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. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming

Archives

Contents 1 WP:MOS subguideline, anyone? 2 RfC on reliable sources at Invisible Pink Unicorn 3 Using an image as a source 4 German historical science of the Nazi era reliable? 5 RfC on page move 5.1 Comments/votes 5.2 Discussion 6 Obituaries 7 List of reliable sources, and Twitter 8 BBC 9 Subscription required links 10 Wikipedia:Rfc/Reliablity of sources and spam blacklist 11 La Salle Family Article 12 Is there an inconsistency between WP:V and WP:RS about opinion pieces? 13 there is no reliable source because the only practical proof of a source is its falsification! 14 House season 6 article dispute 15 Reliable sources=both reputable and relevant sources?

[edit] WP:MOS subguideline, anyone?

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

[edit] RfC on reliable sources at Invisible Pink Unicorn

There is a request for comment related to reliability of sources occurring at Talk:Invisible_Pink_Unicorn#RfC:_is_content_in_h2g2_a_reliable_source_for_information_about_the_Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

[edit] Using an image as a source

I have frequently expressed my view that we should use images to illustrate information that is discussed in the text of an article (information which should be cited to reliable sources), and not as a source for information. However, there are those who think this goes too far. This may be true... but if so I have to ask: under what circumstances can information be cited to an image? What makes one image reliable and another not? ie When is an image a reliable source (Note: "image" includes photographs, charts, graphs, maps, videos, etc.) Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

An image is, at best, a primary source. As such, it should be used extremely carefully, and only if reliable secondary sources refer to it in the context of a broader view of the subject matter. Also, since we allow Wikipedians to produce their own images, this type of primary source should be used even more carefully than a published one. Crum375 (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If the image is a picture of text, and is otherwise reliable, then it is a reliable source for whatever the text says. For example, this image is a reliable source for the statement "In most chronology, or time reconing, the basic unit is the day." Also, individual numbers could be read from a graph. For example, this graph is a reliable source for the statement in AD 500 the difference between the actual and mean dates of the vernal equinox according to the algorithm of the Alfonsine Tables was about 4 days.

