want to link to the opinionated sources (historical, legal, economic, or whatever) themselves? If you'd prohibit those things then we certainly have differing interpretations. The expert exception directly allows the last example (though it would be better if the QS section itself better reflected this), and I don't think QS does or should prevent the others. VictorD7 (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

My last message was trying to get your interpretation of the excerpt from QS, "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves". Would you care to give it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I consider an attributed quote taken from the source's words to be material about itself. Would you please answer my questions above? VictorD7 (talk)

Not yet. You gave an example of "material about itself", which I agree with, but you didn't interpret the meaning of the rest of the excerpt, "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves". For now, I'm not asking your opinion of whether this part of policy is worthwhile, I'm just asking what is your interpretation of its meaning. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If you're clear on what I include as "material on themselves", I'm not sure what you're asking. The rest of the segment you quote reads, "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of...". If you're implying that the text already allows the examples I've cited, I'd agree, but the issue here is whether it's sufficiently clear. If you're implying something else, however, then perhaps stating it directly and/or answering the above questions would help clarify your view. If it helps to clarify my own questions, by "prohibit" I meant you'd invoke QS to oppose or remove such material, though feel free to provide your own policy preferences along with your interpretation of current policy. VictorD7 (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree with my previous comment about the meaning of the excerpt? "if a questionable source gives an opinion regarding something to do with a given topic, the fact that the questionable source has that opinion should not be allowed in an article on that topic but possibly could be allowed in an article about the questionable source." --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I do, especially if one assumes a broad interpretation of what constitutes a "questionable source", but I asked the above questions to clarify your position and make sure. My position is that such content inclusion issues are properly governed by policies like NPOV, and that QS restricts claims, particularly those of fact or unattributed opinions, made in Misplaced Pages's voice.VictorD7 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the sources you asked about, I haven't looked at Breitbart, but I would consider rogerebert.com and Huffington Post to be reliable sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is a news/opinion site; roughly the conservative equivalent of the liberal Huffington Post. The clearer example here is rogerebert.com. The section states that questionable sources "include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." rogerebert.com is almost entirely personal opinion, so on what basis would you not consider it questionable? VictorD7 (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are the two beginning sentences of QS that include the excerpt you gave.

"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion."

I think that the first sentence defines questionable sources and rogerebert.com doesn't seem to fit that description. The second sentence begins with "Such sources" so the comments in that sentence pertain to sources that fit the description in the first sentence. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

So your position is that sources which express "views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion" aren't necessarily questionable? VictorD7 (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The question wasn't addressed to me, but my position is that "views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion" aren't necessarily questionable. This because one of those categories, sources that rely heavily on personal opinion, may very well be a self-published source expressing the opinion of the author/publisher. And there is an exception to the restrictions on questionable sources for "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Jc3s5h (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

But is it an "exception" to the limitations placed on questionable sources, or to the sources labeled "questionable"? In other words, is such a source still "questionable" even it's deemed permissible in that case? The distinction is important when we aren't dealing with "self published" experts who have previously been published in sources normally considered reliable, but situations calling for opinions like in the aforementioned rogerebert example. What about film reviews published by that well known opinion site from critics who haven't been published in a newspaper source like the Seattle Times or Wall Street Journal, but who have become well known and widely read nevertheless? In this case how is reliability even relevant apart from being confident that the source is accurately relaying its authors' opinions? The set of reliable sources in such an example should be any published opinions on the matter in question where we're confident the author really said what's being attributed to him, with inclusion guided by factors like prominence, popularity, representing significantly held opinion, etc.. VictorD7 (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)VictorD7, I wasn't taking a position on that, I was interpreting the policy with respect to rogerebert.com. Regarding "personal opinion" and rogerebert.com, that website contains opinions that go through an editor before they appear on the site. And as far as I know, it doesn't have a poor reputation for checking the facts or have an apparent conflict of interest, so I don't think it's a questionable source according to policy. Before we go on, what is your present opinion about whether or not rogerebert.com is a questionable source according to policy? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You said the extremist/promotional/gossip/rumor/opinion sentence only applies to sources meeting the criteria of the previous sentence. You specifically singled out heavy reliance on personal opinion as not necessarily making a source questionable, but the same would logically hold true for the rest of the sentence, which prompted my request for confirmation. If that's the case, then why include the sentence in the section at all? Regarding my own stance, I'm not sure precisely where the boundaries of questionable sourcing lie, or how "heavily" a source has to rely on personal opinion to be questionable, but rogerebert.com certainly seems to fit the bill. Of course my own stance on overall policy is that sites like rogerebert.com are usable for their own attributed opinions, because the QS section limits how they're used in Misplaced Pages's voice, and doesn't (and certainly shouldn't) control when their attributed opinions are deemed noteworthy enough to cover. As I said in reply to Jc3s5h above, when it comes to covering subjective opinions, especially regarding film reviews, I'm not sure how reliability or fact checking is relevant apart from being confident that the source accurately relays its authors' statements. VictorD7 (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

