Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Opinions/Editorials

What is the guideline on using op-ed articles (in "blog" form or not) as secondary sources? As primary? Specifically, I'm wondering if it's acceptable to cite opinion pages to support facts in a Wikipedia article, except in restating the opinion. (which only seems acceptable in certain articles) If this is acceptable, why? --70.142.40.34 19:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be acceptable to cite an opinion editorial except to show that the author adheres to a particular position. For example, if Ann Coulter labels herself a conservative in an editorial, then citing the editorial would be perfectly acceptable to show that Ann Coulter is a conservative.

I would generally not cite them to support factual assertions about a disputed issue. The problem is, most op-eds are about huge disputes (otherwise what's the point of taking up newspaper space), so they're inherently biased. Any citation of them needs to take that bias into account. --Coolcaesar 22:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Op-eds by nature, are opinion, not fact. Moreover, these pieces are seldom fact-checked by their publisher. In fact many of these carry disclaimers from them, as to dissasociate themselves from any negative consequences. Of course, in an article about the author, it is acceptable to cite these. But not acceptable to be cited on articles about others. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

One needs to distinguish between the statements "Ann Coulter is a conservative" and "Ann Coulter says she is a conservative". Her oped is only a good source for the second statement. Grace Note 05:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Convenience Links, definition

The convenience link may be from an unreliable source, but so long as the editor (at the unreliable source) used the actual, original source, it is the reliablility of that source which matters, not the reliability of the convenience link. Wikipedia readers must have confidence that such links present the original information in the manner the original author intended it be published, per WP:V. I can not agree to that statement because it says, "Wikipedia need not supply reputable publications. Instead, Wikipedia editors are to insure convenience links are accurate." The problem would be this. A personal website might be 100 per cent accurate when checked by a Wikipedia editor, but might become zero per cent accurate the next minute. We simply can not depend on personal websites to provide convenience links of reputable quality. A website owner might or might not maintain a high standard. We would be foolish to depend on such an etheral reliability. Our editing standards are spelled out by WP:V, not by how proven or unproven a particular website is about maintaining the accuracy of reposited, secondary material on their site. Terryeo 14:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC) To put it another way, a convenience link on an unreliable source is, itself, unreliable. period. Terryeo 14:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as there is no possibility of verifying that the unreliable source is citing correctly the reliable one. There cannot be "reader confidence" that such citation is accurate, in context, etc. In addition, note that citations on unreliable sources, such as personal pages, blogs, etc., are often surrounded by innaccurate information. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I thought this was part of #Web forum quoting a newspaper article. The commented out statement was not one statement - it was too conflicting viewpoints, commented out (made invisible to all but someone editing the page) because I did not feel a consensus had been reaced. In short, I do not agree with your viewpoint because a "convenience link" in my view, is not a source. For example, if I am citing a book, and I have the actual, hardcopy book, I would cite the book. But I might also provide an online link to some unofficial only copy (unlikely because of copyright issues), search, summary, or review the the book, or "convenience link". But I am not citing the convenience link. I am citing the book. The link is just there because some other person, who doesn't trust my source because they can't see the book, can have something to look at easily. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

For me (but that's only my personal opinion), it would be acceptable to include

It is expected, however, that this convenience link is available on a website that is considered a reliable source.

(that is the sentence that Armedblowfish commented out), if additionally something in the following vein was added:

If the convenience link points to a source of a less reliable stature than the original source, that can however not be invoked as a reason to remove the reference, while this could be interpreted as "removing references for POV reasons"

--Francis Schonken 16:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

When modifying this policy I think we should keep the following factors in mind:

1. It will be used by editors writing articles
2. It will be used by editors modifying articles to remove what the editor perceives as problem material
3. It will be used by editors who have only read the policy and not the talk page

Acknowledging that there is not yet a concensus on whether a convenience link to an unreliable source is acceptable, what is an editor to do who comes across such a convenience link? I think the options are:

1. Do nothing
2. Find a copy of the material on a more reliable on-line source, and change the link
3. Leave the quote or statement alone, but modify the reference to refer only to the paper source and remove the convenience link.

Removing the quote, or statement based on the source, is not appropriate unless the editor obtains the paper source and verifies that the quote or fact is really not present in the source. Gerry Ashton 17:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The burden to provide a verifiable source is on the editor adding the material, not on the one removing it (see WP:V). I would argue that a non-reliable source is unreliable for the reasons stated in the guideline. This includes all and anything that they opine, summarize, extract, transcribe, etc if there are grounds to doubt the reliability of such summary, transcription, etc. In the ArbCom case below, all what was needed is to verify the validity of the 1957 book; and if that was verified, a direct cite to the ISBN number of the book, including a short quotation as a footnote would have been sufficient for WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But the convience link is not a source. If the offline, hard-copy citation is reliable and has been checked, then the information has been verified by a reliable source, right? So WP:V and WP:RS have been satisfied. But what harm does the convenience link do? It doesn't make the original source less reliable. And it provides something that the casual source-checker can look at to get an idea of the source they're missing, giving them a bit more confidence in it. (Also, see Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Intermediate_sources, which doesn't look like it came to a consensus either....) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ writes that he "respectfully disagrees", but I'm not sure what exactly he disagrees with. he mentions "the ArbCom case below" but that is too spread out for me to easily understand. I would apprecate if Jossi would restate his disagreement in a more specific and self-contained way. Gerry Ashton 19:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like the RfAr hasn't been decided anyways.... Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the Terryeo one, yes it has - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests#May for a summary of the decision. The ArbComm's verdict on the sourcing issue can be regarded as having been established as a precedent. -- ChrisO 20:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstand the ruling of ArbComm on the sourcing issue. Terryeo 17:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now, we are in a situation where, in practice, many editors do not seem to accept the WP:V policy, or the WP:CITE and WP:RS guidelines. Editors think that references are not needed because "Come on, we are talking about Cheesesteaks, for crying out loud, not National Defense Policy! Its FUN to have the table in..." (Talk:Cheesesteak) or "no citation is needed because this fact is not in serious dispute," or "Third floor of College Hall at Penn has an Episcopalian Chapel. On the wall states that Penn was founded and founded by the Anglican Church of England. Go there and read it" (12:35, 28 May 2006 68.80.254.34 Ivy League) or "No other college article has citations for its list of notable alumni, so you're just picking on this one because you have some kind of issue with my college," or "I'll remove the unreferenced template, as there really isn't any way to verify most of the information currently in the article." (deleted edit, 06:40, 2 July 2006, to Talk:Eon8.

Let's not get too picky about references.

I'd much rather see a dubious reference than no reference. It shows that the editor took five minutes to do some basic fact-checking rather than relying on memory. It shows that the material genuinely belongs in Wikipedia, rather than being an exercise in editorial ego (I am such an expert that I know stuff that has never been published).

I'd really like to see that, um, some editors of popular culture topics who give me the impression of being young and inexperienced, are encouraged to cite sources, any sources, and given positive reinforcement for doing so.

It is relatively likely that when a web source directly quotes e.g. a book that the quote is accurate. Sure, it may be selective. It may be out of context, maybe. If it does not give a page reference there may be difficulty locating it in the actual book. And I must say that between Google Books and www.a9.com the ease of finding a direct reference are getting better all the time.

Still, a "convenience link" is better than what we have on 90% of the facts in Wikipedia now, which is no source at all.

Just my $0.02. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to Gerry Ashton, and also to the comment above by Dpbsmith, my argument is that in some cases, a convenience link that is hosted on a non-reliable source (as per WP WP:RS), should not be used. For an extreme example that may illustrate my argument, imagine an article on Jewish liturgy that is hosted on the Aryan Nations website, specifically cited to make an anti-semitic remark, or cited in the context of other anti-semitic remarks. Would that be an acceptable "convenience link" for an article in Judaism? I would not think so... A convenience link could be a convenient way to push a POV (no pun intented), as much as eliminating such a convenience link for the same reasons. Common sense and good judgement is needed in these cases. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sure, but I think (hope) that's a rare situation. Obviously a link should not be used if there's any reasonable grounds for an iota of a scintilla of a glimmer of a jot of an inkling of a suspicion that the quotation could possibly be biassed. The situation I'm thinking about is a link to a fairly casual website... like a personal web page of someone who's not a famous expert... that has what the user says is a quotation, but fails to mention the source. And quick searches in Project Gutenberg and Google Books don't instantly turn up anything better. And it's not a grotesquely controversial topic, and the quotation isn't "surprising" or too good to be true (e.g. Neil Armstrong's saying "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky.") Dpbsmith (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that "convenience links" are legitimate and reasonable. A link to an online copy of an article is a convenient version of a reference to a printed article which may be difficult to find. The location of the copy does not provide the reliability - the original source does. Except in cases of the linked site that are extremist or

clearly untrustworthy, I think that convenience links should be allowed. -Will Beback 21:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, with th

e caveat that it will need to be agreed by consensus of involved editors about the reliability of that link, the context in which the source is presented, and other factors. If the source is widely available in public libraries, I would argue that we should err on the side of caution and list just a short cite, the book title, author and ISBN number, rather than link to a transcription that may be innacurate, or in an obviously partisan website. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, jossi, are you talking about

1. <Web page>, which cites <book>

• where the editor has looked at the web page, but not the book, or

2. <Book> (also see <web page>)

• where the editor has looked at the book, and is citing, the book

I am talking about the latter, in which case I do not consider the web page to be a source. But is everyone else talking about the former? If so, I agree that the web page should be held to the same standards as any other source. (However, whether to remove such references or try to find better ones to replace them with is not something I think there is current consensus on. I would go for the latter, since the existence of an unreliable source gives hope that a more reliable one might exist, along with an in-text note regarding the unreliability of the source while it was used. I recently created Template:Unreliable.) But if the former is a "convenience link" (more like a "convenient source", IMO), what is the latter?

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 13:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Earlier on this page I raised the issue of Affidavits. Several hand typed duplications of affidavits (personal sworn statements) appeared in articles. The typed HTML documents have no indication of validity and the HTML appears on personal websites. HTML hand typed copies of past newspaper articles are also appearing on the same personal websites. We can not ask a reader to have confidence in this kind of "reposited" information. Personal websites do not necessarily honor copyrights, and do not necessarily honor the creator of an affidavit, not the writer of a newspaper article. A user can have no more confidence in a "reposited" piece of information on a personal website than they have in the owner of the website. Some readers might take the website owner's word as the word of God, while others will be completely confident the website owner is incapable of rubbing two vowels together. I don't believe Wikipedia should drag its toes in the mud, so to speak. Let us insist on good quality information by insisting on good reputable sources of information. Better no information than possibly false information! Terryeo 17:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Which of the two situations I listed above do you think is a "convenience link"? Just so we can get clear about what we are discussing. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a "convenience link" [2] presently used as a secondary source at Narconon. That's not a bad one, the copyright owner is credited, permission is stated. Here is another from the same article [3] but the second one is of lesser quality. It doesn't mention copyrights, it doesn't mention anything about permission to reproduce and it is held on a personal website. Here is a third from the same article. [4] It too is held on a personal website, it doesn't mention copyright, it doesn't mention permission to reproduce. Affidavits too are often to be found in the Scientology articles, HTML representations that are probably handtyped without any permission or notice of copyright. That's the sort of problems I'm finding with "Reposited" material which is often held on a personal website, no copyright notice, no notice of permission to reproduce the document, they are mostly hand typed HTML reproductions of something the website owner liked. Terryeo 04:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The main issue for me is whether the editors used the actual, original sources when editing, or whether they used the website reproductions. In Narconon, the format of the citations would suggest the former (it cites the original publishers as publishers, not the websites), but I agree that it is less than explicit. It might be more clear if, taking your second example,

Joseph Mallia "INSIDE THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY; Scientology reaches into schools through Narconon" Boston Herald Mar 3, 1998 Pg. 018

was replaced with

Joseph Mallia "INSIDE THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY; Scientology reaches into schools through Narconon" Boston Herald Mar 3, 1998 Pg. 018. Also see a website reproduction of this article.

One thing that makes me more confident, besides WP:AGF, that the editors used the original sources is the page numbers, which I did not see in the website reproductions.

If the other second two examples you gave were used as sources by the editors when editing, I would agree with you that they were less than reliable - at best temporary sources pending the location of the more reliable versions.