Crum375's contention that images are necessarily primary sources is incorrect, as demonstrated by the preceding examples. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The image is not the reliable source in that case - the paper is. In the second example, the graph is not a reliable source, the paper (that it is figure 3 of) is. Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The images are reliable (at least for those who don't think the moon landing was faked) because the Astrophysics Data System developed by NASA and operated by the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics can be depended on to provide a faithful image of the original. The images are the source because that is what I viewed, not the original book. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the issue in this case is whether it is proper to analyze the graph to justify the conclusion. I think this discussion is going to get out of hand very quickly because the variety of analyses is going to swamp the issue of whether the images used are accurate depictions. This is really an WP:OR problem, for the most part, unless we're talking pictures of UFOs. Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the issue of using images as sources also relates to WP:NOR... and indeed it was questions that were raised there that made me ask here (I think before we can discuss the issue of whether pulling information from an image is OR, we need to agree on the broader issues of reliability.) Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I routinely use mapping service images and nautical charts to verify the locations of structures, and in some cases to get locations for structures where my usual print sources do not supply latitude and longitude. As a rule I think it is reasonable to consider these as reliable sources of images, and in the case of nautical charts, to consider NOAA's on-line chart service to be considered a reliable source of images on the charts. I suppose some wikilawyer could consider working the location of a feature from a navigational chart to be some sort of original research, but doing exactly that is what the charts are for, and anyone can repeat the process to verify the accuracy of what I've done; it's an entirely mechanical operation requiring little subjective evaluation. Likewise the techniques I use with the mapping services are objective. I suspect, though, that this isn't the kind of usage you may have had in mind. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this would come under routine calculations... but let's save the issue of Original research for another discussion, and focus on the reliablility issues for now. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Another class of reliable images would be documentary films produced by reliable publishers, such as PBS, BBC, etc. In many cases these would be based on a review of the material published on the subject, in which cases they would be secondary sources. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. What we typically end up with when such citations are made on potentially controversial points is a user's assertion that "I saw it on TV" or somewhere, usually not even followed by a useful reference link; the effective message is "watch it yourself and see." Such sourcing does not satisfy the purposes of WP:V ad should be avoided. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am getting the impression that we may have a consensus that an image can considered a reliable source if it, in turn, was created by a reliable source. (as a matter of practicality... this would mean that the citation should include that reliable source, and not the image on its own). Yes? Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In the fairly unusual case where an image is both reliable and public domain, it would not be sufficient to copy the image to commons and link to it with no description of where it came from. It would need full bibliographic data on where it came from, and that would have to be a reliable source. The image would have to be published, so that anyone willing to possibly spend some money could verify that it came from the reliable source. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that... but you preface the remark by saying "... both reliable and public domain"... so I am asking what makes it reliable? Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, reliable for what? If you're looking at soviet-supplied photographs as evidence of whether Trotsky was at this or that function, I suggest that they would have to be deemed unreliable. I think we would need reference to some secondary source as to the value of the images if the source were not considered prima facie reliable. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The process of evaluating the reliability of images is the same as for other media; published by a publisher with a reputation for honesty and fact-checking, or verifiability supplied by a journalist or expert who has published in the same field in reliable publications. I mentioned public-domain because if it wasn't public domain, it normally wouldn't get separated from the web site, video, book, etc. that it came from (absent a copyright violation) so there would be no question of its reliability. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That gets us into the provenance question: are we seeing an accurate representation of the original image? To take a fairly nasty case: a few years back I had a dispute about the interpretation of a painting. That painting itself has a poor provenance: it seems to come out of nowhere at the end of WW II. Comparison with other works more surely attributed to the same artist would, I think, cast doubts upon the painting's attribution because there were obvious discrepancies of style. I didn't pursue the point because I'm not an art historian and therefore not a reliable source on such matters, but when we're considering PD works which are so because they have aged out, we need confidence that we are seeing an accurate representation of a real work. NOw, I suspect that in practice such confidence is easy to come by, but still it can occasionally be contested. Mangoe (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OK... next question... could a user-created image ever be considered reliable? Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Only if the user was also a journalist or expert and acknowledged his Wikipedia userid in some reliable place, like a newspaper column. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that in some cases, a video is a reliable source. Where it provides direct, very strong (often incontrovertible or nearly so) evidence, even if the source is not published. I'm looking for feedback on whether to proceed toward an edit of RS to reflect this view. Example: I haven't looked at the video, but I'll bet that this edit is backed by the referenced video. Assuming it is, the edit should not have been reverted for violating RS (and should probably stand). Thanks for your feedback.--Elvey (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
BTW, is there an official policy or guideline on how to modify policy?--Elvey (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless it can be shown that the videos mentioned by Elvey were produced by reliable sources, there is no way to determine if they were taken with an iPhone, nor is there any way to know if the effect shown is really known as the "rolling shutter effect". --Jc3s5h (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I watched the youtube video. This specific video seems to be taken by the producer (or a motivated affiliate thereof) of a product designed to fix a problem it alleges to demonstrate, and doesn't provide direct, incontrovertible evidence, I don't think it meets RS. On the other hand, I do still think a video is a reliable source where it provides direct, very strong (often incontrovertible or nearly so) evidence, even where the source is not published. Thanks for your input. --Elvey (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] German historical science of the Nazi era reliable?

Are German sources published between 1933 and 1945 considered reliable? I'm not sure how to deal with a source which covers the history of just one town. Karasek (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Per previous discussions on this issue, generally "only usable as an example of Nazi claims and propaganda, not as a source for anything factual". Radek

One old discussion is here, another is here. We need an article on German historiography, with a section on the Nazi era (I never finished my research on that subject, but just read a few bios: on one spectrum, Nazi star historian, Walter Frank, in the middle, Karl Haushofer, who "admits that after 1933 much of what he wrote was distorted under duress", and on the other, Hermann Oncken, persecuted by the Nazis...). Long story short, there were probably reliable works published in Germany at that time (Oncken's work on Cromwell from 1935 is probably a good example); but anything remotely controversial is likely to be affected by propaganda and Nazi ideology. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Such a source would a priori be reliable for information such as when the incorporation of a village into a the town occurred, or when elections occurred and who became mayor. Perhaps also for the number of inhabitants. If it's just about one town then it may be hard to find out how much of it can be trusted. But the greatest part of the information in books from that era should be taken with a few hundred grammes of salt. Hans Adler 21:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Number of inhabitants is probably fine, but I'd trust the source on ethnic breakdown. If any votes were reported, those would be the official results - but likely not the real results. Any claims about which group has the rights to those territories would be even more suspicious. And so on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on page move