So far I've been trying to see where we agree or disagree on interpretation of the policy and it's been a lot of work. I think this is important to know before we can discuss changes. My feeling now is that I've spent my limit of time on this so I'll wrap it up for me. I oppose the change that you proposed way back near the beginning of this discussion and I think your interpretation of QS regarding rogerebert.com is incorrect for the reasons I mentioned. So that does it for me. Feel free to seek other editors' opinions on these or other matters. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Normally I'd cheerfully accept your disengagement without problem and thank you for your input, but since you just stated your opposition to my proposal I'm going to have to point out that you didn't answer any of my critical questions, or reconcile the apparent inconsistency between your claim that the current section doesn't label sources that rely heavily on personal opinion "questionable", and your reluctance to apply that same logic to the other categories listed in the "opinion" sentence. In short, we never quite got to why you oppose a clarifying edit. VictorD7 (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

A question of weight?

Reading through this discussion, I think what underlies the questions and concerns is this: When evaluating the reliability of a source, how much relative weight should we give to each of the three factors we consider when determining reliability. I.E. should we give more weight to 1) the type of work (book, website, blog, etc.) 2) the reputation of the author within his field 3) the reputation of the publisher/venue.
I don't think this is a question we can (or should) make a firm and fast "rule" about... because we can not answer it out of context. Each evaluation will give us a different answer. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Which is precisely why the QS section shouldn't be perceived as broadly categorical (especially regarding opinionated but trustworthy mainstream sources), and why a bit of clarifying language on what is and isn't being prohibited might help. VictorD7 (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well... first, I don't think prohibited is the right word to use. I have always understood QS to be a very strong caution against using questionable sources (because there are so very few situations where such sources would be appropriate to use), but that it does not rise to the level of being an out right prohibition (because there are those very few exceptional situations where it is appropriate to use them). Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Blueboar, I'd still appreciate your input on whether those situations extend to coverage of their properly attributed subjective opinions, like film review sections quoting sources that rely heavily (or entirely) on personal opinion, per the rogerebert.com example above, or a review from a news/opinion site like Breitbart.com or the Huffington Post (not that I concede such sources are "questionable", but an editor will sometimes assert they are), especially (but not necessarily only) when the author is prominent, has been previously published in various reliable sources, and is frequently cited by other media outlets. VictorD7 (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Again... I don't think we can or should give a one-size-fits-all answer. We would need to know the specifics of the situation. Remember that Verifiability (and the associated concept of reliability) is always context driven... and remember that we also have to factor in DUEWEIGHT. Does mentioning the opinion of a specific author, published in the specific source, and used in a specific context in a specific Misplaced Pages article give DUE or UNDUE WEIGHT to a particular view point? That has to be judged on a case by case basis. You can give one example, and I might say "yes, that's fine"... but you can't extend that to make a generalized rule... because as soon as you change just one of the specifics, a very similar example might not be fine at all. Blueboar (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that due weight/NPOV/etc. governs such decisions on a case by case basis. My question here is specifically regarding QS policy, and is in direct response to certain editors invoking "QS" as an excuse to exclude opinions they don't like. In other words, they're saying that a source like Breitbart.com is "questionable" (their primary argument being that it's opinionated), and would therefore never be allowable as a source for a film review quote in a movie article, even in a section dedicated to such attributed opinions, and regardless of the quote's content or the nature of the opinion itself. In your opinion is that a proper interpretation of QS? VictorD7 (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, "questionable" often depends on context... take two sources that are often considered questionable: a) Fox News and MSNBC. Are they reliable? Well, that depends on what you are talking about... for basic news reporting (for example: that there was an 6.0 Magnatude earthquake in Napa on such and such a date), both are reliable news sources. Even in political reporting they can both be reliable (for example: that President Obama signed X bill on Y date). However, both outlets also present news analysis and commentary. In this they are both admittedly biased (Fox towards the conservative view point, MSNBC towards the liberal view point.) This tends to be where people start to call them "questionable", depending on whether they agree with the view point or not.