By the way, I think WP:FAC would benefit from your attention, you have a critical eye. : )

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo wrote above "That's not a bad one, the copyright owner is credited, permission is stated" while discussing the point in the Narconon article where the article claims a Scientologist was arrested, and footnotes the claim with an article from the archives of the St. Petersburg Times. I believe it is indeed a proper footnote, but the point of the footnote is to give the author and publisher; copyright and permission are irrelevant, because it is not a quotation, and further, even if it were a quotation, it would be short enough to be fair use. It is not necessary to get permission to state a fact from a publication; it is only necessary to get permission to copy a publication.

Terryo goes on to critisize two other citations to the Boston Herald from the same article, on the basis that they provide convenience links to a web site that is not itself a reputable source. In a less controversial subject area, I'd let it pass, but Scientology is sufficiently controversial that I'd prefer not to see convenience links in this article. Terryo critisizes not only for the convenience link per se, but also because [www.holysmoke.org] "doesn't mention copyrights, it doesn't mention anything about permission to reproduce". I submit that it is not our job to be copyright police. As long as we, or Wikipedia, are not the ones doing the copying, we only need concern ourselves about whether the copy is accurate, not whether the copy infringes copyright.

Finally, Terryo mentions affidavits. Affidavits, in general, are not verifiable, because they are not necessarily held in a public archive where anyone can go to read them. So I agree, they should not be used as sources in Wikipedia unless they have been deposited in a reputable public archive.

Gerry Ashton 16:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The point I attempt to make has to do with what a reader sees when he uses a convenience link. We would like the reader to have confidence about the quality of information. A direct link to the original source of information is best. I would actually prefer that and disallow all convenience links, but I'm pretty sure a concensus of editors would not agree. But WP:V spells out, there is a minimum quality of information acceptable. We want good, reliable sources of information. Sometimes, convenience links may provide the level of quality that WP:V calls for. Other times, not. In particular, hand typed HTML presentations should be suspect because how can a reader know the information is good, that it is an exact duplication of the original? Sometimes convenience links surround the original information with opinion and evaluation, original research and additional information which puts a POV on the convenience link. About Affidavits, perhaps we can exclude all affidavits unless they are photostatic copies in PDF format ? Terryeo 23:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you agree with me that the change in formatting I suggested would give the reader more confidence that the editor writing the article used the original, reliable source of information? Also, do you agree with the distinction I was trying to make between using the original source, but also providing a convenience link, and using the so-called "convenience link" as a source? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello ArmedBlowfish. It is completely clear to me that your suggested change above which uses 'INSIDE THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY' is an improvement. I think you suggest a format change for convenience links. That second example is a better format. Further, I certainly agree and couldn't do other than agree that your suggested format makes a clean distinction between the original source and the convenience link. But there is still the issue of reader confidence in the accuracy of replication. I mean it would be obvious to a pro-scientology point of view that a convenience link on a anti-scientology personal website should at least be suspected. Terryeo 00:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Granting the reader trusts us that the convience link is not a source, I think we can allow the reader to make up their own mind about how much to trust the convenience link. We could help them out a bit by saying "Also see a website reproduction of this article on a personal website", but I feel that we should focus on stressing that these links should not be used as sources (except possibly temporarily), rather than saying that we shouldn't link to them at all. While the most reliable convenience link available would be preferred, in many cases there will probably be a lack of high-quality internet material available. The convenience link is useful, as it at least gives the reader something they can look at, both to check facts and for further reading, rather than frustrating them with sources they can neither look at or look at replacements for.

Do you feel we are approaching something we can agree on? Below is a suggested change to WP:RS, please edit it if it is still unsatisfactory. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bulletin boards, wikis, and posts to Usenet

The section WP:RS#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet states that "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." Understanding that the rationale behind this is the inability to ascertain who posted the material, any thoughts on modifying this section to clarify that usenet group FAQs are acceptable as a primary or secondary source when discussing that particular community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainktainer (talk • contribs)

That is explained already in the guideline. See:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves; and
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_as_secondary_sources.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

So how does the alnguage not contradict itself in this case? Especially since WP:V differs in this regard? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say it does contradict itself. The major problem with the "bulletin boarts, wikis and Usenet" section, and to some extents with other parts dealing with online and/or self-published content, seems to be that it attempts to treat all such content as equal — this is rather like claiming that all newspapers are equally reliable. The point the section should be making is that such content is only as reliable as its author, and that it should be treated with caution if there is any doubt about the author being who they say they are.

The point made elsewhere about pseydonymity is also misguided; a pseydonymous source can certainly be considered reliable if its authorship can be reliably attributed to the pseudonym and the pseudonymous person in question is generally regarded as a reliable authority on the subject.

On the other hand, one concern the guideline currently fails to mention is ephemerality. In this sense, different online sources vary greatly: a Usenet post in Google's archive is a fairly reliable source for the claim that the post in question was made at a given time to a given newsgroup; a personal web site, particularly one not indexed by archive.org, on the other hand is mutable, and can be easily removed or modified at any later date. Thus, whereas Usenet posts qualify as evidence of their own existence, for a web site the reliability of even that is predicated on the reliability of the author. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There are some very limited cases where the primary source is a Usenet post. For example, in Alt.religion.scientology#Rmgroup controversy, what is the primary source for the RMGROUP article? (I would suggest changing GoogleGroups links to use the Usenet MsgID rather than Google's internal code. This makes it easier to double-check against other Usenet archives.) And I remember when cross-posts appeared in comp.os.coherent from this Linus guy about his new OS project... Like it or not, a lot of computing history (heh) has happened on Usenet, and WP:RS should be able to handle that without editors invoking the "only a guideline" bypass. AndroidCat 03:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Present content of the section:

Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, are not acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources.

Some comments:

• "we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them" - Not always so. Also, I'm personally offended by this: there's no secret who I am, and that is clear from my user page, and can be checked.
• "no editorial oversight" - Also, not always so. For instance, several blogs are under the "editorial oversight" of the initiator. That doesn't make such blog less self-published (in the normal meaning of that word), but it is not correct to say that all bulletin boards, blogs and wikis are lacking editorial oversight.
• "no [...] third-party fact-checking" - This distinction can also be deceptive: for instance, how many "reputable" newspapers do third-party fact-checking? Often newspapers will publish a "scoop" not revealing their sources (which would usually make independent third-party fact-checking quite impossible).
• "in the case of wikis, content of an article could change at any moment" - For instance, many wikis have a "fixed link" possibility. If, for instance, an article on English Wikipedia is started as a translation of an article on French or German Wikipedia, it is better to mention that source, than to mention no source at all. I mean: maybe those other-language wikipedias are not the most reliable sources, certainly if they don't mention any external sources, but if WP:RS is written in a way that Wikipedians would be encouraged not to translate articles from other Wikipedias, and if they do, not to mention their sources, then WP:RS is definitely missing the mark.

In short, I think that characteristics like "author identity", "editorial oversight", "third-party fact-checking" and "stability of the source data" are good criteria when trying to distinguish more reliable from less reliable sources. But I object to a black-and-white picture that supposes that some sources (bulletin boards, blogs and wikis) always lack these characteristics completely, while other sources (like reputable newspapers) are described as never failing these criteria in any respect. It would be detrimental to Wikipedia's quality if in WP:RS we can't give the picture a bit more nuance than that, I think. --Francis Schonken 08:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded the section slightly to reflect a little more flexible view of the sources. They should not be used in most situations, but when illustrating, say, a Usenet phenomenon, it is ludicrous to say that Usenet cannot be used as a source. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If an author has such repute on a newsgroup, blog, or personal website that his written word is viewed by many as having substance and repute, then WP:V would apply. The author would be quoted in newspapers and other publications and his word would satisfy, in those instances, WP:V. When a widely known (on a newsgroup or blog or personal website) author is not published by reputable and reliable sources, then his words do not satisfy WP:V and we can not use them in Wikipedia articles. When such an author is not published by reliable and reputable sources, his words fall into Wikipedia's, What Wikipedia is not. Terryeo 13:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we wouldn't pull a blog posting about some other subject and call it credible commentary. However, if we had an article about a phenomenon on some blogging site, it would probably be appropriate to cite that phenomenon directly as a primary source. X, even if X is totally without credibility, can be used as evidence that X exists. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not according to WP:V, no. An information must be previously published by a reliable and reputable source or it can not be included. That is a relatively simple threshold to meet. Relatively simple. The reason it exists is because Wikipedia is not intended to become a repository of wild theories, unpublished and sort of published personal opinions. A NPOV can not be obtained when every crackpot personal opinion and every bulletin board notice can be included to justify an entry in Wikipedia. Terryeo 18:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the point ESkog was trying to make did NOT concern theories or opinions but the sheer existence of something in a specific context. That's something substantially different than opinions. The "relatively simple threshold" in fact is far more complicated than you make it. As an example, take jargon. Most 'reliable and reputable sources' will try to avoid jargon. If you want to show that a certain term is indeed used jargon, you'd need specific publications actually focussing on the jargon of a specific context -which are few and far between. The use of the term in a pertinent blog, however, far from reflecting "crackpot theories" establishes the use as jargon. --OliverH 10:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. If WP:V's current wording really does imply that we can't say "X exists, because here it is", then we need to rework WP:V. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to object to your change. While we can use a usenet source to say people talked about usenet phenom X during this time, we cannot use the content of those Usenet posts to source certain facts surrounding the incident. When random Usenet individual Y claims to have found x document on z website and here is a copy and paste of the alleged text you cannot use what he wrote as a source. In that context you're using this individual to support a fact unrelated to what occured on usenet and as such he fails a whole host of verifiability issues.--Crossmr 16:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If usenet, blog postings, etc are going to be usable as a source, there have to be extreme limitations on what they can be used for and how they can be used. It would be way to easy for someone to go out and fire themselves up a few sources for whatever content they wanted to include. There may also need to be rough guidelines on how much of this sourcing you can use in an article as well. If for example your article has over 50% of its content sourced from usenet, blogs, forums, etc then you might want to rethink whats being written in the article.--Crossmr 16:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me you are a bit confused over what we were talking about. It is not an issue about people talking about a usenet phenomenon, but about a direct manifestation of it. You're referring to it in a secondary-source style while we're talking primary data. I'll give you an analogous example: Replace "Usenet" with "Central park". Suppose there's black swans in Central park. Now, if you want to mention that in an article and reference it, there's two ways you could go about it: You could reference people telling you they have seen black swans in Central Park. That seems to me what you are talking about. It's perfectly ok to say this is unreliable, since it is hearsay. However, there's another way: Go to Central Park, look for a black swan and make a photo. Wham. We're not talking about "XYZ said in a blog that YZX". We're talking about "People like XYZ are using the term YZX, and you can see that here." It cannot be said to be unreliable, because the single incident already establishes proof. If anything can be brought up against it, then that it's close to original research. However, for something establishing proof in as clear a fashion, I don't think that endless literature searches in the hopes of finding a very unlikely incident of the matter (see above for my jargon explanation) is really necessary in any case. We don't reference the fact that water is wet and fire is hot either. --OliverH 16:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

And while that photo would allow you to say "There are black swans in Central Park" You couldn't go on to theorize about how the black swans got there, or what some people said about the blackswans, or how the black swans made people feel without credible sources for those opinions and theories. While a usenet phenomenon can be established by looking at posts, any theories or opinions you express on behalf of those posts needs to come from a credible source, otherwise you're creating original research based on other people's self-published words. Someone else may interpret those another way. This is what I mean about limiting the scope of of what these sources can be used for. Going back to speaking about the existence of something, given how popular criticism sections are in a lot of articles on wikipedia, saying they can be used to speak to the existence of them gives any crank a license to go out, create a few pointless blogs, include the content he wants to put in the article and say "Hey look some people do say that". I would also argue that neither black swans in central park nor a usenet phenomenon that requires you analyze posts are not likely notable and encyclopedic.--Crossmr 17:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if this comment connects to Olivers and Eskogs last remarks (I think it does), but I wanted to say that in my opinion both WP:V and WP:RS have moved to a sort of limbo not really giving the helpful tools they could easily give for the assessment of the reliability of the sources on which Wikipedia should depend. When coming here looking for help on how to assess the reliability of sources, one is immersed in an elaborate discussion of often ill-defined complex concepts, that in the end appear not to be helpful at all, while ultimately narrowed down to an inability to cope with on-line sources, and a relative over-estimation of printed sources: no, not all "facts" presented in sources published by reputable publishers have been checked by third parties, nor would it be necessary or reasonable to expect or assume that.