[edit] Discussion

• I have proposed moving this to Wikipedia:Verifiability/reliable sources, because WP:V is the policy on sourcing. Having two entirely separate pages, this one a guideline and the other a policy, has caused innumerable problems over the years. Editors not familiar with the policy arrive here to expand this page in ways not consistent with policy. Other editors then arrive to tweak it back, so that it ends up being almost identical to the policy. Repetition is useless and contradiction worse than useless.

  What would be best is for this page to retain its guideline status, but to become a subpage of the policy, expanding on the notion of "reliable source" and "verifiability". It could go into the kind of detail that the policy can't allow, while being careful not to contradict the policy it's attached to. The move wouldn't diminish this page—on the contrary, it would place it on a more solid footing by binding it to a policy page. SlimVirgin 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Is this RFC solely on the location of the page, or also the recent additions, deletion and changes to the guideline ? Abecedare (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just the location. :) SlimVirgin 02:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question. I have no strong opinion on where this page ends up, as long as there's consensus, which, hopefully, this will achieve. However, I wonder if SlimVirgin or anybody else could explain exactly how the new location of the page would solve the problems that are alluded to above? HJMitchell You rang? 00:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• I completely agree with SV's summary of what the problem is ... but I don't see how renaming the guideline will resolve the problem. We will still have two pages that cover essentially the same topic (from slightly different angles). Editors not familiar with the Policy will still edit the "sub-page" in ways not consistent with the Policy. To me, the only way to avoid the problem is to completely merge RS back into WP:V (not as a "sub-page", but as a distinct section of the main WP:V Policy). Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• The drawback to doing that is that there would be little room for growth. Editors want to write about their ideas of what's reliable. It makes sense to provide a page for them to do it on. I would like to see RS become part of V, but I think if it did, a new page would soon spring up (Wikipedia:How to identify reliable sources or some such). So my thinking is to compromise by having it as a guideline that's a subpage, where people can write as much as they want, so long as it doesn't directly contradict policy. SlimVirgin 02:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree with Blueboar. I think the root cause of the RS vs. V conflicts is that they are essentially overlapping, which causes constant conflicts and confusion for everyone. As Blueboar says, the correct solution is to merge RS into V. I am not sure there is going to be any meaningful leftover. Crum375 (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• How does moving the page change anything? Same guideline, different URL. So what? Fences&Windows 00:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• It would clarify to people not familiar with V (which includes new editors, and others who don't read the policies—which, let's face it, is a fair number), that they're editing a page that must be consistent with the policy. With separate pages, that's less clear to people, and making sure the two pages stay in sink is a lot of work. I agree with Blueboar and Crum that the ideal thing would be to have one page only, but that option has been rejected so many times, I didn't even bother suggesting it again. Next best thing is to have it as a subpage. SlimVirgin 01:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Mukkaderat, could you explain your comment, please, that "subpaging will bring a confusion regarding the degree of enforcement"? How is RS currently enforced, and how would subpaging change that? SlimVirgin 02:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Slim, I think Mukkaderat is referring to the fact that information can be removed from articles based upon what WP:RS says. The problem with policy sub-pages is that they are neither fish nor fowl... they don't have any sort of "official" status... they are often dismissed as being "not part of the policy". They fall between the cracks and end up being little more than essays. The concept of RS is crucial to Wikipedia... as such it needs to have a clear and unabiguous status that everyone understands. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• we refer to RSs for Verifiability purposes; but we also use the same term in a different sense to mean sources sufficient to confirm Notability. (Some simple illustrations A a novel itself is a RS for what the plot of it is, but certainly not for the notability of the book; B a person's official CV is a RS that he got the degrees the article says, but not for whether or not he is notable; C a Church's published creed is a RS for what the Church believes as its doctrine; it is not a RS for what it may say about the facts of the church's history or relationship to other religions. ) the concepts of RS and V are different. some of the confusion was caused by an earlier misconception, still reflected in this guideline, that sources were either reliable or not--sources are I think now generally acknowledged to be reliable to various degrees, depending on their purposes. And, in a development long after this was written, a RS for negative facts about a living individual has a particularly high standard. Perhaps SV intended to remove the concept of RS from confusion with the concept of notability by linking it more closely with WP:V, but this will need some considerable discussion. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the point raised above that it should be made clearer that RS is a guidline and verifyability is a policy. Yaris678 (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Obituaries