In fact, in both cases, we need to look deeper than the venue. We need to look into the specifics of who is commenting, and on what. The key is that we don't present analysis and commentary as "fact"... but as opinion. Which is where DUEWEIGHT comes in... An analysis by someone of the stature of Charles Krauthammer on Fox (not sure who the equivalent would be on MSNBC... they keep changing) is likely to be biased, but his reputation are such that we should give his analysis, commentary and opinions some degree of Weight. An analysis or commentary by Blond Anchor number 12 should not be given much weight at all. Yet, even then, reliability and weight depends on the specifics of what they are talking about... Krauthammer does not merit much weight if he is commenting on baseball... it's not really his field of expertize (George Will's comments on baseball, however, would be reliable).

Hope that helps. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if being "questionable" depends on context, it sounds like you're saying "QS" is not grounds for automatically rejecting Breitbart.com from ever being used as a source for a properly attributed quote from its own film review in the appropriate section of a movie article, especially if the author is a prominent and widely cited professional film critic (like Christian Toto), and that such inclusion decisions should be dictated by factors like DUEWEIGHT. Is that a fair takeaway? VictorD7 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No you essentially have it correct... we should never automatically reject any source. However, that does not mean we should automatically accept it either. Questionable sources are called "questionable" because they should be questioned... but the answer to the question will be different, depending on the specifics. The same source may be deemed reliable in one context, and completely unreliable in another context. Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

With regard t the original question. I would give relatively little weight to 1.) and much more to 2.) and 3.). In particular if 2.) and 3.) are higly reputable 1.) looks more like a largely irrelevant format aspect or issue.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, you don't give weight to an opinion based on a reputation. Reputations swings both directions with "celebrity" news contributors. You might pick the opinion based on the reputation but due weight is a matter of how much of the opinion to use for the size of the article and the subject. Due weight should be a matter of how important that opinion may be to the subject matter and how wide spread the opinion is discussed, known etc. as part of the mainstream view. If Paul Krugman (probably the equivalent on MSNBC) says something that is an opinion and we give that opinion weight based only on his reputation...we are going to have differing opinion on that reputation. Maybe this was just a bad example. Look at it this way, if the British Museum uses says the Warren cup is an authentic relic but experts says it is not. Do we go by the more well known reputation of the current owner of the controversial relic? Or do we try to "balance" the weight with the information itself? I use this example because there has been some discussion of the reputation of some of the experts in a manner that might be seen as a way to add more weight to the opinion that it is real or not. It is not easy to decide weight and I think it comes down to a case by case basis depending on the situation and subject matter.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Mark... In your Warren cup example, none of the sources are likely to be questionable... so both sides would (and should) get fairly equal WEIGHT. However, let's say Prince Harry opined on the question of the Warren cup. As much as his opinion may be interesting ... he is not an expert, and it would be UNDUE WEIGHT to mention his opinion (even if he said it in a highly reliable venue). Blueboar (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but then that is also a slightly absurd example. Let me try again and this time with an outcome that ended with a block. Someone uses a Forbes blog opinion on an article and states that the reputation of the author is without question. Then an editor questions it, states his own opinion of the author's "reputation" and is immediately blocked for it. It was well deserved and I will not go into further detail but....if you give weight based entirely on the reputation of the author it does swing both ways but cannot be argued against...but can be argued...for. That is an unacceptable outcome of using reputation. Many reliable sources have very bad reputations by many editors. You cannot allow that to become a manner in which we choose sources or debate over them. The one saying good things will remain and the ones arguing a bad reputation will get blocked. It is an unfair debate because we cannot allow editors to "bash" the reputation of an author but we can allow almost loving sendups. So, my point is, weight is not a matter of reputation. It is a matter of the context, the content and the mainstream acceptance. Anything else is point of view.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Disputable circular references

