Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources: Difference between revisions

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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

Archives

Imo, this guideline could be far more usefully handled and improved if it where a dedicated WP:MOS subguideline. The applicable policy (WP:V) appropriately handles the required minimum threshold, while this page could explain various scenarious in greater detail than a policy, including the ideal case, or how to proceed in the many suboptimal cases where high quality sources are not easily available etcpp. User:Dorftrottel 14:52, February 15, 2008

List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire uses Encyclopædia Britannica to source the following: "Mehmed VI later tried unsuccessfully to reinstall himself as caliph in the Hejaz.", "Abdülmecid II died in Paris, France on 23 August 1944.", and "On 18 November, the Grand National Assembly (TBMM) elected Mehmed VI's cousin Abdülmecid II, the then crown prince, as caliph."

The use of the encyclopedia as a reliable source has been questioned at the list's Featured list candidacy, but the author and nominator has said "Encyclopædia Britannica is certainly a reliable source, and is used to reference very non-controversial claims. I thus think it should be kept." Is this a fair statement or is it indeed an unreliable source? Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The EB is definitely a reliable tertiary source. I think the issue here is that the folks who do FA reviews prefer reliable secondary sources, and turn their noses up at tertiary ones. In other words, they are not saying that that the EB is unreliable... they are saying that the same information should be cited to "better" sources. Blueboar (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who brought this up at FLC. The thing is, is this the best source that could be used, and is the info used from the source unreliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said... it probably is not the best source that could be used, but the source (and thus the info taken from it) is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Dabobm87 is saying that only people with access to university libraries should propose that an article become a featured article. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not put words into my mouth and make unfounded assumptions; having said that, please notice the FA criteria's requirement for an FA to be "well-researched: [i.e.,] characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic". (I realize that we were talking about featured lists) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS - Tertiary sources: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles." Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia itself considered a reliable secondary source? That is to ask, can a cited reference to another WP article, in general, support the requirement for verifiable, cited sources sufficient to back up a claim in another article? I looked for existing guidelines or policy on the matter but could not locate anything. N2e (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. If there is some information in another article, it should be cited there, and the citation can be imported along with whatever information depends on it, if that seems to otherwise be a good idea. Naturally, some articles will simply send readers to other articles for information, but that is not the same as using Wikipedia as a reliable source, because the facts simply have to be verifiable in a non-Wikipedia source, wherever those facts happen to appear. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. See WP:RS - Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: "Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles." —Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BTBacchus and Mittisse! I just looked at the guideline you quoted and believe it is quite clear. Sorry I missed seeing it previously. N2e (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fox example, if Roger Ebert broke a story for the Chicago Sun-Times that said which actor will play the bad guy in the next Batman movie, we all would accept his reporting as a reliable source. If Ebert left the Sun-Times and still broke that story but for a website (and not a news agency), wouldn't it still be from a reliable source? (Weswilson4 (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, he would qualify as a recognized "Expert" writing in his field (discussed at WP:SPS). However, if Ebert expressed his opinion on Japanese art history on his webpage, it would not be a considered reliable source, as Ebert is not known as an expert on Japanese art history. Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your example is your real case, it seems clearly yes. If that example is hypothetical, I am hoping most editors would say "usually but it depends" on the context. I say so because news scandals in recent years make it obvious that some organization with "reliability prestige" have not been able to really maintain reliability of its writers. Take Jaysen Blair and Judith Miller. And RS says this:

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; END --Ihaveabutt (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re discussion archive 33 re Western Mail[[1]]

I have attempted to engage OFenian in discussion about his removal of information regarding Gerry MacLochlainn. I have acknowledged that perhaps the problem arose from problems of protocol arising out f my inexperience. I note teh discussion supported my contention that the Western Mail was a legitimate source and not a tabloid as claimed by O Fenian. I also note that another person referred to letters held in the National Library of Wales of Gerry MacLochlainn whilst in prison. This makes it very strange for O Fenian to continue to justify removing mentions of MacLocchlainn's time in prison with several sources albeit of varying quality quoted but named and dated sources from the Western Mail and Abergavenny Chroicle confirm the claims I have made. I have asked O Fenian to discuss with me the entry that he would not remove and have not posted the pieces again. If he does not respond I feel that I have the right to repost the sections although I will attempt to edit them and source them better.--86.131.127.183 (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a question on the RS noticeboard about whether the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe counts as a reliable source within the terms of the sourcing policy. Any input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Ilan_Pappe_a_reliable_source.3F. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of information about old legal cases, what are treated as reliable sources?