I would like to propose mentioning *obituaries* as sources which should be used with extreme caution. Obituaries are often used in Wikipedia as "Reliable Sources". I have recently seen many edits introducing superlatives and peacock terms about a deceased individual by treating his obituary as a RS. It is quite obvious that they should not be used as RS, but it would be better to mention them specifically as this is a common mistake . Marokwitz (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed very recently and the consensus seemed to be that they can be RS - indeed, sometimes very good ones. Barnabypage (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

They are sometimes RS with regards to specific facts, but great caution should be used when using them, at very least they should be treated as editorial , since they are heavily biased towards praising the deceased individual. Obituaries more often than not say things such as "He was a wonderful person loved by all", and should only be taken as an opinion, not as a fact. What I meant was to add a caution, not to rule out their use completely. Marokwitz (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the crucial issue here is the distinction - made in the discussion I linked to above - between "death notice" or "in memoriam"-type items submitted to newspapers by families of the deceased, which aren't really RS (though they're probably factually accurate on simple things like birth dates), and obits produced and edited by a newspaper/magazine/journal itself, which are as reliable as anything else in that publication. Barnabypage (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree . "In Memoriam" is probably a better term . Would you agree that we should caution WP editors to treat "In Memoriam" notices in a similar way to "editorials" or "opinion articles" ? Marokwitz (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I would go further than that and say that they are probably even less likely to be RS than editorials or opinion pieces - which at least are written by journalists or experts in their field, who will usually give some acknowledgment to opposing views, and argue a case rather than simply stating it. By contrast, the family "in memoriam" is very unlikely to ever contain anything negative or controversial about its subject. Having said that: is there really a need to burden the guideline with this? I would have thought it was so obvious that they are unreliable, that if anyone tries to use them, other editors are going to pick up on it immediately... Barnabypage (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidently it is not so obvious. Take a look at my edit history. By searching for common phrases such as "he was loved by all" and "he will be remembered by" I have hunted down and removed HUNDREDS of those (though most were un-sourced) in the last week only. Marokwitz (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Are these generally articles on notable people? Quickly skimming your contributions list, it looks very questionable whether a lot of those articles where you've identified peacock language, for example Lee Ann Kim and Peter Letsos, should be on Wikipedia at all. Barnabypage (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'm mainly tidying things up to be at least neutral at the most basic level, but obviously we have a problem here. Everyone wants to commemorate their loved ones on Wikipedia. Marokwitz (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of reliable sources, and Twitter

It's been awhile since I've looked at this page ... has anyone ever compiled a list of potential sources with designations as to which are acceptable/unacceptable, and perhaps links to archived discussions? It seems like this would prevent many redundant discussions.