So, what to do next? I don't know... maybe support Kim Bruning who is currently pointing out that the current "freezing" of the content of WP:V is in contradiction with Wikipedia:No binding decisions (...official policy), see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#No binding decisions --Francis Schonken 13:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has been "frozen." The page was protected against your disruptive editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to check. Where would the world famous Tannenbaum-Torvalds debate fall? (including any and all consequences of that dabate?) ;-) Kim Bruning 11:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you can verifiy their identity, and they are a professional and he's commenting on something relating to him or his profession he's credible (see my comment below in blogs as sources). --Crossmr 15:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

References

(sorry for 8 other "ref"'s showing up in the list below, only the -currently- No. 9 relates to the #Convenience Links, definition section --Francis Schonken 16:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

Well Yeah, I did that. That was some time ago and I understood my mistake when it was pointed out to me. One of the elements which caused me confusion at that time, and which still is not clearly spelled out has to do with Convenience Links, which is why I am attempting to get some clarification in the area. Writing articles about religion is really no different than any other topic if the quality of the sources of information which can be used is made plain and clear. WP:RS does not even define Convenience Link at this moment. Some clarification is needed, I believe. Pointing out my past difficulty doesn't resolve future problems, but points out the need for clarification, don't you think? Terryeo 00:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Template

Dr Zak, you restored the link to the odd template, which says "please verify the credibility of this source." What would that involve exactly? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Misread and misparsed the template text of {{unreliable}} as "a reliable source" (sort of a synonym for {{fact}}) and reverted myself. Thanks for pointing that out. "Verifying the credibility of a source" involves checking if any statement conforms to the scientific consensus like you find in a recent, authoritative review or monograph. (We need those words somewhere in the guideline.) Dr Zak 20:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That said, {{Verify credibility}} looks still useful to mark a dubious source in the "References" section Dr Zak 21:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Verify credibility

SlimVirgin - {{Verify credibility}} is a template you can use to mark a specific source as being of questionable reliability, in the hope that another editor will check its reliability, and if necessary, replace it with a better source or remove the information. Thus it made sense to put it in the "See also" section of WP:RS. But whatever. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, ABF. In that case, it might be better called "check credibility" or better still "check reliability." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actual

Francis, I linked "actual" to Epistemology, because Epistemology is the study of actuality and how we know about it. Unfortunately, the word "actuality" links to Modal logic, which also studies actuality, but not quite in the same sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with SlimVirgin. Epistemology is not that hard. It's taught in college philosophy classes across the United States. --Coolcaesar 16:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)\

I tried to add it back, but Francis has removed it again as part of his all-out revert war here and at WP:V. Utterly bizarre. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

we are in the encyclopedia business, not philosophy. If the consensus of experts say X, Wiki says X. Rjensen 07:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No, we were just discussing wikilinking "actual" to "Epistemology," which is the study of knowledge and how we know what's real/actual. Just a link. Even that is not allowed. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"Epistemology" is a field of philosophy. I understand Rjensen's remark as that this linking of "actual" to a philosophy-related article is not useful.

Further, as I pointed out several times: the Epistemology article does in no way clarify the term "actual", the term "actual" is nor defined, nor explained on the "Epistemology" page, so the [[Epistemology|actual]] piped link is deceptive while clicking the link does not lead to an article where the reader is helped to understand the term (s)he is clicking. --Francis Schonken 09:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken, I feel it worth pointing out to you, that if a person reads through this page, in nearly every instance of your posting, there is some difficulty. I'm not saying your posting is contankerous, but that generally, editors are working toward a concensus, toward an agreement, toward an alignment of editing effort. This is brought about by discussing issues, by the clearest possible communication and this is not always easy. Don't take what I say as a criticsm, please. Take it more as an attestation that many editors are working toward a common goal. Terryeo 03:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So, apart from Terryeo's personal attack (for which he should in fact get blocked since he is under "permanent personal attack parole",[5] I've notified him about that several days ago,[6] and for me his "No" answer[7] is not sufficient), everyone seems OK with my argument not to mix in philosophy in the "actual" piped link. Or did I miss something? --Francis Schonken 19:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Further, the sentence:

To say of a [[Sentence (linguistics) | sentence]] or [[proposition]] that it is [[truth | true]] is to say that it refers to a fact.

is as far as I'm concerned redundant (not defining "fact", but drawing in an unrelated linguistics issue) and confusing (while seemingly contradictory with WP:V's "verifiability, not truth"). Does anyone have a problem I remove this sentence from the "fact" definition? --Francis Schonken 08:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please leave it alone. It's simply a definition of a fact. It is only the word "sentence" that is linked to linguistics. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Please leave it alone.", can't you leave it alone then? For what reason?
• "It's simply a definition of a fact.", no it isn't, please give at least some argumentation, if you think my analysis above is incorrect.
• "It is only the word "sentence" that is linked to linguistics." - And? Is that meant to be an argumentation? I'd rather say an irrelevant innuendo. --Francis Schonken 09:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, please don't take this the wrong way, but we link other articles mostly to give readers a fun way to navigate around the encyclopaedia (because it's a hypertext), not as a means of creating some sort of definitional structure. You can argue whether there's much benefit to linking these words, but arguing about whether the links are appropriate in a definitional sense is usually a waste of time and effort. Also, I think the reason Slim couldn't respond to your "analysis" was that it was not sufficiently coherent. Would you mind restating it in simple terms and we can have a go at it? Grace Note 05:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• [[Epistemology|actual]] is a deceptive piped link. "Epistemology" and "actual" are not synonyms. It would be OK if the Epistemology article explained, clarified or defined the term "actual". No such clarifications of the word actual can be found in the Epistemology article.
• Could you explain the sentence "To say of a [[Sentence (linguistics) | sentence]] or [[proposition]] that it is [[truth | true]] is to say that it refers to a fact." to me? I mean, in simple terms? --Francis Schonken 08:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternatives to "A '''[[fact]]''' is an [[Epistemology|actual]] state of affairs.":

• A '''[[fact]]''' is an [[Ontology|actual]] state of affairs.
  • The Ontology article has:

    Ontology has one basic question: "What actually exists?"

    If someone wants to give a philosophical elaboration of "actual" (which I still think not needed here), the Ontology article seems, to me, more appropriate than the Epistemology article.
• A '''[[fact]]''' is an [[wiktionary:actual|actual]] state of affairs.
  • Why does "actual" need a philosophical clarification? A plain dictionary definition like wiktionary:actual, if any clarification is needed, seems more than enough to me.
• A '''[[fact]]''' is an actual state of affairs.
  • "Actual" without any piped link works well enough for me. After all "fact" is already linked, non-piped – so what you see is what you get – isn't that more than enough? Note that the "fact" article more or less gives an overview of philosophical, scientific and other approaches to the fact concept. If we want to narrow that down for the purposes of the WP:RS guideline (do we?) that should at least not be done by a piped link.

--Francis Schonken 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone having a problem that I proceed with the last of these proposed solutions? --Francis Schonken 07:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)\

Yes, I object. It's fine as it is, as several people have tried to explain to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a collection of knowledge, not a collection of "things that exist". Epistemology asks the question "When can we say we know something?", it is also the basis of the modern philosophies of science. While wictionary may tell you that a "fact" is an actual state of affairs epistemology will tell you that's quite some distance from your description or even perception of that fact. So I'd handle ontology with care here, epistemology is the far more pertinent discipline. Finally, I'm afraid that the quality of the article "fact" to me seems quite bad since the difference between the actual state of affairs and the observation of it is mangled pretty badly. --OliverH 09:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ontology has nothing to do with the subject matter here. Epistemology does. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested addition to Some definitions

Feel free to modify the following to bring it closer to consensus.

• A convenience link is a reproduction of an informational source and is not the original source. It is an online reproduction of the actual source, which may be offline or require a subscription. The original source being difficult to access, it may be helpful to provide a convenience link so that the reader may view the information easily. Since convenience links are generally of lower reliability than the original source, the citation should be sure to make it clear that the convenience link is not a source. For example

Mallia, Joseph (1998-03-03). "INSIDE THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY; Scientology reaches into schools through Narconon". Boston Herald: pg. 018. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help) Also see a website reproduction of this article from Holysmoke.org, an anti-scientology website (retrieved on 2006-07-10).

should be used instead of

Mallia, Joseph (1998-03-03). "INSIDE THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY; Scientology reaches into schools through Narconon". Boston Herald: pg. 018. Retrieved 2006-07-10. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

If the convenience link is of particularly low quality, it may be helpful to include a unbiased note of that in the citation, such as "from a personal website", or "from a partisan website", etc. This will encourage the reader to take the convenience link with a grain of salt. Questions to ask when determining the quality of the convenience link include: does the convenince link go beyond copyright laws, does the convenience link attribute the information to the original author, is the convenience link an accurate reproduction, have signatures and dates been reproduced on the convenince webpage, are authorizations of reproductions within the original, reproduced on the convenince link so that an earlier author in the chain is recognized, is the publisher reputable, and other questions of authenticity.

I have created a section about how an editor should create a convenience link at WP:CITE. I used the above example which recognizes the original source of information, and presents an online convenient reproduction. The reasoning was, while we might define the term here, WP:CITE is the guideline of how to Cite, so I put the whole thing there. Terryeo 23:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

If an editor puts the above example into the reliable sources guideline, the editor is asserting that the version of the story at http://www.holysmoke.org accurately reproduces the version printed in the Boston Herald. If the editor is not prepared to make that assertion, the editor should pick a different example. Gerry Ashton 02:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The parent policy, WP:V requires, ... have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. A reproduction of a piece of information which satisfies WP:V, would satisfy WP:V if we were certain it were a reproduction. But a summary, analysis, or other material relating to an actual source would not satisfy WP:V because it would not have previously been published by a reliable and reputable source. Granted that a convenience link is not the original source. Nonetheless, WP:V's requirement can not be ignored. I believe any Summary, any analysis, any other material must itself have been published, per WP:V, in order for it to be cited by any Wikipedia article. In addition, I feel Wikipedia must necessarily hold to that standard, rather than water that standard down Terryeo 05:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, there are questions of, does the convenince link go beyond copyright laws, does the convenience link attribute the information to the original author, is the convenience link an accurate reproduction, have signatures and dates been reproduced on the convenince webpage, are authorizations of reproductions whithin the original, reproduced on the convenince link so that an earlier author in the chain is recognized and other questions of authenticity. These are the sorts of things readers look toward in order to satisfy themselves they are getting accurate information. Terryeo 05:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Gerry Ashton - I tried to reword it a bit so that we were making it clear that we were not claiming that the convenience link was of high quality, but instead being honest about its failings, and not relying on it when editing. I feel that showing an example of dealing with a low-quality convenience link is probably helpful, since it is a delicate situation that many editors will probably have to handle. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me spell out the scenario I'm concerned about. Editor A compares offline source P to web page W, and decides they match, so provides a convenience link in article B. Later, Editor C modifies guideline G, including the same sources P and W. Since this is a different place on Wikipedia, Editor C is making a new claim that P and W match. Before making such a claim, Editor C should obtain the paper P and personally compare it to the web page W; Editor C should not rely on Editor A's assertion that they match. Gerry Ashton 17:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

With your new proposal we'd have to remove all images retrieved from NASA (see {{PD-USGov-NASA}})... not a good idea. Generally NASA images from space used in Wikipedia are: (1) only web-published; (2) not-copyrighted; (3) impossible for most earthlings to check... unless you'd own a sattelite or can fly around with a shuttle of course; (4) self-published by a big state-owned organisation, nonetheless: self-published.

Further, you propose to add something to the "definition" section, and you forget to add the essential thing: a definition of what you mean by convenience link. http://images.ucomics.com/images/pdfs/sadams/godsdebris.pdf is as much (or as less) a "source" as ISBN 0740721909 - Offering the questionable opinion that a convenience link is not a "source" is not even a definition of the concept "convenience link".