I'm assuming,

1. London Times (or equivlant) broadsheet newspaper legal reports. (London times has specfic coverage of major appeals court rulings)
2. Offically published transcripts.
3. Legal textbooks published contemparanously with the cases concerned

? 62.56.99.187 (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers are usually reliable for this.

Transcripts are iffy... They are primary sources and so have limitations on reliability (essentially you can cite them in support of a statement that a person said something during the trial, but not as a citation for a statement that what they said is fact. Transcripts should be treated similarly to Op-Ed pieces, and viewed as the opinion of the witness). The Judge's rulings and the final Decision are considered reliable.

As for Legal text books... yes, if they talk about the case in question... so you should probably look at those that have been written after the case is over, not contemporaneous text books. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to post Brooklyn Law's current tuition on the wikipedia page, with a link to www.broohlaw.edu as a citation.

Also, I would like to disclose that the dean of a nearby law school, New York Law School, is the chairman of the board of accessgroup.org, a company which originates private loans to law students at brooklyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berknyc81 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute in an article about Russian history. Two editors are claiming that the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, published by Russia's Academy of Sciences, written by Russia's top scholars, and translated by Macmillan Publishers, is not a reliable source. It should be noted that many Wikipedia articles cite this source. Wikipedia Precedent confirmed the reliability of such sources. I find allegations concerning the BSE's alleged unreliability to be baseless because all Western-based scholars have used soviet-era scholarship in their work. Kupredu (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources" are never reliable or unreliable, it is the use of the source that is either reasonable or not. Given the way the source is being used, I have some suspicions myself. As a source on Russian geography, ancient Russian history (i.e. the pre-Tsarist era), Russian secular art and music, etc... it's a very reasonable source. Given the documented censorship of the document, I would agree that it is a dubious source on any Soviet era individual that had any political activities. The "head of part of the anti-Bolshevik White forces during the Russian Civil War" as the article describes him, is never going to get a reliable treatment from a Soviet era document. SDY (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More simply, if a topic had, in the minds of the Soviet leadership, any political implications, or if the author had any reason to be concerned that the Soviet leadership might later decide a topic had any political implications, I'd treat the GSE's coverage of the topic as unreliable. So I'd disagree with SDY's statement that coverage of pre-Tsarist history could be trusted, because pre-Tsarist history would have obvious causal connections with Tsarist-era history; and IIRC many pre-Tsarist Russian city-states were pretty standard early Middle Ages trading towns, so their history would be interpreted according to Marxist-Leninist doctrine about early medieval society. And if Communist Party in-fighting led to a re-interpretation of Marxist-Leninist doctrine ... --Philcha (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed several times in the past (ex. Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive_16#Nazi_and_Soviet_sources (including a subsection on GSE). I think it is high time to add some note that sources from totalitarian regimes need to be treated with extra caution, and readers are directed to articles like Soviet historiography for a detailed discussion of which areas are not considered reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with "Use with extreme caution"... with the understanding that this is not the same as "Don't use... ever". Reliability is not black and white. There are vast areas of grey. Such sources can be reliable for some statements in wikipedia and not reliable for others. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Comments appreciated at Template talk:Communist era sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes... that definitely is not a good template. It assumes that all Communist era sources are questionable, and that simply is not the case. Of greater concern is the fact that the template has been broadened in scope... it could now be applied to any article that sources from a "totalitarian regime". Yet there is no definition of what that means... would an article that uses documents issued by the Vatican get this tag? Most people would agree that it shouldn't, but the Papal States can be considered a totalitarian regime. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no source is wholly reliable or wholly unreliable. Even for fields contaminated by ideology, such as Slavic archeology, the descriptive work is I think still regarded as high quality Sometimes the problem merely amounts to realizing that they are using specific 19th century terminology & fitting things into the preset scheme of development that needs to be translated into standard. All historical, sociological, and anthropological work is subject to cultural and political bias. In a sense the soviet work is easier to deal with because it is known in which direction the bias is likely to be. DGG (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I think it is high time to add some note that sources from totalitarian regimes need to be treated with extra caution, and readers are directed to articles like Soviet historiography for a detailed discussion of which areas are not considered reliable." (Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus)