On a related note, I was going to cite Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper) when removing a Twitter reference as an unreliable source, but was hoping someone here could direct me to the related discussion. I was wondering if anyone had talked about situations in which an individual (celebrity) makes announcements on their own Twitter. For that matter, I'm not sure what the current guideline is regarding MySpace or Facebook pages self-published by celebs. Again, a detailed list of sources would help in this regard. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 21:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, we have not... because reliability often depends on how the source is used. Almost every source can be reliable in some context, so we can not make a blanket determination on a list of "this source is always reliable" and "this other source is always unreliable". We can make a few broad statements... but almost always with exceptions. As for a Twitter post... I would treat it like any Self published source... generally unreliable in most situations... but reliable in certain limited situations. Blueboar (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have. It's a work in progress and please note the disclaimer. The URL is http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=010426977372765398405:3xxsh-e1cp8&hl=en. For some reason, Wikipedia is blocking the URL. So either copy and paste the URL or type it in manually. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I do realize how absurd it might sound at first to create a reliable sources search engine, and at the beginning of my side project, it took a lot of work. I started by adding peer-reviewed academic journals and gradually added major newspapers (such as the Washington Post) as well as major magazines (such as Time magazine). Since then, I've added/removed sources based on the various discussions on the WP:RSN. Although not perfect, it works surprisingly well. As of now, it currently covers over 600 reliable sources, and I've tried to be careful to filter out opinion pieces and other sources which aren't reliable for statements of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Quest, your search engine is a great resource, thanks! Blueboar, I get that there isn't necessarily a cut-and-dry "yes or no" for a given source, but certainly a guiding phrase would be helpful (e.g. Twitter: Generally unreliable as a self-published source, potentially acceptable in rare cases.) Although I'm sort of wondering what you think the exceptions might be in which Twitter or IMDb would be acceptable.— TAnthony^Talk 20:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] BBC

The BBC has started including (not just using uncited) Wikipedia content. I found a copyvio of ours mirrored on their site. Rich Farmbrough, 17:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

Which page? I noticed this too, but they had a notice that the content came from Wikipedia.[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Subscription required links

I was gathering sources to confirm films were made in the 1940s for the article 1940s in film. I found several original New York Times movie reviews from the time of the film's release in the 40s. The links worked for a couple of days but then I suppose they "expired" as the links sent you to a page requiring a subscription. I don't really want to link to a page where you have to pay to see the content. I am wondering if it enough to provide the newspaper name, the date, the headline and the author, or is a link needed? Do other people on the Wiki need to be able to access the sources I provide for them to be valid?

Another question, do people think an editorial review from a 1940s edition of The New York Times is a reliable source to confirm that it was a film from the 40s? Sam Barsoom 01:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I see the {{cite news}} template, it takes a url but I am not sure if it a optional or not. Sam Barsoom 01:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You should cite it where you saw it. If you read the web version, cite the web version. If you read a paper or microfiche version, cite that. When citing the web version, include all the information a person would need to find the paper or microfiche version (author, page, date). --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case I am finding the web version but the web version is using software to prevent me from linking to it. Is it acceptable to take The New York Times web version and use it to construct a reference to the original article when I am prevented from supplying a link? Sam Barsoom 01:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that the on line archive is created by scanning of the old print article, my poinion is that you can cite it as if you had done your research the old fashioned way, by going to a library and looking at printed versions of the newspaper... Just cite: <ref>The New York Times, Date, Page</ref>

In answer to your second question... It depends on what you are trying to cite it for... movie reviews are reliable for some things but not for others. (for example, a 1940s review of Casablanca might reliable for the statement: "The New York Times called Casablanca 'the best movie ever'" but it would not be reliable for the statement "Casablanca is the best movie ever". )Blueboar (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful and quick answer. In this case the only fact I am trying to support is that it was a film made in the 40s(This may seem like a petty thing to cite, but I have already found 1 movie that was really made in the 30s and that was before getting past the "A"s). Sam Barsoom 01:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If you saw the web version in the past, and you can no longer access it because the NY Times changed their web, your subscription expired, or whatever, cite a web page where a subscriber could get to the article. The cited url does not have to take the reader directly to the article; the reader might have to supply some information, such as the date and page. Also cite the information to get to the print version. Normally, newspaper websites provide information about the date and page where the article appeared in print, and this information should be cited.

Also, as for a NY Times review being a reliable source that a movie was released in the 1940s, usually it would be, because the review will normally give some indication that the review was published around the same time that the movie came out. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

In this case the original reviews mention the date of the showing. Pointing the user to the search page and providing all the information needed to find the article is a good idea that had not occurred to me. I will do that. Sam Barsoom 01:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Rfc/Reliablity of sources and spam blacklist

There is a discussion regarding the spam blacklist and the reliability of sources here. Your input is solicited. Gigs (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] La Salle Family Article

Hello,

I have been trying several times to post an article under La Salle... but it is being deleted every time; the information in the article is verifiable :

http://books.google.fr/books?id=NVcoAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA14-PT1&dq=jacques+collinet+de+la+salle+saint+germain#v=onepage&q=jacques%20collinet%20de%20la%20salle%20saint%20germain&f=false

Here is the article I wrote if you could please check it and post it in the La Salle article and making it undeletebale in the futur. Thank you and my best regards, Alexandre.