For the WP:RS guideline the quintessential question regarding sources is how reliable they are. Denying the *existence* of a range of sources is simply avoiding the question of their reliability. Not helpful for the wikipedia editor that comes to this guideline hoping to find help for assessing the reliability of sources. --Francis Schonken 07:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A convenience link is a reproduction and not the original source. It is an important distinction. It says a piece of information be compared to the original source, but is not itself the original source. In the situation with NASA and with many sites, they will say that is is perfectly all right to reproduce their work, but to give them credit for having originally produced it. Of course, any encyclopedia would want to attribute the original source while reproducing a portion of the original source. For us, such attribution adds reputability. We want to indicate the original source and we want to indicate reproduction of the source, it adds to our stature to do so. Terryeo 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Schonken that reliability is the primary question which WP:RS confronts. This guideline, I believe, confronts all of the first half of WP:V's statement, .. have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. The phrase already been published is critical in an era where a personal website may be viewed by anyone on the planet, or indeed, even from space. A personal website can claim a webpage's content has been previously published, but present their own personal opinion in such a way that their opinion seems to be a part of the previously published piece of information. Actually determining whether the information on a webpage has been previously published is not a trivial task. And both reliable and reputable sources are equally important. Terryeo 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Could we remove the (In some cases, it may also be a summary, analysis, or other material relating to the actual source, but this is more controversial.)? We do not want unpublished information related to the actual source, presented alongside published information do we? If we did that then readers would themselves have to sort out what is good, published information from a personal website owner's opinion, analysis and so on. And that is the task us editors have been charged with ! Terryeo 16:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the purpose of the link is to give a reader without the actual source an idea of what they're missing, not to actually have a source to write material based on, I feel such links do serve that purpose better than nothing. And then there's book-searching tools, which are sort of like partial reproductions (full really, except you can't see the whole thing), but are controversial for other reasons. I'm sorry if this isn't a very comprehensive response, I'm sort of busy with non-Wikipedia things this evening. But this is an important issue that will probably be difficult to reach a consensus on, so I'll try to write you a better response later. (For now, though, being controversial, we may as well say its controversial.) — Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that we want to have an open ball park in which editors can edit, without too many constraints. WP:V tells us the edges of the ball park we edit within. An information must have been previously published by a reliable and reputable source to be present in an article. Traditionally that meant books and newspapers. The internet makes publishing much faster, easier and cheaper. WP:RS should spell out clearly how WP:V applies to specific situations. A convenience link in an article can enhance an article, but if the reader won't have confidence in the link, the reader will develop a lack of confidence in Wikipedia. A convenince link should not include information which is outside the threshold of inclusion. A summary or an analysis or an interpretation of previously published information which is not itself published is below WP:V's threshold and can not be included on a convenince linked page. Terryeo 15:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Is http://wikimediafoundation.org/ a RS?

Just a quick check, is http://wikimediafoundation.org/ a reliable source for information concerning members of the board? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you mean who is on the board and who isn't. It's a bit less reliable as a sole source for personal information about the board members because it's PR-controlled. You wouldn't trust ExxonMobil to give a perfectly reliable account of its executives' personal background, either. --Davidstrauss 06:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for disregarding professional researcher websites

The first reason previously given is simply ridiculous. Everything a researcher collects and publishes is going to be *new* otherwise they wouldn't publish it. So this reason effectively eliminates the entire category from consideration. There are many people who are professional and publish websites as their main vehicle for publication. That is the brave, new world. I'm sure that disregarding all such sites is not the intention of this section. It should be toned-down, not made so egregious. Wjhonson 22:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What was the "first reason"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It used to say something like let me paraphrase "it it was newsworthy it would have beeen reported somewhere else already." Which is silly. If the researcher themselves is reporting it on their own web site, why would it also need to be published in the Skykomish Bugle in order to be cited? All newspapers do, is repeat the story already writen :) Wjhonson 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It advises people to exercise caution about using material on a researcher's blog that absolutely no one else has any interest in publishing. It doesn't say not to use it, but simply advises editors to stop and think, because the information may not be notable enough for other publications, and therefore might not be for us either. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You've added to the wording. It does not say "that absolutely no one else has any interest in publishing." It simply insinuates that the editor has to look elsewhere then the source which is the reported in the first place. And it does say, that it must be published in a third-party source. That's the part I removed. That restriction in the case of a reporter or professional researcher known in their field of expertise, is just plain silly. Wjhonson 23:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that it must be published in a third-party source? Can you quote the sentence (in context)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed another part, which was senseless :) Let's say Ted Koppel on his www.tedkoppel.com web site says, "The City of San Diego yesterday passed a resolution outlawing smoking, one of the members told me privately they were against it, but felt afraid to vote their mind". And he happens to live in San Diego, was at the meeting and interviewed the person. You're going to tell me, that that has to be published in the San Diego Star or wherever to be a credible source? Pardon me, but that's a dumb restriction. Editors should take precautions when using information from the sites of professional researchers. More than that is too strict. Wjhonson 22:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say it has to be published elsewhere first. In the case of a well-known journalist, it says exactly the opposite. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is a guideline, not policy. Always remember that. --Davidstrauss 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

indirect referencing of blogs

Something like this occurs in a WP article: According to the column "Blog Corner" in QQQ Magazine, blogger X said "Bush is ...." and blogger Y said "Bush is ..." . Does this violate WP:RS even though QQQ is a reliable (if partisan) magazine? Precis 06:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO... Quoting a reliable published (printed?) magazine is well within the standards of RS... but the Wikipedia article should use an exact quote from the magazine, and give a proper citation with issue, date, and page so readers can fact check. Blueboar 22:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I followed your advice, quoting a blog at The Israel Lobby at time 23:13 14 July, 2006 Precis 00:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is not true. Normal citation practice is to quote *your* source, not *their* source, so the citation to the blog is the accurate cite, also citing the underlying source, if in fact that is where the editor got their own information from. Wjhonson 23:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree. Precis 08:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What I was talking about is quoting "your" source and not "their" source... in this case you are quoting QQQ Magazine. I would include it in the article as follows:

• According to the column "Blog Corner" in QQQ Magazine "Bloger X said 'Bush is correct' and Bloger Y said 'Bush is wrong'" <citation to issue, date and page of QQQ Magazine where this statement can be found>

Note that what is being quoted and cited in the article is QQQ Magazine and not the Blogs themselves. QQQ Magazine is (I assume) a reliable source that does their research, checks their facts, and has editorial oversite. Readers can obtain a copy of this magazine and verify that the magazine's statement actually exists. Blueboar 12:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the July 14 passage as it stands, since the phrase in quotes was reproduced in Harper's Magazine:

• As'ad AbuKhalil, professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus, writes in his blog that Mearsheimer and Walt seem "intent on blaming all the ills in U.S. foreign policy on the Israeli lobby." <reference> Ken Silverstein, A Statue to Reason, Harper's Magazine, July 13, 2006 <end reference> A Statue to Reason

Precis 14:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually... this does not fit the example of your original question. "A Statute to Reason" is from a blog (yes, it is a blog hosted by Harper's Magazine, but it is still a blog - written by their Washington Editor Ken Silverstein). As such it is not allowable under WP:RS.

Now, if this blog article were to be re-published in the print version of Harper's, then it would be OK. I would write it as follows:

• According to Ken Silverstein, Washington Editor of Harper's Magazine, AbuKhalil's analysis of Mearsheimer and Walt's paper... "pointed out some of the contradictions in the paper — most notably that the authors seemed 'intent on blaming all the ills in U.S. foreign policy on the Israeli lobby.'" <Referrence> Silverstein, Ken - A Statute to Reason; Harpers Magazine, July 2006 issue, Page 58.<end reference>

This makes it clear that you are quoting Silverstein and not AbuKhalil, and puts the AbuKhalil sub-quote in context. As you have it, you are quoting AbuKhalil but citing Silverstein. A double no-no. Blueboar 16:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is an incorrect, overly-exacting manner to say that all typing in a blog fails RS. The RS rules are to prevent *original text* posted to a blog. If I quote Matthew 3:12 in a blog, a person can certainly cite my blog entry as the basis for that text. While it is true, that there may be better ways of determining what the text of Matthew 3:12 is, that doesn't necessarily, by default, preclude citing my blog entry. If a person wants to go get a copy of Harper's and check the quote themselves, they can then cite Harper's. If they get their quote on what Harper's states *in their print edition* (which is the point), FROM a blog entry, then that blog entry must be cited as the source, with the additional statement that the underlying source was Harper's. That is standard citation practice. Wjhonson 18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but no... If you quote Matthew 3:12 in your blog that is not sufficient to cite your blog as as a source for the Gospels, as there are many other reliable sources about Matthew 3:12. Your blog is not a reliable source for anything beyond the blog itself, unless your blog is widely considered and cited as a reliable source for a specific subject and you are a notable expert in that subject's field. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but yet. If the editors source for a quote is a blog then that blog must be cited. That's standard citation practice. Wjhonson 19:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliables sources and should not be used as secondary sources. See WP:RS. The exception is when the article is about that blog (if that blog warrants an article in WP). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar's analysis is problematic on several counts. First BB suggests that if Silverstein's blog in Harper's were republished in the PRINT version of Harper's, it would be OK. But I see no evidence that the print version of Harper's is subject to any more editorial scrutiny than the online version. Hence I question BB's assertion that Silverstein's blog in Harper's is not allowable under WP:RS. Next BB says "As you have it, you are quoting AbuKhalil but citing Silverstein. A double no-no." To be more precise, I am citing S and quoting S's quotation of A. That point is obvious to the reader who checks Harper's. BB is suggesting that it be made obvious for readers who do not check Harper's as well, and I take no issue with that. Precis 22:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal webpages and blogs are not acceptable as secondary sources, unless the owner of the blog is a widely recognized expert in the field. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Jossi hits the nail on the head... current wiki policy is that NO blog may be used as a secondary source. Thus the need for Silverstein's column to appear in the PRINT version of Harpers (which, by my reading of the guidelines, would be considered reliable). If it is not re-printed in the print version, then the quote and citation must be removed.

Now, I understand that the whole point using the Silverstein citation is to include the indirect quotation of AbuKalil's comment. Since we can not know if Silverstein quotes Abukalil correctly... (we can assume it, but we do not know for sure)... we MUST make it explicit that we are quoting Silverstein and not AbuKalil directly. I feel this needs to be stated explicitly in the Article. This should be true when citing any indirect quotation. Blueboar 00:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

An overly legalistic interpretation. The letter of the law and the spirit of the law are two seperate things. No page is set in stone, they represent what we as editors do, they do not dictate what we must do. The blog quotes a reliable source. The only rationale for not using that quote and citing the blog as source and the magazine as underlying source, would not be that wiki policy prohibits every citing a blog (which is a legalistic interpretation of the prohibition), but rather that you cannot be certain the blog entry correctly quotes the reliable source. Wjhonson 01:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Jossi's remark I view as irrelevant, since an editor's blog on Harper's is not the same as a personal webpage or a personal blog. Established magazines are unlikely to risk their reputations by being lax on editorial oversight (either on printed or online versions). BB's claim that a printed Harper's blog is an acceptable source, whereas an online Harper's blog is not, seems arbitrary indeed. I see no evidence of that being current WP doctrine. I take no issue with BB's claim that we must make it explicit that S is quoting a quotation of A. Precis 02:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment above was a general comment and not one specific to Harper. The question to be asked is this case is: Is this blog a personal blog of a Harper's editor, or not? It contains op-ed pieces, or it reflects Harper's publication as a whole. As in most of these issues, context is everything. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Harper's blog is a compendium of political interviews, political analysis, and breaking political news stories put together by editor Ken Silverstein. How can one judge whether or not this "reflects Harper's publication as a whole"? There is a more practical question: Who has the burden of proof in showing that Harper's blog meets the standards of Harper's as a whole? In my opinion, a WP editor is entitled to assume that Harper's blog is reliable, and an antagonist has the burden of proof of showing unreliability. My reasoning is that it is unlikely that an established magazine would jeopardize its reputation by lowering its standards for selected content published by its staff (either in print or online). Precis 05:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Blueboar wrote: current wiki policy is that NO blog may be used as a secondary source. Thus the need for Silverstein's column to appear in the PRINT version of Harpers (which, by my reading of the guidelines, would be considered reliable). If it is not re-printed in the print version, then the quote and citation must be removed. I disagree. The policy is that blogs are self-published sources and that self-published sources may be used if (among others) the writer is a well-known professional journalist, which I can only assume that the Washington Editor of Harper's is. I'd be confident in the assessment that this is a reliable source. JulesH 16:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