The idea overall of the Template has merit, though I'm sure most Wikipedia editors know about reliability issues (the Soviets are often used as the exemplary country defining such practices re Censorship of images in the Soviet Union, etc.). There are also the obvious unreliable sources, such as Joseph Stalin's 1948 "Falsifiers of History" and the obvious problems in Eastern Bloc information dissemination.

I might change the Template file name to "Totalitarian Regime sources" from "Communist era sources" sources, though you may want to include "sources generated in countries ruled by Communist regimes" (or the Eastern Bloc, North Korea, etc.) in a list in the tag's explanatory text (inclusive rather than exclusive list). A few reasons: (i) in terms of reliable sources, we're really concerned about Totalitarian regime sources in general, i.e., such regimes control information flow making information generated in secondary sources therein generally unreliable (though certainly not necessarily false); (ii) you may get bogged down in arguments about what is really "Communist" -- e.g., some claim that Kim Il-Sung's North Korea was somehow not actually Communist and someone just today claimed that Tito's Yugoslavia wasn't Communist in a talk page discussion (not that I agree with either point in any regard, but it avoid that argument).Mosedschurte (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a discussion of the template. The bottom line: any Soviet/totalitarian sources where heavily censored by state organizations like Glavlit and therefore should be considered unreliable, especially when they tell about the enemies of such regimes, such as White movement, enemy of the people, etc. Soviet sources on such subjects can be define as a propaganda, not scholarship. As a side note, this entire discussion was initiated by a sock of banned user.Biophys (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the bias. The problem are totally invented events or data produced explicitly for disinformation. The most common example are totally invented statistical data about the "successes" of socialist economy.Biophys (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the real issue with communist era sources is one of Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources, since communist regimes exercised total editorial control over the content of publications such as the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. See the brief discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Great_Soviet_Encyclopedia. Martintg (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, government published sources are not considered SELF-published under WP:SPS. Are such sources always reliable? no... are they always unreliable? No. They lie in the grey zone of "it depends". Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinction between government published sources and party published sources. Western government bureaucracies tend to be somewhat independent of the political party that happens to be in power at the time. You don't see some government department altering facts and figures on order of their political masters, certainly not without a scandal. On the other hand in totalitarian communist regimes, the political party micromanaged every aspect of a government department's work, particularly its publications. Imagine the Republican Party exercising such control to the extent that if you wanted to be an historian, you first had to join the Republican party, and if you wrote a history of the Iraq war your draft would be edited by a Republican party committee before publication to ensure that it followed the party line. In this case such a history book would really be no different from a party pamphlet, and as such ought to be considered a self-published source. --Martintg (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:SELFPUB is a good summary of the problems with sources published by totalitarian governments. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still does not mean they got everything wrong or that there are no situations in which they would be considered reliable. You are trying to make a generality where one can and should not be made. For example, Soviet sources in the sciences are usually very reliable. Blueboar (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well even science wasn't immune from the dead hand of totalitarian communism. A whole field of science in the area of genetics was branded "bourgeois pseudoscience" and several geneticists were executed, while fringe scientific theories were promoted to the detriment of Soviet agriculture, see Lysenkoism. But it is true that some fields of science and engineering were reliable, Nazi rocket science was highly valued by the USA. But the original discussion was about Soviet history, not science, and as reliable as some areas of science were, you just can't extend that to Soviet history. --Martintg (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point... some things that came out of the Soviet Union are reliable and others are not. You can not just lump them all together and say "Communist = Unreliable" as is being argued.