• Jacques Collinet de La Salle, Lord of Saint-Germain and Commander of the Musketeers of Lorraine. Family ennobled by Nicholas II, Duke of Lorraine in 1655, then by Charles IV, Duke of Lorraine. Nobility titles confirmed at Nancy in 1699 by Leopold, Duke of Lorraine and by Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by La Salle Family (talk • contribs) 16:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is there an inconsistency between WP:V and WP:RS about opinion pieces?

I think I might have noticed an inconsistency between WP:V and WP:RS. WP:RS draws a distinction between news articles and opinion pieces. According to WP:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion, opinion pieces are only reliable for the opinions of their authors, not for statements of fact. I checked WP:V, and it doesn’t seem mention anything at all about whether opinions can be used for statements of fact.

For example, can an editorial from Nature, a highly respected, peer-reviewed academic journal be used for a statement of fact? WP:V seems to say, given Nature's stature, yes. WP:RS says no.

Assuming I’ve correctly identified an inconsistency, how do we resolve it? Do we need to change WP:V or WP:RS? If so, how? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of WP:V is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". So it would seem that WP:RS is effectively included in WP:V. Besides, there would be no point in having two pages that say the same thing. My only issue is that the words reliables sources do not link to WP:RS, they link to the Sources section of WP:V. Yaris678 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No conflict... Opinion pieces are verifiable (ie we can verify that the opinion exists, and what the opinion says). However, opinion pieces are not always reliable.

Opinion pieces are generally considered reliable for an attributed statement as to what the opinion is and who holds it, but they are not necessarily reliable for a statement of fact... (ie the facts stated in the opinion ... that depends on the reputation of the opinionator, the nature of the publication where the opinion is published, the level of fact checking, and a host of other factors). Yes, an opinion piece published in Nature and written by a respected scientist is likely to be reliable... but since it does not undergo the same level of fact checking that a feature article in the same journal, "likely" is not good enough. We must phrase what we say as a statement of opinion as opposed to a statement of fact. (ie we can phrase it as: "According to noted scientist X, blah blah blah is true<cite>" as opposed to: "Blah blah blah is true<cite>".) Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're talking about something slightly different from what AQFK is referring to. An opinion piece or op-ed by a single named individual is different from an editorial, particular in the case of a leading academic journal. An opinion piece represents an individual opinion, while an editorial represents the collective view of the editorial board of the journal in question. It is, so to speak, an institutional viewpoint rather than a single person's opinion, and as such carries far more weight. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that an editorial opinion carries more weight than an individual opinion ... but the fact is both are opinions, and should be presented in an article as such. I still don't see how this is a conflict between V and RS. Blueboar (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] there is no reliable source because the only practical proof of a source is its falsification!

wiki-deciders, please go into yourselves and meditate deeply about what you are stating. there is no scientific validity in the idea of a reliable source. in science, sources are only held for being reliable because of the practical problem of otherwise not being able to work on. this is an unspoken convention rather than a belief. it is neither a truth nor held for being a truth in science. there is only struggle about the reliability of sources, mainly to dismantle 'highly recommended and cited' sources backed by interest parties.

there is no reliable source! there are only generally believed to be quotable sources. but these have proved to fail more than once. and, one of the most 'quotable' sources, the 'nature' magazine, is in critique as one of the major causes of today's 'monotheism' in science.

to be short: it is not scientific in any way to 'find' reliable sources (try to 'search' for them and you will learn that one can only 'find' them!) it is rather scientific to quote the existing - or a discussion-covering spectrum of - sources the respective way. in other words: it is not all about the references but all about the measuring of your writing: treat all sources with care and attribute them appropriately by balancing your wording!