Question here about WP:CIRC. What if a source cites Misplaced Pages articles, but it is obvious from the articles that most of the content in the source didn't not come from WP because it is not on WP? This guideline does not really specify about any of this, probably because this is rare, but if anyone can offer an answer to this, I suggest we include this in the article. What brings me here is this. This article from UKessays.com (usually a reliable, verifiable source) cites the following Misplaced Pages articles: satellite television, direct-broadcast satellite, and television in the United Kingdom. The satellite TV article has gone through some major expansion recently, but when this essay was written (it doesn't say, but it has probably been around for at least a few months, as I stumbled over it when expanding the satellite TV article), the closest WP article it resembled was the TV in the UK article. But it is still obvious much of the content of the essay didn't come from WP mainly because much of it still doesn't exist on WP and is contradictory to much of the WP articles. I don't plan to use this essay as a source on WP, just to let you know. Anyways, if someone can offer a solution to this, I suggest we include it in the article, probably under the WP:CIRC section.Qxukhgiels (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIRC says "Also, do not use websites that mirror Misplaced Pages content or publications that rely on material from Misplaced Pages as sources." . Making a few citations to a Misplaced Pages article, or even borrowing a sentence or two, is not mirroring Misplaced Pages. Nor is it relying on Misplaced Pages. Now, if the source is being used to support a particular claim, and the particular claim in the source is cited to Misplaced Pages, then it requires a more careful examination. If the source is a general-interest source not known for expertise on the topic says "This isn't our area of expertise, but Misplaced Pages says the snark was a boojum" then it the source does rely on Misplaced Pages and should not be used for that claim. If the source is by the world's leading expert on the topic, and it says "even Misplaced Pages manages to get it right, the snark was a boojum" the source is not relying on Misplaced Pages and may be used to support the claim. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to make things complicated... one should also check the article history to see what was in prior iterations of our article . I have seen cases where an external source takes information from a Misplaced Pages article, but subsequently that information is removed from the Misplaced Pages article for cause. We need to be careful not to (later) re-add the removed information, based on the external source (that was in turn based on the prior version of the wikipedia article). Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I have done that with the WP articles cited on the UK essays source, and it's obvious most, if not all the claims have never existed on WP. If they had, then someone has managed to get under the radar with a big content removal job.Qxukhgiels (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This problem has a very easy solution, though you may not like it. First, I'd object to using this essay by a seemingly unknown author as a reliable source, especially when it doesn't have proper notation throughout the essay to determine which source the information directly came from. The next problem I have is that in the Bibliography, it lists 4 sources, 3 of those are from Misplaced Pages. Therefore, if we assume the information is evenly divided, this essay is made up of 75% WP material and that's a clear indicator that it probably relies heavily on WP content. The solution is simple. Go to the source in the Bibliography that's not a WP article and use that as your source for the information you want to include in the WP article. Now, I've already checked the source and there isn't a lot of information there. So that furthers my opinion that the essay is mostly based on WP content and is not a reliable source. WP:verifiable requires that the information from a source can be verified. The information in this essay can not be traced back to a reliable source. It doesn't really matter if you can't find the content in the essay on those WP articles, what matters is that you can find them in another reliable source. Hope this answers your concerns.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Issue raised: Does Misplaced Pages policy require that statements be supported by a single source?

The conversation on talk:Oathkeeper has branched out into whether a single source must support a given statement or whether multiple sources may be used. Given the discussion above concerning circular referencing, this topic may be of interest to Wikieditors interested in WP:V. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Generally, if the source is of a high quality and reliable, then a single source may suffice. But irrespective of the quality or reliability of a source, in the case of exceptional claims, or in the case of allegations about well known people, you definitely need multiple sources to support any material. In the absence of multiple sources, exceptional claims or allegations against well known people should be removed. Wifione 05:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:Syn already sufficiently explains what I believe to be the question you are asking. You can not take claims from one source and combine them with another source to make a new claim that's not directly supported by either source. Circular sourcing has nothing to do with this. Circular sourcing is when sources basically reference each other for the content of their material. So if a WP article cites Salon.com as a source and it turns out that the Salon article references WP as its source, then this is circular sourcing. Though you may be asking about something else, this is the only part of the discussion I remember having any relation to what you're asking here.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If the statement/claim/fact is controversial or surprising, it definitely helps to have more than one source. However, Scoobydunk makes a valid point... the sources have to directly support the entire statement, not just the various parts of it. Blueboar (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Darkfrog has been misinterpreting the discussion at Talk:Oathkeeper. IMO, as Scooby noted, the discussion has little to do with whether multiple sources may be used to support a statement. I believe the discussion is rather about DF's efforts to insert information into the article that multiple editors feel is inappropriate because they involve synthesis in that the sources (on their own or in combination) do not explicitly state what DF would wish to see included. On a separate but related note, the reliability of the sources has also been called into question on several occasions.