I can agree that we should be cautious and sceptical when it comes to history written during the Soviet era. I can agree that sources from that era need to be carefully examined. I can even agree that a lot of what was written during the Soviet era can be deemed "unreliable"... What I can not agree to saying ALL history written under the Soviets is unreliable, simply because it was written during that regime. Such sources need to be examined on a case by case, source by source basis... they need to be compared to other (non-soviet) sources, and each judged on its own merits. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Reliability is the quality of being consistently accurate. Soviet sources are unreliable because they are not consistently accurate. But some of them are accurate, and this means that with care, some of them are suitable to be used under the Wikipedia policy that is, in a bit of a misnomer, called the Reliable Source Policy. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that we should, under no circumstances, cite a newsgroup. Then why do we have a newsgroup citation template that's used on at least 100 articles? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 11:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because in some very tightly-controlled circumstances it may be appropriate per WP:SPS, as long as it has been demonstrated in a more bona fide reliable source that the post author is legit. I suppose it's not a lot different to citing, for example, a writer's personal blog for minor or uncontroversial information about the writer or his/her work. Use sparingly! Steve ^{T • C} 11:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, to cite a quotation it is preferable to do so directly. Mangoe (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newsgroup posts can also be intrinsically reliable sources for certain statements about newsgroups. For instance, alt.religion.scientology notes the posting of a specific rmgroup message aimed at a.r.s - it's hard to conceive of a better cite for that than the rmgroup message itself. --GenericBob (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to quoting what is said in a source, there is nothing more reliable than the source itself. Whether the source should be quoted at all is another matter. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, notability is often an issue for Usenet-related content (cue discussions about coverage bias), but I'd argue that this particular example makes the cut. --GenericBob (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this my imagination, or is this a circular definition ?

Reliable sources are credible. Reliable sources are reliable. Reliable sources are trustworthy (and authoritative)

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative"

So, then, how do we know someone is credible ? Trustworthy ? Authoritative ? --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By looking at other reliable sources, of course. Do you have a suggestion, or did you just want to rant? (note: see WT:V.)

The definition is circular to a degree, but contains substantial requirements too. In everyday English, Charlie Rose is a reliable source, but this definition excludes him, because he is a person, not published materials. Also, a book by George Washington is published materials, but isn't reliable unless it is the product of a reliable publication process. If it is a reprint available from an established publisher, it's reliable, but if it's a manuscript I picked up at a Flea market it isn't reliable. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question you raise is important and it points up there are limitations in any formal guidance. I believe your sense of the problem is why RS notes that its guidance this: common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. When editors ask "Is x reliable?" I hope they are not assuming it is a simple yes, no, formula. The documentary program called frontline has long analyses of the problem of the decline of investigative journalism. Authors like these have begun to show deep problems in most news: Fallows, Postman, Jamieson, McChesney and Mitchell. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For population numbers, would it be worth mentioning that the reliable resource is the census data, even if this may be considered a primary source, possible even more than the same numbers misquoted somewhere else? -- User:Docu

I don't think that should be taken as a blanket rule, because census data isn't always a good source. It's generally accurate, but raw data can be very easy to misinterpret - I've seen that happen on WP several times. --GenericBob (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we would find a formulation that takes this in account. I'm think more of simple data, rather than the type of information mentioned in /archive5#Census_as_a_source. -- User:Docu

I would not call a published census a Primary document... but, even if we do, remember that we are allowed to cite primary sources. We simply have to do so with caution and care to avoid OR. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IWHT the individual census forms, or the census-taker's records, are the primary sources and the published report on the census is a secondary one. Barnabypage (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even population numbers aren't as simple as they look. Censuses will always miss a certain percentage of people, so census counts pretty much always underestimate the true population, and most countries only run a census every five or ten years. Statistical agencies use various techniques to correct for undercount and to produce numbers for non-census years, so very often the census data is not the most accurate figure for population. The Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes both 'counts' (raw numbers from census) and 'estimates' (adjusted for these issues), and WP editors often use the counts when they should be using the estimates. --GenericBob (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends where you are. Nigerian census figures are wildly inflated by tribal competition. Peter jackson (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the music related articles, many a times user add pulsemusic.proboards.com as reference. It is generally a forum where a member called bks posts the Billboard Hot 100 chart way early than the magazine publishes it. IT also has the week to week sales of albums and singles. But the question is won't this lead to copyright vio? I request that users don't add information from this website untill and unless it is confirmed as a reliable source. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright vio on the charts only happens if the full Hot 100 is posted, which is why only the top 50 and selected others are posted. Ok I won't add info from the site until and unless it is deemed an RS but there are no other sources for the particular album 'The Fame's sales as Plat = 1mill shipped not sold and no-one has found any other source for sales.