There has been considerable discussion about blogs as sources. The guideline currently states "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are typically not acceptable as sources." (emphasis added). I simply want to point out that blog is a relatively new term, and in this guideline seems to refer to a website where the blog author adds comments frome time to time with no editorial oversight or fact-checking. If we were to come across some website that called itself a blog, but actually had editorial supervision and fact-checking, it would not be a blog for purposes of this guideline, and could be used as a source. Gerry Ashton 01:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

SOME blogs should absolutely be allowed. The question is where do we draw the line. I tihnk a strict reading that disallows, say, a blog at The Washington Post or National Review Online is too strict, but we certainly don't want the latest conspiracy blog or some blog-like reporting from TruthOut to become the norm either. Some of the best sports and music journalism, for example, comes from blogs on the web. We're doing a disservice to our own abilities to write good articles by not allowing some sourcing from blogs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the best does, and so does pretty much all the bad. The problem is in leaving it up to interpretation you're again giving license for a person or group of people with an agenda to try and push content on wikipedia. I think you have to draw the line at something well defined that isn't really open to interpretation, it mentions somewhere that usable self-published sources should only be someone who is a professional researcher/journalist who's been published credibly. Thats not an unreasonable line to draw. It could be expanded a bit to include credible professionals and recognized subject matter experts, but I think there should be some notability to their usage. For example CEO of a notable company blogs and you can verify it as his blog, it can be used in the context that he's speaking about his company or the industry that its part of. the CEO of a thumb tack company who blogs probably shouldn't be cited for his views on the theory of relativity. A similar rule should extent to subject matter experts. If they're considered a SME on political science. Don't cite their blog for things relating to a local cheese festival.--Crossmr 01:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability should not be a criteria in this case. We don't go by the notability of a publication when using it for sourcing, and the notability of a blog associated with a publication certainly shouldn't matter. Credibility is the key, mostly, and while we can almost certainly trust blogs attached to reputable publications (at least as much as we can trust the reputable publication), it's once we move past there that it gets hairy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is why we need to attach something to the blogger to establish usage. Establishing them as some kind of credible professional or SME should be necessary for usage. I think one big criteria is establish identity. If you can't reasonable say blogger X is person Y, it should automatically be out, I think it has to go a bit beyond their assertion if they've ever made it as well. And notability does play into credibility. If they're not attached to a credible institution of some sort and they're not notable, exactly why are we citing them? --Crossmr 02:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So long as the site had that yes. For example if a media site allowed their journalists to post blogs you could see that as no different from a column in their newspaper/magazine if they posted the content the same way. The emphasis would be on the person who wanted the content included to prove that the site indeed does that if its not obvious or well known. Perhaps we should expand a blog section to spell out their usage to show the difference between citing something from a well known credible person writing in a blog style and joe blow annonymous blogger. --Crossmr 01:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

One solution to the blog issue might be to equate them with printed "Op-Ed" pieces such as are found in newspapers. How do we treat Op-Ed columns? (My understanding is that they can be considered reliable sources if we are discussing what the columnist said - ie if they are used as a primary source on the views of the columnist - but they should not considered reliable as secondary sources on what other people say). Perhaps we need a section in the guidelines dealing with "opinion pieces"... listing Editorials, Op-Ed columns, and Blogs - and spelling out how to cite them. In other words, break Blogs away from "Personal Websites" entirely.

Which works. We can't take a usenet, forum, blog posting and label it as an opinion relating to "some" or "many". But again I'd have to say 95% of the time random usenet/blog/forum posting is going to come from some unknown and why is their opinion encyclopedic? Also how do we handle "facts" taken from those sources. The article that got me involved in this debate Lumber Cartel is about 95% based on usenet posts and not just used to express what one person said, they're used to present facts, make accusations, etc. That's a different ball of wax entirely.--Crossmr 15:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree... perhaps we need to make a distiction between a journalist's blog, hosted by otherwise reputable sources (ex: on-line newpapers and magazines) and personal blogs, forums and usenet postings. The first is, in essence, an on-line Op-Ed column and should be considered reliable for citing the opinion of the columnist. The others are unreliable. Blueboar 16:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the distinction is covered adequately there, especially given that this is policy WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. I think the definition could be expanded to include any relevant professional (not just researchers and journalists). I think we could agree that outside of blogs that are tied credibly to one of these professionals, none of these other things should be used as sources on wikipedia.--Crossmr 16:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's the least bit controversial to expand to relevant professionals, but I wouldn't say that other types of blogs are something I'd agree should not be used. The only problem I see with using them is separating the useful and credible with the ones that are not, and it's the only thing that's prevented me from pushing harder on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And how exactly are you going to do that? In order for an opinion to to be encyclopedic, I think its got to come from someone who's notable either in general or in relation to the subject. Otherwise you might as well have Joe Blow fire off whatever opinion you want to include, and honestly it almost borders on original research if you're digging up information or a non-professional blog to figure out if this person knows what they're talking about.--Crossmr 16:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If I knew, I'd be doing it, heh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats the crux of it. I don't think there is anyway to do that. If we make ambiguous statements about blogs we can include it leaves it up to the editors opinion on whether or not he thinks that blog entry has merit. Doing that just leaves the door open to all sorts of garbage finding its way onto wikipedia. I think the standards have to be laid out in such a way that they're very unambiguous so that any objective person could come along and draw the same conclusion about a blog's inclusion that anyone else could draw. Leaving it open to random interpretation is what leads to edit wars.--Crossmr 16:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, let's stay on topic for now. I'm not advocating it currently, and won't be anytime soon. Certainly, we agree on allowing for blogs are reliable sources if associated with a credible organization or publication, so let's focus on that for now. Have we seen any opposition to that as of yet? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I don't think we have. Some criteria along these lines for inclusion might be:

• The individual is an verifiable employee of the company that is the subject of the blog.
• The individual is a verifiable employee in a management position of the company or the industry that the company belongs to that is the subject of the blog.
• The individual is a verifiable top level manager in a company and the blog content relates to the company, the industry its a part of, or a related industry.

Obviously that needs lots of tweaking, but I think we should establish general guideliness for who's opinion has weight in regards to what topic. For example the Microsofts janitor's opinion probably doesn't mean much in regards to McAfee's latest decision with their software. On the other hand, Bill Gate's opinion on the subject would be much more relevant. You could probably take that same janitor's opinion though on a controversial new policy the company implemented that gained press--Crossmr 16:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say that you two, while I was sleeping have carried on a fantasticly useful discussion of the issue so far. To your list above, we should add journalist blogs of reliable sources, and the blogs of professional researchers in their field of expertise. In some fashion, I'm not sure how we draw the line, but I think this is a great start. Should not we create a new guideline page and ask people to contribute there? Then it can be linked page to this discussion and probably the main page (provided no strong opposition). I think it would be a great addition. Wjhonson 19:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea, to this end I've created Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_Blog_Citation and started it. Everyone is of course free to add to it. I'm going to try and include the major points that we discussed here and hopefully we can build from all this. --Crossmr 20:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a test case. I believe the following blog could be considered an acceptable source. Comment is Free Precis 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In what context? Thats park of what we're exploring here. While a blog may be acceptable as citation in one case, it may not in the other because of relevance, etc.--Crossmr 22:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides the context question, the Comment is free site contains both text by reputable journalists, which in some cases could be cited, and also by anyone who cares to append a comment, which is not suitable for citation. Gerry Ashton 22:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both comments. That's why I used the word "could". Precis 00:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

An unclear sentence

This sentence in the second paragraph of the article is kind of hard to understand:

"It is the responsibility of the person seeking for content to be included to provide references."

Could someone fix it, or delete it? I'd do it myself, but I'm not really sure what the sentence is trying to say. -- Zeno Izen 01:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It means that the burden to provide references is on the editor adding material to an article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS-related RfC

Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people - Is one book which asserts a historian's own personal interpretation of historical documents a sufficient source to list someone as LGBT, when no other source is known to share that view? Bearcat 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (copied here by Francis Schonken)

What is the scientific consensus about so-and-so being gay? Is the perception that that person was gay sufficiently popular that saying he was wouldn't give undue weight to a minority opinion? Dr Zak 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that "no other source known" is your opinion. Based on nothing. That is WP:OR. Now if you can cite a source which states that then fine. Wjhonson 22:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Scientific consensus is irrelevant for that list. "Gay", etc. are social labels. "Homosexual", etc. are the biological ones. Whether someone is gay is not a scientific question. Now, whether that source is reliable enough to assert the social label is a different question. :-) --Davidstrauss 06:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced edits

I think this is good:

It is always appropriate to ask other editors to produce their sources. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor. However, some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to find a source, particularly when the material is not obviously wrong, absurd, or harmful. Instead of removing such material immediately, editors are encouraged to move it to the talk page, or to place the {{fact}} template after the disputed word or sentence, or to tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}} at the top of the page. See Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, which are policy, and Avoid weasel words.

However this has sometimes been use in support of the robotic removal of common knowledge from articles. For instance the words "faggot" and "dyke" were removed from List of sexual slurs because no reference was provided, despite those being common words that are defined in every good dictionary and known (almost) universally.

I don't think we would need to make a big change to deprecate this kind of treatment. It seems to me that the problem in the case I've cited is that the editor performing the removal knew the terms but removed them anyway on principle. But if a claimed fact isn't common knowledge there will be one person who doesn't know it. So it seems reasonable to me that we should discourage people from such robotic removal by saying:

Do not, however, remove statements that you believe to be both true and common knowledge, simply because they aren't sourced. Don't, for instance, remove a reference to "earth's elliptical orbit" simply because the writer has not supported the assrtion that planetary orbits are elliptical. If you do honestly disbelieve a statement, do remove it and request a source on the talk page. If you do honestly think it isn't common knowledge, do tag it as requiring a reference or query it on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 13:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with adding that, so long as we make clear that anything negative in living bios, whether regarded as common knowledge or not, has to be reliably sourced or removed. But I think we do make that clear elsewhere on the page, so this addition shouldn't be a problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume that it is regarded as common good practice, not to say good manners, to note prominent removals on the talk-page and request sources? —Phil | Talk 13:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is right. I thought about that some more and added the following, but it seems to have been lost in an edit conflict:

And do be skeptical about claims of "common knowledge" about people, especially living people. Gossip is not common knowledge. --Tony Sidaway 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for inadvertently writing over your edits, Tony. [8] I didn't get an edit-conflict notification. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith

I am essentially being accussed of making up sources for my article on Kittie May Ellis. I think this falls under Assume Good Faith. A few other editors find my sources obscure and unavailable. I don't believe the burden of proof is on me, to prove that a source like History of Western Washington, 1889 exists. Sourcing a statment means providing a source. This sort of regressive argument is pointless and I feel violates AGF. Some admins even feel that other editors *questioning* RS is enough to delete. I feel this is overstrong. Questioning a source is not the same as presenting evidence that a source is unreliable. An editor opinion, based on vapor, that a source is unreliable is not sufficient to determine reliability. Only the published, source statement of an RS about another source should be used in a case where the reliability is questionable. Your thoughts? Wjhonson 05:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

A central idea of Wikipedia:Verifiability is that you give other wikipedians the possibility to check ("verify") the claim you made that something is published somewhere.

So, AGF on your co-editors: they're maybe only trying to bring WP:V in practice, and you could help them by finding out whether the book you try to use as reference is easily available in libraries and/or has a web-copy (Project Gutenberg?) and/or is described in more accessible sources (so that it becomes possible to assess it's reliability), etc.

And maybe try to find out whether other sources confirm the statement you want to source to a 1889 book. If the 1889 book is absolutely the only "reliable" source regarding the statement you try to see confirmed by published sources, it still might be a "tiny minority view" (see WP:NPOV#Undue weight), and so not necessarily suited to be enclosed in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken 06:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

But do you agree that the mere opinion of another editor, without basis, that a source is unreliable, is insufficient for that to be asserted as the basis for wikinclusion ? Wjhonson 06:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Content with references doesn't have "immunity": the references may be flawed (for instance unreliable, linkspam), or the content may be trivia, or an incorrect rendering of the content of the referenced work, or not relevant to the article in question, or a tiny minority view, or generally not belonging in an encyclopedia, or a copyright infringement, or whatever...

But yes, normally if the references are sound and the content is relevant, someone else shouldn't remove just because they don't like it: that would usually be qualified as vandalism.