There is no question as to whether multiple sources may be used, there is rather a proposal to require that statements comparing the episode to the novels upon which it draws must each be explicitly backed by a singular source. I would have hoped that such a proposal wasn't necessary, as I feel all it's effectively doing is restating policy as it current stands, but Darkfrog has been most vocal about their views, leading me to believe that it was necessary to come up with a consensus-backed and perhaps less ambiguous statement regarding the insertion of comparative statements into the article. DonIago (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd also add that Darkfrog has been seeking to add these synthesized statements for almost three months now, despite consensus against it. She seems to be trying to find sources to support the statement, when it should be the other way around. Lastly, I'd point out that Darkfrog24 appears to be shopping for a different opinion, as the post here is but the latest in a very long series which include RSN, AN, AN3R and canvassing to almost two dozen other articles. It seems more than a little tendentious to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree that DF appears to be engaging in tendentious editing with regards to this. DF was previously referred to Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing on at least one occasion. If the recommendation that they review it had any impact, I haven't perceived it. I've considered filing an RFC/U on the matter, but I have no experience with such things and my experience with their behavior is limited to a single article, so I'm not sure that would go anywhere.

My apologies if I've taken this off-topic, but at this point I just don't know what else we can do to address the situation with finality. DonIago (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, Scooby, I don't think you do understand what I was asking. Say we have two sources that support the statement, "The bluebird appears in chapter five of The Bird Book." One of these sources can establish notability but not verifiability and the other can establish verifiability but not notability. Respectively, these might be a newspaper article that cites Misplaced Pages (circular referencing) and the other might be a primary source, in this example the book itself (it's been argued that primary sources can't establish that content is notable).

Do we get to say, "Well we know it's notable from the newspaper and we can verify it from the novel, so the content is notable and verifiable" or must we find just one source that establishes both verifiability and notability?

As for Jack's and Don's claims, consensus was that the disputed content requires a secondary source, so I've been finding secondary sources (about nine of them at last count). "This is insufficiently sourced"/"Okay, here's another source"/"No not this source"/"Well here's another one" isn't tendentious editing. It's Misplaced Pages. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The source being used must be notable if you're trying to include it based on grounds of notability but it still must meet WP requirements of reliability and verifiability. So if the newspaper source is citing a WP article then it is no longer a reliable source for WP due to circular referencing.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see why circular referencing would make the exact line unreliable. It brings the factual accuracy of the statement into question. What I don't see is why that negates the fact that the author and editor of the newspaper considered the statement worth noting. They literally took note of it. (In this example, the newspaper is generally RS; let's say other articles from the same paper are used as sources elsewhere in the article, as in the case of AV Club over on Oathkeeper.) Why not establish notability from the newspaper and confirm the statement's accuracy somewhere else? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If you're confirming the statement via another source then why do you need the original source to establish notability in the first place? If the second source is a reliable source then notability is inferred easily enough, and if it isn't a reliable source then it shouldn't be being used regardless. DonIago (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

In this example, Doniago, the other source can establish verifiability but not notability. For example, I can look at a novel and observe that the bluebird first appears in chapter 5. It's a straightforward description of a fact, permitted under WP:PRIMARY. However, one respondent to an RfC argued that the novel itself wasn't sufficient proof that the content was also notable. The question is this: If we have one source that establishes that the text in question is notable, say a generally reliable newspaper (that in this case cannot establish verifiability, say because of circular referencing), and another that establishes that it is verifiable, say a primary source, is that sufficient to establish that the content itself is notable and verifiable? I say yes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If the situation is really that convoluted then I don't think the information should be included to begin with. If you want to say "A bluebird first appears in chapter 5" because you observed it, then I think that's not notable. Find a reliable source that makes the claim and utilize it. DonIago (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Folks, the concept of NOTABILITY is about whether a topic deserves an article. It is not about the content of articles. The appropriate concept for article content is WEIGHT. Please use correct wikiterminology. Zero 09:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Zero is correct... there is a difference between Notability and "Noteworthiness". Our various notability guidelines (such as WP:Notability) have nothing to do with whether X fact should be mentioned in an article. That is an editorial decision based on WEIGHT and RELEVANCE. Also, sources do not need to be notable, they need to be reliable. Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go ask about this issue over there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason we use reliable sources is that they are supposed to be accurate. They are expected to use fact-checking not us. In my experience, tendentious editors who want to add dubious information will add lots and lots of sources, without reading them and often not accessible on-line, causing anyone challenging their statement to carry out considerable research. Certainly this is not something to encourage. And readers don't want to see 8 or 10 references for each statement.