The fact of the matter is that the charts on the board are the real and correct charts and have acurate sales figures, you can cross reference them with any that Billboard post later and you will find they are correct. NinjaChucks (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, is Oxford English Dictionary a secondary or tertiary source? I cant find "dictionary" in WP:RS. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the OED's analysis (addition/definition of new words and etymology of old ones) is done by the OED's own staff, so I think 'secondary source' is the best fit here; ditto for most big-name dictionaries. (Might be some exceptions depending on the context in which they're used.) --GenericBob (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant question... since the question of whether a source is primary, secondary or tertiary has nothing to do with whether it is reliable or unreliable (there are reliable and unreliable sources in each category)... in other words, it does not matter whether the OED (or any other dictionary) is primary, secondary or tertiary. What is important is that the OED is arguably THE most reliable source for the definition of English words. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter, because WP:OR makes a hard distinction between these sources: "Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source". Suppose e.g. we're writing an article about an offensive word, and we want to note that "before 1850 the term did not have derogatory connotations". Per that section of policy, this specifically needs a secondary source. Addendum: I think in most instances, quoting the definition of a word would also qualify as an "explanatory claim". --GenericBob (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the case at hand, a dictionary definition is being used to counter definitions and opinions from many reliable sources (historians) on a topic. Where it is made clear that historians differ greatly on a definition, ought a dictionary based on "historical usage" be used to counter those opinions? At best it could show how the popular press used the word, but now how historians use it. Collect (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that if a historian's definition disagrees with the OED, then it is probably the historian who is using the word incorrectly. The OED takes great care to get it right... it uses multiple sources in deriving its definitions, it uses high level scholarship and not just the popular press. It looks at historical sources and modern sources (and it gives historical usages as well as modern usages). No, you can not get better than the OED when it comes to reliability. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's a very specialised and fairly new tech term. It might help if you tell us where the issue is. --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it relates to the same issue as is being discussed at WP:RSN#Fascism... the issue being that the OED defines Fascism as right-wing, which Collect does not like. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Fascism. I added the OED definition into the lead (without deleting anything) "The principles and organization of Fascists. Also, loosely, any form of right-wing authoritarianism." but it was deleted by Collect and others, claiming it wasnt a RS.

Now this is both an issue at hand but its also about the policy. There are eg's such as "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press." Cant we add OED as an example of a RS? Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to add something about this just because one editor does not understand that dictionaries in general (and the OED in particular) are reliable for the definition of words? I would think that would be obvious. Seriously, is this something we really need to spell it out? Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is supported by 2 other editors. Go to edit history of Fascism and you tell me. Btw, I mentioned this at the village pump: [2] Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix... may I suggest that instead of raising this in multiple places (which can be seen as "forum shopping"), we consolidate the discussuion at WP:RSN (where the issue was first raised). Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, but if you wanna change a policy, arent you supposed to go to village pump? Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a MAJOR policy change, yes. But for something as minor as adding an example, raising the issue on the policy talk page is enough. Also, if you do feel the need to raise an issue at the Pump, it is a good idea to post a link to any discussions that already exist... such as this one and the one at WP:RSN. (I have done so.) Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, you beat me to it. So what do you think about adding OED into the policy? Or at least say something about dictionaries? Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy doesn't need changing or clarifying - it already covers this situation just fine. It doesn't matter whether OED is classed as secondary or tertiary - read what policy says about tertiary sources. That covers any reasonable use of a dictionary, including the one that sparked this debate. Rd232 ^talk 17:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? This is how some people interpret it:

"WP:RS is fairly explicit -- dictionaries are not "reliable sources" for articles. "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Collect (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)" [3]