I don't exactly know the situation you're talking about but from what you tell about it I surmise that fellow-wikipedians have problems with the notability aspect (WP:NPOV#Undue weight: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."). Also in order to check whether content added to Wikipedia is a correct rendering of the content of the referenced work it is important to make transparent where these sources can be accessed. So, again, try to cooperate with your fellow-wikipedians. Your viewpoint is that Kittie is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia in a separate article. The basic sentence from the current version of that article that IMHO needs sourcing in that sense is: "Notable as one of, and perhaps the, sole, narrative primary source for many newsworthy events in the various local communities in which she lived." - Who said that? I mean the implication that she would be notable for that? Give sources for that, and also: AGF on your fellow Wikipedians if on the present content (& references) of the article they assess that the notability (in Wikipedia sense) isn't proven (yet). --Francis Schonken 09:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Kittie May Ellis article is subject to deletion because while it has numbers in brackets after the quotes, the numbers are a dead-end. There is no References section with a list of the publication and page numbers showing where each and every quote came from. Perhaps the sources were mentioned in the article's talk page rather than the article itself; this does not count. A reader should not have to look through the history of the talk page trying to find sources.

Another problem with this article is there are templates for deletion and speedy deletion, but the article does not seem to be mentioned on the pages that the templates point to. Gerry Ashton 06:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The article was deleted and had to be re-created from a defective copy. That is why the number is brackets are there. I've already removed them all now anyway. Wjhonson 06:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

in the interests of tightness and simplicity

• However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or Al-Qaeda.

could be replaced by

• Strong views need not disqualify a source, but editors should avoid citing extreme political groups, like Stormfront or Al-Qaeda.

Precis 08:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I'd like it to read "though where possible editors should avoid..." I see no reason to discourage direct references to primary material issued publicly by such groups which can be taken as authoritative on their published opinion. For instance, one might say "on 19 May, 2008, the British Nasty Party announced that it planned to sponsor Mr Bimmler as its candidate in the General Election, contesting the Prime Minister's parliamentary seat", and it would not only be perfectly in order, but desirable, to cite a press release issued by the Nasty Party, always assuming that the significance of the announcement passed all other criteria of balance and neutral point of view for the article in question.

Caution is sometimes necessary, however. Sometimes, for instance, political parties have schisms, with two or more factions each claiming to represent the true party. In the UK, political parties are relatively informal affairs compared to some countries, so it's quite possible for two different entities to continue to duke it out for some time. The classic case was when the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the Liberal Party held a joint conference and unified as the Liberal Democratic Party. Some dissenting Social Democrats continued to fight by-elections and council elections under the SDP name (Social Democratic Party (UK, 1988), Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990)) --Tony Sidaway 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest we eliminate the nameing of "Stormfront or Al-Qaeda" whatsoever. Saying that Al-Qaeda is an "extreme political group" seems like POV. I'm sure the members of it, don't necessary feel its true. They feel that they are the "hand of God" perhaps, so an entirely righteous group. Whether a source is extreme or not, should be a matter debated on the discussion for that particular article, and not legislated here.Wjhonson 14:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As to the use of direct quotation from primary sources, I agree that quotations about a person, or group *by* that person or group should be able to be linked to the primary source material. Wjhonson 14:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The suggestions above are tenable, but I'd like to make counterarguments anyway.

• One meaning of the word "avoid" already takes into account "where possible". For example, when the doctor tells you to avoid sugar and salt, she means "avoid sugar and salt where possible". Avoidance is not as strong as proscription.
• I don't think weasel phrases WP:AWW like "widely thought of as extreme" are necessary with Al Qaeda or Stormfront. Yes, the members of these groups think they are righteous, but even they undoubtedly realize they are far from mainstream. WP should not have to avoid all judgments. We can say the earth is rounded, the Flat Earth Society notwithstanding. Precis 21:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. WP discourages extremist sources, and some extremists might think we shouldn't legislate here what kind of sources to avoid. I think we can be bold and take the POV that extremist sources should be avoided, and even give examples like Al Qaeda and Stormfront, which by any dictionary definition qualify as "extremist". Precis 23:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Indirect sources

A few guidelines should probably be added to this page regarding these situations. I would recommend the following. -- Beland 15:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• The proper way to cite indirect sources is documented at Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Intermediate_sources:_Say_where_you_got_it. Basically, you need to give a full citation to both the source you personally used and the underlying source.
• If at all possible, you should look up the original source and verify the quotation. You may then cite the original source directly.
• Just because a secondary source claims to be accurately quoting a reliable primary source, does not make the secondary source reliable. Nor should you necessarily assume that the quote is accurate or that the attribution is correct. For example, many independent web site authors are sloppy with their references. Common mistakes include copying the jist of a quote rather than the exact wording (which may change the original meaning, especially if repeated), recalling quotes (badly) from memory rather than printed sources, giving incorrect attribution for a quote (especially famous sayings), copying a quote from another secondary source without checking the original or citing the other secondary source (thus compounding errors already present).

We don't need even more ways in which editors can accuse each other of not using reliable sources. We have to make the assumption *until proven wrong* that a secondary source is accurately quoting the underlying primary source. We can't spend half our lives fact-checking from primary sources which may exist at only one library in the world. Wjhonson 15:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, some degree of source checking should be encoraged. We do not want incorrect information repeated on Wikipedia simply because an editor is too lazy to check and see if the original is easily available. Also, in articles that deal with controvercial issues, you can have secondary sources that, for POV reasons, deliberately mis-quote the original or quote the original out of context. By asking an editor to check to see if the original is easily available, and if so, to use that instead of the secondary source is to me a good thing. Blueboar 15:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The argument that Wikipedia shouldn't be made accurate because it's too much trouble, and that we should assume that whatever is posted on some random web site is correct because it's easy to get to, does not seem to align with the goals of the project. Many political and literary figures have sayings attributed to them sprinkled all over the web...many of which are misquotes or incorrectly attributed. Most of these situations could be resolved by asking for the full citation to the original work (usually missing in the secondary source) which being all famous and everything is available at the corner bookstore or local library for ultimate verification. -- Beland 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

One argument is, "Consider the intermediate source is accurate unless proven wrong" and the other argument, "Consider the intermediate source with skepticism until proven accurate". My familiarity is with intermediate sources, on personal website, who have a cross to bear, i.e. partisan, anti-POV website owners. They publish anything that smells. I don't trust it, myself because even if they give it 100% effort, they have a point to make which is not neutral. Terryeo 12:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations with textual attribution

I think it should be made clear that there is an intermediate step between reporting something as a fact and not reporting it at all - reporting with attribution.

For example, many scientific theories reported in Wikipedia have the benefit of scientific consensus; these can be reported as accepted facts. But sometimes certain scientific studies are published in reliable, peer-reviewed journals, but have not yet been (or never will be) reproduced. In a case like this, it is inappropriate to simply report the findings of a study as if it were true. Instead, an article should read something like, "A controlled study of X published in Y in 1954 found that ___^[1]".

It is important to check for professional criticism of the study; if it has been deemed faulty by scientific peers, it should not be included (unless it is notable for other reasons, such as being important to the history of the field - right or wrong - or because it was the source of a lot of controversy). If the debate over the underlying facts is still unsettled, this should be noted, and any competing studies included as well.

Someone previously asked on this talk page for guidance about what to do if there are multiple reliable sources, and they disagree. ("Inconceivable!") It could be reported, with weasel words that "sources disagree", and that "some say X^[1]" and "some say Y^[2]". But it's probably better to say in the text, "Author A says X^[1] but Committee B says Y.^[2]"

I've heard that the standard that the reputable New York Times uses here is that claims supported by two independent sources may be reported as fact, but claims supported by only one source should be reported with attribution. Obviously, their journalists and fact checkers also use their editorial judgement about which claims (however many people are making them) belong in print, for reasons of credibility, liability, information content, and relevance. It will be a long time before all the claims made in Wikipedia can be supported by two independent sources, but it is probably a good idea to report with attribution if someone tries and fails to find multiple sources for a given claim. If there is only one source in the entire universe for a given claim, then readers will have to trust that source if they are going to trust the information. -- Beland 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Census as a source

The census cannot be used as a source? I would like to hear some comments on that claim. Wjhonson 16:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the claim that the census can't be used as a source? Gerry Ashton 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course the census can be used as a source. It is an official government document. Blueboar 16:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Here Xoloz says that the census is a primary source and cannot be used. Wjhonson 16:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The census is indeed a primary source, so it should be used with caution. It's reasonably reliable, but does not tell us that the person recorded in the census is noteable. An articles should rely mostly on secondary sources. Gerry Ashton 17:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue being that Xoloz is saying the census cannot be used, period. Wjhonson 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah... no. I never suggested the census cannot be used; I never suggested anything even remotely close to that. I suggested it is a primary source, because it is. You have a strange way of reading, User:Wjhonson. Xoloz 20:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah... context.... the census is indeed a primary source. It can be used to reference itself (ie to verify a statement about what the census data is). From the context of the comment, however, Xoloz feels you are using it as a secondary source, which would not be allowed. Blueboar 17:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with Blueboar. An unreliable primary source can only be used to provide information about itself, for example, this page shows that a WP editor using the name Gerry Ashton thinks the census is a primary source. A reliable primary source can be used for factual information, for example, on July 4, 1870, Honora Ashton was 39 years old. The problem with primary sources is that they often provide fine-grain details, and the process of combining large amounts of fine-grain detail into a cohesive summary tends to be original research. Gerry Ashton 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Undent. This is unclear. When exactly can the census be used on wikipedia and when can't it? If I'm using the census data to verify a statement made in another source I can use it? Or can't use it? And if I can't use it in that way, then when exactly can I use it? Wjhonson 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It would depend on what you are trying to use the census for. Genrerally, you can only use it to back statements about what it actually says. It is OK, for example, to state "According to the census of 1848 the population of Origon was 3,294 people and 9000 cows"... but you could not use it to back up a statement such as "In 1848 people in Origon liked cows". Can you explain how you wanted to use the census? Blueboar 18:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

To prove the names, ages, and residence of a family. "So and so lived at this place in 1870 and was 6 years old..." That sort of thing. Wjhonson 18:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Census data contains private information about people? Don't think so... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

U.S. census data does indeed contain private information about people, but the private information isn't released until 70 years after the census. The most recent census with full details available is the 1930 census. Ancestry.com has digitized much of the census records, and you can purchase a subscription to view the records. Or, you can purchase the microfilm from the National Archives [9]. Gerry Ashton 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Xoloz did you not delete this article. And in your message to me you stated that secondary sources should be used, not primary, and furthermore that replication of a primary source is not considered secondary. However on the project page it states that a transcript by a court stenographer is acceptable. So in the same way, a transcript of a census is also acceptable. Is it not? How do these two cases differ?Wjhonson 20:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And again you stated that I should get more secondary sources. Every source I cited is in-fact an acceptable source based on my reading of this project page. It fairly clear that published government documents are acceptable sources for wikinclusion. Wjhonson 20:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The major complaint about my sources is that they are obscure. But the requirement is not *on* me regarding proving a source is reliable. Rather the requirement to prove a source is not reliable is on other editors to find some WP:RS which states "source x is not reliable". Any other interpretation is WP:OR by that editor stating his/her opinion about a source, which is irrelevant. Wjhonson 20:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Without getting into the overall issue of whether a local historical figure is notable enough for Wikipedia or not (this is not the forum to debate that, please) ... There is a difference between reliablility and obscurity. A source can be obscure and still be reliable, it can also be easy to find and yet not reliable. I would also say that the census can (and should) be used in this situation as a source ... for it does indeed clearly verify that person W was X years old and lived in Town Y in the Year Z. If you used it for more than that (ie interpreted the data to prove a point), I would question its use. Blueboar 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The manuscript census will always be a primary source; using it will always be original research. The published census volumes count as secondary sources (they are compiled by experts from the raw census data), Rjensen 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No I used it for exactly what you said. To prove that person x lived in town y and what z years old. And that's all I used it for And I was using a compiled source. Xoloz says that does not matter, that even a compiled source is unusable as a secondary source. Wjhonson 21:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not see a reason not to accept Census data as a source for the stated purpose. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Newspapers as reliable sources