Furthermore, multiple sources cited for false information typically are ultimately sourced to the same original text. The book They Never Said That documents quotes that have been falsely attributed yet nonetheless can be found incorrectly attributed in multiple "reliable sources." As a general rule, when selecting sources one should use those most relevant to the subject. A book about Albert Einstein is more likely to get facts about his life accurately than a book about film-making.

TFD (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Does the expert exception rule apply to pieces published in "questionable" sources, or only self published pieces?

Self explanatory title. The expert exception appears in the self published section, but an above discussion indicated support and no opposition for the notion that it would apply to questionable sources as well. Does the expert exception apply to "questionable" sources too, as long as we're confident that the source accurately transmits the author's words? VictorD7 (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the the policy explicitly states that, but I would think that that would be a reasonable conclusion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's questionable in that it has a significant conflict of interest or poor reputation for checking facts, I'd stick with the standard rules for questionable sources: Use it for information about itself, as in, "According to biochemist Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University, living things could have been made by an intelligent designer." Is Behe an expert? Yes. He has a PhD. However, he's a major proponent of a fringe view not held by most life scientists. Stuff from his website is usable but it should be attributed to him. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a context to this question that I am unaware of, and there's certainly nothing wrong with in-text attribution, but I don't see how Behe meets the qualifications of an expert in regards to intelligent design. AFAIK, Behe's work in intelligent design has never been published by a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal. Yes, there was on article that slipped through the cracks, but it was withdrawn by the publisher IIRC. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Self-published sources are a type of questionable source. What the expert exemption means is that if an expert astronomer says alien abductions actually happen then it has the same validity as if it had been stated in a textbook. Anyone questioning the statement then has to provide other sources to show that it is a fringe view. TFD (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

NO it doesnt, AT ALL. what it means is that if a an astronomer has been previously reliably published about astronomy, then other content she makes available about astronomy would be considered as valid as if it had gone through an actual publisher. It does NOT give her any "expert" status about aliens, and most certainly does not require third party sources to remove her claims about aliens. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The search for extra-terrestrial intelligence is a legitimate pursuit for astronomers. While this is an egregious example, there are well-respected historians, physicists, sociologists, climatologists, biologists, etc. who depart from the mainstream on such topics as the holocaust, evolution, relativity, free energy, racial equality, climate change, mental illness, and whether HIV causes AIDS. And I see no reason why their self-published works should be considered as reliable as their works that were submitted to peer-review. And while we all know that there are no little green men, the only way to determine whether fringe claims by reputable scientists are fringe is through familiarity with the reliable sources on the topic. TFD (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea behind the expert exception is that the word of an expert is considered reliable on its own merits even if it is not published by a reliable second party. But there is still a need to know that what appears in a source as the word of an expert really is the word of that expert. If an academic writes something on their own web page, we can be reasonably sure it is due to them, but if something appears under their name on a random online forum, we don't know if it is really them. If someone else on a random online forum claims to be quoting the expert, that counts for nothing at all. In summary, it is only in the definitely self-published case that the word of an expert is reliable on its own merits. No change to the policy is merited. Zero 09:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

<Insert>Zero, that's why I specified as long as we're confident that the source accurately transmits the author's words. No one's suggesting a change in policy, but most editors seem to think the expert exception would already apply to such a source.....say a prominent, mainstream site the author is known to work for, not just some random online forum. It sounds like you agree with me that the critical issue is having confidence the person really said what's being attributed to him. VictorD7 (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Piggy-backing on the idea of "it is only in the 'definitely self-published' case that the word of an expert is reliable on its own merits," I believe this also entails the narrative/bias of the source published in. Many questionable sources are questionable for reasons like conflict of interest or being mostly opinion pieces. So authors who get published by a questionable source that has a clear bias or specific audience have to tailor their opinions/work for the source. For example, Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a well reputed scientist however, if Tyson writes an article for Nickelodeon Magazine or appears on a kids show, his words will be tailored for the show and they may not actually reflect his opinion. So if he's explaining to kids that stars/solar systems are like snowflakes in the aspect of uniqueness, it doesn't suffice to go to a WP article and say "Snowflakes are like solar systems," or a WP article about stars and say "Stars are like snowflakes," citing Tyson's article in Nickelodeon Magazine. The material came from a questionable source whose bias clearly affected the narrative and presentation of information by the reliable expert. I believe this is another possible reason besides verifiability why the expert exception doesn't appear in WP:QS.