So I still think you have to say something about dictionaries. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see where there is a problem. You are talking about adding the OED definition to the lead of the article, which is by definition an overview or summary. Even if you want to classify the OED as a Tertiary document, it is covered by this policy and deemed reliable. Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And generally you would not use a dictionary as a source for detailed discussion, because they do not have that level of detail. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have just written elsewhere: Actually dictionaries can be problematic when they are defining words used by professionals, etc. Take the word 'archaeology' - Chambers 21st Century Dictionary defines it as "the excavation and subsequent study of the physical remains of earlier civilizations!. No archaeologist would accept that as a definition. Ignoring the fact that you can do archaeology without excavating (eg field walking where you walk through a landscape looking for artefacts on the surface), archaeology covers all periods of human existence up to today, ie both before and after 'earlier civilizations'. And that isn't the only dictionary that defines archaeology as only dealing with things that happened 'a long time ago'. There's been a similar argument I believe at Patriarchy. So no, I would not automatically accept the OED as a reliable source for the definition of words, odd as that might seem. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, OED is automatically a reliable source for the general usage definition of words. The fact that specialists might disagree at the margin doesn't alter that, it supplements it. In other words, as with everything else, we need to find a way to intelligently combine different reliable sources which say different things for different reasons in different contexts. Rd232 ^talk 19:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that. I'd say that for specialist uses of a word, a dictionary will not suffice as a RS. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, you are right. However, if OED is a secondary source, mentioning that in the policy would have saved me from listening to lots of nonsensical arguments in Fascism. Dougweller, just like other sources, I guess there are reliable dictionaries and unreliable ones. I've never heard of Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, to be honest. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix, you are missing my point... It does not matter whether it is primary or secondary. The OED is by far the single most reliable source for giving an english language definition of a word (Webster being a close second). In any article, the best place to include a definition is in the first few sentences of the article... as part of the article lead (ie in a summary or overview). Now, I fully understand that sometimes specific scholars will formulate their own alternative definitions, or point out subtleties of fact or usage not mentioned in a general reference book such as the OED... and there is nothing wrong with discussing what they have to say if it is deemed appropriate (if, for example, discussing them is not Undue Weight). The proper place to do so would be in the main text of the article. Blueboar (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all my readings about fascism I have never encountered a case where some scholar cites definition from OED as an authoritative definition of fascism or even discusses it. They often cite other scholars but never OED. So, in contrary to what you are saying, I would say that using OED in the article lead would be a case of undue weight. -- Vision Thing -- 21:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the OED, on the other hand cites scholars. This is one of the things that makes it so reliable. But ultimately your comment is a red-herring in this discussion... The editorial decisions that others may have made have nothing to do with the editorial decisions that we make. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. If the editors of Wikipedia feel that it would be helpful to include the dictionary definition of a word in an article, there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. And, if they do so, it is highly appropriate to cite that definition to the dictionary where that definition comes from. And among dictionaries there is none more reliable than the OED. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible; when secondary sources are used, those that cite the original source should be preferred over those that don't. Hostile secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration."

Should this perhaps be "Partisan secondary sources..."? It's not just the hostile ones that mangle and misattribute quotes - one common form of appeal to authority is to attribute a supportive quote to a well-respected figure. --GenericBob (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Blueboar (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Mangoe (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that makes sense to me 70.71.22.45 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a topic that pops up with regular frequency here (ex. above), I think we should add a section or paragraph to deal with this (next to or as a part of the "Extremist and fringe sources" section, perhaps, or to the Wikipedia:Reliable source examples?). Here's my proposed paragraph:

Sources published under totalitarian or autocratic regimes can be reliable, but should be treated carefully, particularly if they touch upon an area of known bias or likely to be affected by censorship or party-line propaganda (for example, Nazi sources will not be objective on the Jewish issues, and Soviet sources will have a pro-Marxist bias). Those problems are discussed in dedicated articles on national historiographies (see Category:Historiography by country). If in doubt whether a particular fact is reliable, this fact should be discussed on relevant article's page, and if it is agreed that the fact is controversial, it should sourced with non-communist era works, as exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If a particular publication or an author is in doubt, critical reviews need to be presented before the book or an author are deemed unreliable; it is recommended that those critical reviews are also mentioned in the article's on those authors or publications (see example one, example two).