Xoloz now outdoes his last statement with this one "and in my judgment also, your article does not contain a single reliable secondary source". One of my main sources is a newspaper the Snohomish Tribune. According to Xoloz this fails WP:RS. Wjhonson 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Xoloz states that newspapers are primary sources. So this would imply that a newspaper can never be used in any wiki article. Am I right? Wjhonson 20:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson keeps saying that primary sources can't be used in Wikipedia articles. This is just plain wrong. Further, the proper balance between primary and secondary sources should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:No original research, not here. Read WP:NOR#Primary and secondary sources. Gerry Ashton 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying it at all. Xoloz is the one saying it. And further on the Project page WP:RS it states that a "journalist report who actually witnessed the event" is a primary source. That would imply that the report of a journalist who did not witness the event must be secondary, right? Or is that sort of report simply unreliable? Wjhonson 21:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you have it correct... a newspaper contain both primary and secondary reports. A newspaper report by an eye witness journalist would be primary, a report from a non-eye witness would be secondary, as would any analysis of the events discribed. Both can be reliable depending on how they are used in an article. It sounds lik Xoloz is taking an overly strict view of WP:RS. (note that I am not saying that your article's subject is notable... only that using WP:RS in this way to say that it is NOT notable sounds wrong to me). This does sound more like it might be a NOR issue... the sources by themselves seem valid. Blueboar 23:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper articles can be accepted as reliable sources and thus citable, in particular if the newspaper is deemed to be reliable (e.g. not a tabloid, for example). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Not a tabloid" won't stand up. Plenty of reputable newspapers are tabloids; The Times, the Daily Mail and Libération are three that come to mind. Discriminating based on format plainly isn't viable. What you're referring to, I think, is the distinction between so-called "popular" and "quality" newspapers, though even there I'm not sure you could automatically say that one is reliable and the other isn't. -- ChrisO 23:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This gets into a very fine-grained discussion, where we would actually need a list of those newspapers considered WP:RS and those not, or maybe just those not? Anyone wanna start that list? Then WP:RS could point to it. So a new story on Elizabeth Taylor published in The National Enquirer wouldn't stand up, but one published in the Washington Post would perhaps. I think however, we can all agree, at least, that any newspaper of a community, where it is the *sole* newspaper serving that community has to be given the benefit of the doubt on WP:RS. So all local newspapers meet this mark. Wjhonson 23:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

published

Someone removed the definition of "published" at 01:05, 22 July 2006. I do think a definition is needed, but it should not be circular. Precis 01:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I too think a definition is needed. "Publish" has become more difficult to define when anyone can create a webpage in 30 seconds and anyone esle on the planet might view it in the next 30 seconds. We need a stable definition that fulfills WP:V. The root of the word in Latin means, "present to public view". If we only use that and nothing else it will prevent some problems. In the Scientology articles people are constantly inserting unpublished information. Let's have some kind of definition of "published".Terryeo 06:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. --Coolcaesar 06:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Publishing is not enough to establish a WP:RS or WP:V. Publishing per wikisource just means its in a media, not in your head. So if you write a poem in your diary you've "published" it. That's not my definition, its theirs. At any rate, the criteria for use here is that the publication is verifiable as well. So it has to actually exist somewhere where the public can access it. There is however no requirement that that access have to be simple or trivial, just possible. Wjhonson 06:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

PUBLISHED is the beginning. Presented to the public is the necessary first step. If you write a note in your diary, you have put the information into words and the words are located in a data file or on paper. There may be a definition somewhere that says that is "published" but it is not the definition in most dictionarys and it does not express the root of the word. The idea of "publish" is to present to the public. It is the beginning of understanding Wikipedia's NPOV. After having the idea "publish" then a person can understand "reliable sources". Terryeo 15:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I do like T's Latin phrase "present to the public view", but I propose appending "in accessible form". For example, videotapes available in libraries may be considered published, while live TV shows and public speeches per se are not (since they are inaccessible the next day). Precis 09:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that goes to the heart of it. The speech or live show as an event is not published but a recording or transcript may be (even if it's a bootleg, though in that case authentication questions may render it unreliable). --Tony Sidaway 09:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Published" means "presented to the public" and does not comment upon whether such a presentation was recorded. "Published by reliable sources" talks about recording and re-presentation. But before we can expect an editor to understand it, we must educate an editor about the first word of that which is "published" Terryeo 15:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see the logic in that proposition but as a matter of practicality, I think it goes too far. Live news broadcasts (or for that matter non-live TV or radio shows) are invariably recorded. You can usually obtain copies of the recordings or transcripts from broadcasters or media monitoring companies, although they do tend to charge for this (CNN is quite good in this regard, they seem to put a lot of their transcripts online for free). Live stage shows are a different matter - they may or may not be recorded (most of the ones I've been to haven't been) and I wouldn't consider them verifiable. You also have to consider what it means to be "accessible." A source may be publicly accessible in only one limited-access or specialist library half-way around the world (like the British Library or Harvard University Library, for instance). Would you exclude such sources from consideration? -- ChrisO 10:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably we're dealing with two separate threshold requirements:

• Published, in the sense that someone needs to have done the publishing. Publishing could maybe be defined as something in the sense of an act that (if it would be performed today) triggers by itself that the content becomes copyrighted or enters the public domain. Technical definition. the "if it would be preformed today" parenthesis is added for the vast amount of books that were "published" before any copyright or public domain regulations were effective.
• Available/accessible: this is important for Wikipedia. If a source isn't available/accessible, it is impossible to effectuate WP:V. It is difficult to draw this in the definition of "published", while that would give a definition of "published" that is incompatible with the normal understanding of that word. I tried such "combined" definition of published-including-accessible some weeks ago, it was discarded as nonsense. So I propose to separate the two requirements: the source needs to be published (in the normal sense of the word) but the source also needs to be accessible/available. These are threshold requirements, before the "reliability" of the source (which is the real core of this guideline) can be discussed.

Some examples:

• Cicero's De re publica was published more than two millenia ago. The 4th and 5th chapter of that work went lost, so these chapters can't be used as a source in Wikipedia (not available/accessible);
• Theatre plays, panel discussions, public lectures: if no recording nor a text/script/transcript of such sessions/performances are made available this also fails the accessibility/availability requirement.
• "Web forum" vs. "mailing list": if the communications of a mailing list aren't published in an archive, the mailing list communications are private communications between the subscribers of the mailing list, and aren't even "published". Also a web forum can be "private" (if you need an access permission to view its content), and thus "un-published". If content of web-forum discussions or mailing lists are published, they may become unavailable after a certain time. Note however that, as said, these are only threshold requirements: the "reliability" of these sources should be (and is currently) weighed too.

--Francis Schonken 11:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

We are dealing with several threshold requirements. Published (presented at some time in the past, to the public) would be first. Second would be that nformation is produced or reproduced by a reliable source. Third would be attribution to the original, primary source if applicable. Forth, perhaps, would be verifiability. WP:RS could be written a little more clearly. The fact that editors even need to talk about these thresholds should tell any editor that the guideline needs a little work.Terryeo 15:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

For #1, one could say Chapters 4 and 5 were previously published, but no longer published. For #2, one could say that these were never published at all. For #3, one could say that private correspondence is unpublished, although it could become published if leaked. When previously published material becomes completely unavailable, one could say it is no longer published. This definition of "published" may not be exactly the one that non-Wikipedians use, but there is precedent for such disparity. The definition of OR for Wikipedians is not the same as the commonly used definition, for example. Precis 11:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. There is an element of accessibility built into the term "published" even as the term is used in common parlance. For example, minutes of a private organization are not usually described as "published" unless they are made accessible to the public. Precis 13:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC) P.P.S. In reply to ChrisO, I'd say that anything that is unreasonably difficult or expensive to verify could be called inaccessible. Of course people will debate the meaning of unreasonable, just as they debate the meaning of reliable. Precis 13:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow that "previously published material" would ever become unavailable. Is that a common event? With today's relatively inexpensive publication, it is rare, is it not? Terryeo 15:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Not all that rare... historians have to deal with this all the time. In fact, it is a common occurance with ancient documents. We know of many greek and roman texts that were lost during the early-medieval period. We know of them because they are referred to in some other text, or because only part of one was copied in a surviving manuscript. We also frequently face the situation where books that were once widely published and fairly common have subsequently gone out of print. As copies age and disintegrate they are thrown out and remaining copies become rare. In extreme cases, there may be only one or two copies surviving in a few libraries, and the book has become basically unavailable to the general public. This is partly why things like Project Gutenberg are being set up... to preserve these rare texts and make them more available. Blueboar 16:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly a common problem in the field in which I took my degree (medieval history). There are many documents from the period, such as the Pipe Rolls, which exist in literally only one copy, untranscribed and often with strictly limited access (e.g. to bona fide academic historians). However, I note that the issue of primary sources is already dealt with under WP:RS#Some definitions. -- ChrisO 17:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is an online definition of "publish":[10] and the first two apply: [v] prepare and issue for public distribution or sale; "publish a magazine or newspaper" [v] have (one's written work) issued for publication; "How many books did Georges Simenon write?"; "She published 25 books during her long career" One should look closer and ask, "Who is the intended public of the work?" Examples could be "the english-speaking world" "those residing in and around Boulder, Colorado". Here is a link to the definition of public:[11] The first two definitions are nouns and apply: [n] a body of people sharing some common interest; "the reading public" [n] people in general considered as a whole; "he is a hero in the eyes of the public" The first definition listed here of public is what I am refering to. --Fahrenheit451 17:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to put those into the wiktionary and link them to this page? Wjhonson 18:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Really, that would be far better than what User:Fahrenheit451 just did, which was to delete out all of the definition of Publish. Terryeo 22:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, you have referenced the article on Publishing which I have never edited. If you meant I deleted that definition from that article, your statement is a false accusation. If you meant that I reverted YOUR edit, which is Not the result of discussion, but rather your POV, yes I did, and that is my prerogative as a Wikipedia editor. Whichever way you intended this, it still comes across to me as a personal attack. --Fahrenheit451 23:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually both, Mr. Fahrenheit451. You reverted my edit which is your prerogative, but you reverted without understanding what you reverted. My edit included a link to Publishing as part of the definition, you reverted it as part of your reversion of my definition of "publish". The reason I would like a definition is because it would reduce arguements like this one (which tied up the article for days). If we include a definition of "publish" in WP:RS, it will act as a sort of insurance. Any editor disagreement could then point to what most people already understand, that "publish" means "published to the public". But I understand, you don't want a definition of publish, it is your prerogative to remove it. And you have personally told me that "published to the public" is not wikipedia policy here Terryeo 06:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not true, Mr. Terryeo. I reverted your edit because I understood it and found it to be at odds with the common english definition.--Fahrenheit451 16:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

For Wiki purposes I suggest what we mean by "published" is that a reliable publisher has selected and approved the material. That is, a known publisher that actually makes quality control decisions. Their sales depend on the reputation. This covers most books and journals and websites from established publishers, but does not include self-published or vanity books. The key is that Wiki is searching for reliability and the reputation of the publisher is of critical importance. Rjensen 00:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be helpful is one of the persons who feels strongly about the issue, could start a page at say WP:Published or something like that. This debate could move there, we could reach consensus and then link the project pages on what it means to be published to wikipedians, to that page with its discussion. Wjhonson 00:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The term "published" has a much broader scope than the publishing industry. For instance, all of Wikipedia is a joint publishing venture. You write something on Wikipedia and it becomes public. This is what publishing is. --Tony Sidaway 00:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

PUBLISH is a very simple idea. But even here, where we are working together, issues get raised. If we include a simple, clear definition it will act as a sort of insurance against editors getting tied up in a really easy to grasp idea. It would be a foundation to build directions to reliable sources on. And, it would prevent several of the arguements which have tied up some articles, such as this one Terryeo 06:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a stab at this on the main page. Precis 08:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a start.--Fahrenheit451 16:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the article in the definition "public" from the to a to show that publications can be targeted to groups sharing a common characteristic; for example, if a publication is english language only, it is intended for an english-speaking public.--Fahrenheit451 16:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "a" and replaced it with what the dictionary uses, "the" because dictionarys use "the" and not "a". While an arguement could be posed that a book published in English is targeted to only an English-speaking audience, history shows that popular publications which are published to the public reach through language barriers quickly enough. No, a published book is published to THE public and not to A public. Terryeo 20:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it up a bit, and added some bits from this discussion. I don't feel its helpful to link to Published because that article *only* discusses *print* and its not the wikipedefinition at any rate. What we are making here is a definition for wikipedia. As has been noted by myself, the editors at wikisource do *not* agree with the definition in this discussion, nor with the wikiarticle pointed to, so its not a universally agreed-upon definition. If a link is necessary, it should go to WP:Published and all of this talk should be ported there for reference. Wjhonson 18:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Jossi how is linking to published which has nothing to do with film relevant to film? My changes were clarifications on the existing language. Wjhonson 19:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the language I had, discuss what's wrong with it Please note the following terms:

• For the purposes of Wikipedia, a published source is a source that makes information accessible to a public.
  • Examples of what is published:
    1. an available transcript, videotape, or film of a movie, television program, play or documentary;
    2. a song recording, song sheet;
    3. a book, magazine, newspaper, phamplet, flyer.
  • Examples of what is not published:
    1. your recollection of what you read, or heard even from a reliable source;
    2. a live broadcast (because it is inaccessible).