come back down to the real problems. are the articles weighted? do they carry enough sense and argumentation to provide a useful imagination? is the reader informed enough to discuss or 'proof' 'reliability' himself? for example, the article about the wayland display driver 'needs' more 'reliable' sources, from your point of view. however, the article is about a very young software project. what do you expect? the primary address is actually the best address to get a useful imagination for now. and, if the 'new york times' had interviewed the project maintainer for the very same statements as written on the project page, would that be more 'reliable' then? this is weird thinking! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.222.132.21 (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel better now? The concept of RS is fundamental to Wikipedia, and is something that is unlikely to change ... If you can not accept it, then you should probably look for some other website to contribute to. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] House season 6 article dispute

Hello all,

There is many house fans that keep posting this site for proof of airdate but there unwilling to accept that it is unrealible. However i am also getting told that to leave the article the way ti is with teh source for the epsiode broken as two parts i either accept twitter as realible or not

here is the page http://twitter.com/GregYaitanes

can someone please tell me how to go about this?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes... Delete the article... or at least merge it the article into the main House article... there is no need for an article on each season of any TV show. Furthermore, If you can resist the temptation to put trivia (like the air date of episodes) into the article in the first place then there is no need to find a source for it. Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

mmm so you are saying the wikiproject television should go and delete thousands and thousdand of season articles i think you will find there a lot oppposaiton as theey are notable, i was asking for advice on the source of twitter for the producer of th show sicne all the fans keep saying it cna be used--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I am saying in a nutshell... I never said my opinion was popular. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't things like this be discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Dmcq (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And by th way somebody's blog is definitely not a reliable source Dmcq (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

yes it should i jsut lost the page ill move it there now, oh and that wha ti thought but there to many fans on teh article determine to use it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources=both reputable and relevant sources?

I don't know if others share this impression, but it seems to me some editors have some confusion about what is meant by "reliable sources." I see a reliable source as being a source that is both (1) reputable: "checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing", etc. and (2) relevant: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." The NY Times is given as an example of a reliable source. I'd say it's better described as a reputable source whose relevance, and thus reliability, "depends on the context." There wouldn't seem to be such a thing as a "reliable source" for all purposes; saying "X is a RS" is a blanket statement probably best avoided or specifically qualified by saying "in this case, X is a RS for Y." The lede contains the statement "Reliable sources may therefore be [1] published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be [2] authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." The first thing, as currently worded, is a reputable source only, while the second is a reputable and relevant one. Possibly things like these, taken out of context, foster some of the confusion about RS? There are some terms used on other WP: namespace pages that might be good to include on the RS page: "significant coverage" (from the General Notability Guideline in WP:Notability) and its opposite, the "trivial mention" or "passing mention" found in WP:N and specific N guidelines and perhaps elsewhere. "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made" is an alternate definition of "significant coverage," to my mind. Шизомби (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, though some sources are both reputable and relevant to everything - heavily-staffed, world-class, generalist newspapers like The New York Times or broadcasters like the BBC being perfect examples. At the other end of the scale, yes, while Tunnels and Tunnelling is reputable, it is not relevant to the subject of (say) opera, and so if it happens to make some observation on that subject in passing it may not be reliable.

But even then, there are wheels within wheels. If Tunnels and Tunnelling reports that Acme Tunnels sponsored a production of Aida, it probably is reliable on that. If it says Aida is Verdi's greatest opera, it likely isn't reliable - but what if it has brought in a renowned opera expert to write the piece? Then it is (because we trust the expert, and we trust Tunnels and Tunnelling to have a competent and professional editing process that won't distort his words).

So really, the whole generic question of "is X a reliable source" is most useful in quickly excluding those sources that are never (or hardly ever) reliable on anything, such as 14-year-old Billy Blow's MySpace page. The decision to say that a source is reliable comes down not just to the reputation and relevance of the journal/broadcaster/Website/whatever, but to the particular statement, its context, its author, etc. Barnabypage (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

One is likely to be able to find a specific article or broadcast by the NYT or BBC, etc. with significant coverage that would serve as a RS for many different topics, true. But one couldn't say (and I don't think you are, but some do) that anything published by the NYT mentioning X is going to be a RS for X; it's going to depend on additional factors of reputation and relevance. Шизомби (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)