Comments appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems overkill to put it everywhere. Perhaps just saying we should have a "note on possibly biased sources" link in those articles would suffice? Collect (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that we are talking about party propaganda, isn't this already covered by the existing Extremist and fringe sources section? I am also concerned that this will lump legitimate scholarship that happened to be written under a totalitarian regime with the propaganda from that regime. Not everything that was written in Germany under the Nazis or in Russia under the Soviets is suspect. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is already noted in my proposal, which clearly states that only specific parts of that scholarship are unreliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Longtime contributor to RSN here with an complaint about overemphasis on "third party" sources in the guideline. Our guideline says articles should rely primarily on third-party sources, which is fine, but the nutshell and one of the other paragraphs leaves out the "primarily". Some editors only read the nutshell and then argue that press releases and other primary sources from an article subject can never be cited in a WP article. Recommending that "third-party" be removed from the nutshell and the first paragraph of Overview. We already discuss third-party in the bolded second paragraph of the lead and in the "primary sources" section. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of removing the word "third-party", I would add the word "primarily". We do want our articles to cite third party sources, after all. The problem is that some people think the nutshell means only third party sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the third-party preference is less important than the requirement that sources be reliable and published. Every source except images must be published somewhere other than Wikipedia, always, no exceptions. Sources must always be reliable in some sense of the word, even if it is only to assure that a certain crazy assertion can really be attributed to a certain kook. Third-party sources are usually preferred to first- and second-party sources, but not always (for example, the ISO 8601 article is based mostly on the standard, which is a first-party source). To try to put all three in the same sentence and modify them all with the word "primarily" just does not work very well. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is true when you are citing an individual claim and statement, but when it comes to overall citing of an entire article third party sources are needed.... If for no other reason than to demonstrate notability. An article that is purely cited to first-party sources will not last long on Wikipedia. Also, an article that is purely cited to primary sources is highly likely to have NOR issues. (OK, I admit that it is possible to write an article with no OR using nothing but primary sources ... but doing so is very very difficult, and would probably not be a very good article)

The point we want to convey is this: while primary sources are reliable and allowed for certain types of statements, the majority of the citations in any article should be to reliable secondary sources that are independant of the subject (ie Third Party sources). Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I have been bold and changed it to "based primarily" instead of just "based". Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly edited that revision, associating "primarily" only with "third-party". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is CBS.com a reliable source? For example, an unaired miscellaneous task in The Amazing Race from a forum. I'm sure the part is from a CBS website. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 06:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, please provide the URL. Second, forums are not considered RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the original info from CBS website (taken from The Amazing Race 14 page): [4], second the sourced one from the article: [5] ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 06:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first URL u link to is a bunch of pictures... pictures are not a source. I dont think i would consider the second URL a realible source as we have no clue of their editorial standards... it calls itself reality tv news but it doesnt seem like a reliable news outlet to me... others can chime in though... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as CBS.com goes, the over all website contains individual sub-pages that are reliable and individual sub-pages that are not reliable. For example, the "recaps" sub-page is reliable as that is authored by an employee of CBS, the photo gallery sub-page (photos are not sources) and the "fans/forums" sub-page (authored by anyone) are not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that a photo is not a source. True, it is almost always necessary to have some explaination from a reliable source, together with the photo, but I fail to see why a photo can't be a source. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose a photograph could be a primary source... allowable for a statement as to its own existance, and for a purley discriptive comment as to what the photo depicts.... but it would not be reliable for much more than that. Raw photographs are prone to all sorts of original research issues. Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To use a photo as a source, it would be necessary that it be published by a reliable source, be published together with text that explains what it is a photo of (unless that is patently obvious, for example, if the name of the object is painted on it), and the claim would have to be very clear from the photo. For example, if NASA releases a photo of a meteorite with a scale included in the photo, one might claim the meteorite is about 3 cm long. On the other hand, if there were a photo of President X, it wouldn't be proper to claim, based on facial expression, "President X was frustrated." --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A source currently being used at Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - a featured article - contains text that looks to have been copied verbatim from WP itself. The WP content is older, giving rise to the question of the source's reliability. An editor has suggested that the inclusion of the WP material (not credited in the paper) constitutes, in effect, a peer review of the WP content, and thereby makes the paper usable as a source, and has also suggested that the topic be brought here. See [6]. Novickas (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]