This also applies to a questionable source's editorial process. An author who gets published in a questionable source may have had their original material compromised by the editing team to fit the biased narrative of the publication. So some things can be omitted or some things can be added to reinforce the narrative of the publication and those edits may not accurately reflect what the author actually thinks. However, a self-published source is more likely to represent exactly what the author/expert wants to say on a given topic and this is why the expert exemption is listed for self published sources and not for questionable sources. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your first paragraph would be covered by other policies and guidelines, including DUE and general appropriateness, not QS. Your second speaks to being confident that the author really said what's being attributed to him. Unless he has a gun to his head, a column he wrote himself should be considered his words regardless of where he published it. His motivation and integrity are separate issues from his authority status. People can twist their own words or lie on self published blogs too.VictorD7 (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

My first paragraph is covered by the policy of questionable sources. Your assertion that "Unless he has a gun to his head" is absurd. There are many instances where people have to edit or do things contrary to their personal beliefs or opinions to fit the narrative/criteria of their employer. There are many creationists science teachers that are still forced to change their language and teach evolution in the classroom. Who they are at work and who they are in person are two completely separate things. When a person writes in an article for a biased publication that they work for, the opinions expressed in their work can differ substantially from their actual own opinions. If they self publish their work they don't have to alter their opinions or answer to the editorial board. That's a valid reason why the expert clause exists in the Self published section and not the questionable source section.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No, because you seem to be attacking the notion of someone's expertise to begin with, an argument undermined by the expert exception rule and your own creationist point. If a creationist is deemed a scientific "expert" then he's still an expert in self published writing where he's espousing a minority view, and the decision on whether to include his view on a particular matter would be governed by DUE, FRINGE, etc., not sourcing policy. Same with the Tyson Nickelodeon example. The coercion point isn't absurd because conforming to a publication's standard is a voluntary process. They don't have to publish there. As experts, which policy determines individuals can be, they've used their judgement to publish their views in a particular venue. If you're questioning their judgment in doing so then there would be no reason to accept their self published work at face value either, but policy does. Your argument also doesn't address situations when there's no reasonable doubt that the publication has allowed the expert to publish his own views without substantive interference. VictorD7 (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it's a questionable source is sufficient reason to doubt the publication and what gets published in it. Hence why the expert exception isn't a part of WP:QS, no matter how much you want it to be.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Your response doesn't address what I said. We don't tag sources "questionable" for some reason and then reason backwards based on that supposedly absolute premise. A source may be reliable for one kind of content but not others. Here the hypothetical is an established expert giving his opinion in a high profile, mainstream venue where there's no reasonable doubt that he really wrote the piece. VictorD7 (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19, a recent posting on the fringe theories noticeboard illustrates my point. (See "Cosmological General Relativity".) The theory, which postulates a five dimensional universe, was developed by Moshe Carmeli, who was the Albert Einstein Professor of Theoretical Physics at Ben Gurion University and President of the Israel Physical Society, and the theory has been published in peer-reviewed sources. One of Carmeli's researchers, John Hartnett, a Research Fellow at the University of Adelaide who has published 200 peer-reviewed articles on physics, including on Cosmological General Relativity, uses the theory to promote creationism on fundamentalist websites. His own website says, "Creation was only about 6 thousand years ago. God created the whole universe in 6 ordinary days and rested the seventh day." TFD (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

From what you say, it sounds like Harnett qualifies as an expert on Creationism, and could be cited as such... of course there is a very limited number of articles where it would be appropriate to discuss creationist views (per WP:WEIGHT)... but in those few articles, I could see citing him. Blueboar (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

He qualifies as an expert on physics and cosmology and is not an expert on creationism. TFD (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Self-published sources

WP:SPS states: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." If the editor-in-chief of a journal has control over what content the journal publishes, would an article written by the editor-in-chief which appears in his own journal and expresses opinions about the work of a third party equate to a self-published source? Is there a lack of editorial oversight in these instances? - Location (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter who writes in a journal, if it is a reliable source because content written by the editor is subject to the same editorial control. However, if it is an opinion piece, then it comes under rs policy for them, and they are not considered reliable sources for facts. TFD (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is this site an expert SPS?

There is an RfC at Oathkeeper regarding whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert SPS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)