Wjhonson 19:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe we must have "published to the public" and not "published to a public because dictionarys use the first phrase and rarely use the latter phrase. When a piece of information is distributed to a hundred or a thousand or a million employees, it is not published to the public, it is distributed to an audience. It is not the quantity of copies which makes publication, it is the distribution of copies which establishes "published". Terryeo 20:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As for Wjhonson's definition of a published source, I'm concerned about how people might interpret the word available. I might have purchased vidio tape at my local video store that is no longer offered for sale. It is a published source, even though it is no longer on sale.

Also, the phrase "your recollection of what you read, or heard even from a reliable source" belongs someplace else. It is a poor practice to cite a source from memory, and almost certainy omit page numbers or other information about the internal location of the information within the source, due to imperfect memory. But that is an issue of proper citation of a source, not part of the definition of a published source.

Finally, the definition makes no mention of digital or Internet sources. Gerry Ashton 20:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gerry. I changed the definition accordingly on the project page. Instead of "available" I substituted "distributed or openly displayed".--Fahrenheit451 20:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Better than "available" might be "publicly available" or "accessible" Precis 20:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Published means, I believe, published to the public. Its availabiilty, its being displayed openly is another kettle of fish. These are the issues I was hoping we could solve with a definition Terryeo 20:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a "broadcast email" means. Do you mean something like an email sent to a thousand company employees? If so, would that really be "available" ? Or are we aiming for a definition of published, and then a seperate definition of available? Wjhonson 20:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A thousand employees would be an internally distributed email, not a published to the public email. Terryeo 20:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Broadcast means widely distributed to one or more publics, so it would be publication.--Fahrenheit451 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Gerry what I was aiming for was that the editor has to physically have the published sources in their hands (or notes transcribed from it). That is, when you edit, you can't try to remember what a source said, and edit based on your memory. So I was trying to get across that idea that the source must be in your possession in some form (a library book has to be in your hands, or you must have notes from it that you yourself wrote). Wjhonson 20:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that having the source at hand is the only correct way to use a source in an article. I merely feel that the definition of published is not the place to express that essential practice. Gerry Ashton 20:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the advantage of any of the tweaks proposed. The current wording is pretty good as is. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As it currently is, I think it should work. --Fahrenheit451 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not the protected version no. But the last version we were jointing working on yes. But it seems like we now need a definition for "published", for "public" and for "available" as three seperate things. By the way I didn't like that language that a publisher is someone who makes a work available to the public. That sounds like a library would be a publisher. Better form might be "creates a work" that is available to the public. And I still don't see how a broadcast email is available. If you get an email from your Senator, and so do a thousand other people, how do I as an independent, third-party verify that email if I didn't get it myself? Wjhonson 20:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Referring to the project page as it stands, I think it is generally OK, except I would change "available to a public" to "available to the public" because the former is not ideomatic English, and it is a remnant of a debate on the talk page about whether publication to a limited audience was sufficient to be considered published. The project page should be easily understood by anyone who reads it for the first time, and should not contain hints and innuendos about debates that are buried in the archives of the talk page. Gerry Ashton 21:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

O.K. as long as we define "public" properly so that it fits the definition of publish. e.i. [n] a body of people sharing some common interest; "the reading public".--Fahrenheit451 21:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Webpages (which aren't otherwise reliable) and broadcast emails are not reliable sources and so shoulnd't be included in this list, even if we could argue that they've been published. -Will Beback 20:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Will that's overly broad. Certainly even you accept some webpages like The New York Times, or the World Clock as reliable in their scope and content. In general webpages without editorial oversight are significantly different from webpages *with* editorial oversight. There are many webpages like Archaeological News which are fully, peer-reviewed, online journals, which exceeds WP:RS by quite a bit. Wjhonson 20:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's why I qualified my statement by saying "otherwise reliable". Simply listing "webpages" includes every page on the Internet. -Will Beback 21:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Once we have established what "published" means, we have a foundation to establish "reliable" sources. Information intended for public consumption, and distributed to the public in some way is "published" but could fall very short of "reliable". On the other hand, if we can establish what "published" means then we have a logical build toward "reliable, published sources". Terryeo 21:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Terryeo's general concept that information distributed for public consumption, but I would add that the infomation should be reasonably persistent. A speech by a politician is not published unless it is recorded in some fashion. A minor league baseball game with no recording equipment present is not published (although the score and statistics might be). An email with a large distribution list is not published unless some provision has been made to preserve it in a public archive of some sort, because most copies of email are just deleted. Gerry Ashton 21:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is why Gerry, the project page should succintly sum up the discussion, not bury half of it without mention. The way the page stands now, most of our discussion is not summarized on it at all. Perhaps you could propose something that would summarize it. Wjhonson 21:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Published (page 2)

Please continue here, the edit history is getting large. Wjhonson 21:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Right I agree that webpages and "boardcast emails" should be listed as "published". Then in the definitions of available and public we can tackle these again and tweeze them apart. Wjhonson 21:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And Yes Gerry I agree with that, published has to be "on recordable media" of some sort. The air, and your eyes, aren't recordable media. Wjhonson 21:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's not rely on a technological definition alone. A journalist's notes of an event may not be sound or video recorded, nevertheless, these notes may later be used as the basis for an article which gets published. So, the published data needs to be on a recordable media, but the source data need only be recorded.--Fahrenheit451 22:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

At Wjhonson's suggestion, I have written a proposed definiton of published source and placed it at User talk:Gerry Ashton/collaborate. Please make any comments here for possible inclusion in my collaborate page. Gerry Ashton 21:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, webpages are published and once we establish what is published we can establish the thresholds of "reliable", "reputable" and "verifiable". But we really, really must have it read, "published to the public" and not "published to a public" because the last would be "distributed to a specific public" and not "published to public". For example, if the KKK distributes a document to its members, has that document been "published to a public" or "distributed to members"? Published comes from the word "to the public", meaning broadly, to everyone and not to just the ruling class, not to just the working class, not to just the bakers and the candlestick makers. Terryeo 21:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, that is not true and your example does not make sense. There are publications for bicyclists, muzzle loaders, speakers of latin, etc. that are specialized, and these are still publications. Each of these groups are a public. It is interesting to me that you use the emotionally charged example of the KKK, rather than a group such as the United Auto Workers, which publishes a monthly magazine to its membership. The "public" is a WHO, it is a group of people who share a common interest. In that sense the english idiom, "the public" really means "a public" as there is really no generality "the public".--Fahrenheit451 22:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference, which I keep pointing out to you is the intent of the publisher. A publisher is in the business of selling many copies. He publishes with an audience in mind and hopes that many people are interested and will purchase more copies. The definition you keep pushing, "Copied and distributed by an individual (company) to individuals" does not satisfy the condition of "publication" because its targeted audience is not everyone but is a limited in quantity and specialized number of individuals who prequalify for the distributed information. Terryeo 03:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-withstanding your assertion about the distinction between "publishing" and "distributuon", the issue is that a definition of publishing is not needed (just read Publishing to see the many competing definitions of the term). Applying the WP:V in conjuction with WP:V and WP:NOR wins the hand each and every time, when assessing the validity of a source for incluson as a reference. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There is usually a huge gap between accessibility to the public in theory and in practice. In theory, peer reviewed scientific journals are available to the public. In practice, it is a tiny percentage of non-scientists who goes the extra mile to either subscribe to a journal or go to a university library to read a journal there. So if the AAAS publishes something in Science, it's obviously published, but it's also obviously "distributed to members", and only a tiny portion of THE public as public-at-large will ever read it. Yes, there will still be a large number of non-members who will read it. Still, care should be taken not to generate the impression of "stacking the odds" in favor of publications that one deems convenient to a specific cause. The convenience parameter included in the suggestion is problematic in that it can create conflict with verifiability. Some documents are restricted access, and some are simply so inconvenient to reach that care has to be taken not to be fooled by someone who produces fake information simply supported by publications he knows no one will bother to verify. --OliverH 22:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important for definitions to be succinct, like in a dictionary. I'm not opposed to a long list of examples of what is considered a published source and what is not, but the list should be in a separate section, not among the definitions. I'd make the same point about lists exemplifying what sources are considered reliable and what are not. Precis 22:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose that we separate the notion of "published" from the notion of "verifiability". An example would be a piece for brass ensemble written by a Renaissance composer, that was published in the late 16th century, but only a fragment of the piece exists. Some historical notes may describe the piece and the various ensembles across Europe that performed it, but what remains cannot verify the content of the piece.--Fahrenheit451 23:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about this further, I would ask the question in regards verifiability, is there some source that one can go to and access the data in question? A non-published document in a public library is such an example. What if there is a magazine written in Gujarati? Only readers of that language can verify statements in that magazine. If it is not translated into English, we have no means of verification, even though the magazine is published. The intended public is the group that shares the common interest of speaking Gujarati.--Fahrenheit451 23:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The brass ensemble example poses no problem. It was previously published, but since it no longer exists in accessible form, it is no longer considered a published source for the purposes of Wikipedia. And if an editor translates a passage from a magazine written in an obscure language, wouldn't that be OR? Public accessibility goes hand in hand with published source, the way Wikipedians use the term, and the notions should not be separated. Otherwise, a live speech itself would have to be viewed as a published source, since it was presented to the public. Precis 23:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC from the RS experts

I'm posting here to request additional comments from you all at this link[12]. I feel that myself and the anon have an impenetrable barrier and perhaps other voices are needed. Thanks. Wjhonson 00:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way this request is related to whether an editor can successfully advance their own claim, without the need to cite a source, that another source is unreliable. Interesting issue, which we've touched on above. Wjhonson 19:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected

This keeps on turning up on my watchlist with some person or other reverting it and claiming to be right to do so. It being an important page, and there quite obviously being a disagreement over it, and there equally obviously being little probability that people might actually not revert, I've protected it whilst you thrash out what way around which should be.

I'm not routinely involved over here, so some other admin should probably unprotect in a few days time. -Splash - tk 20:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo reminded me that this is still protected. Glancing through the recent discussions, the thing that was causing the reverts appears to have died down, so I'll unprotect it now. -Splash - tk 21:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

When to quote "fringe" opinion.

I would like some input about quoting "fringe" opinions. The policy now states that such opinions "may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves and their own activities, although editors should proceed with caution. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources."

As fringe/extremist opinion is mentioned: Stormfront.org, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Aryan Nations, British Socialist Workers Party.

• Firstly; the way I understand the policy this means that if, say Stormfront.org or Hamas, voice a very positive opinion about "A", or a very negative opinion about "B" then this should not be mentioned in the articles about A or B, (but it could be mentioned in the articles about Stormfront.org or Hamas) Am I correct in my understanding here?
• Secondly: What it generally considered to be fringe/extremist opinion? In addition to the above, what about the following: Radio Islam, "Bible Believers", Jew Watch, CODOH, "Historical Review Press", David Duke, and LaRouche Movement/ Lyndon LaRouche?
• Thirdly; can we understand the policy to mean that we can remove any reference to the actions/opinions of these fringe/extremist people/groups, if they appear in any article on WP (except in the article about themselves)?

Regards, Huldra 21:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

They could be removed if they are being used as the original sources. But if they are quoted by a reliable source in direct relation to the topic at hand, then they may of course be used by us. For example, if the Washington Post were to quote Stormfront's views on the current crisis in the Middle East, then we could use that in our article about the crisis, using the Post as our source, not Stormfront. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: the question is whether a reliable source has seen fit to quote Extremist Source A. If it has, then we can too, citing the reliable source. But if it's only a Wikipedia editor who has decided to refer to the views of Extremist Source A, then it's original research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is some input, but it might not be quite what you need. Opinions need to be published to be used in Wikipedia. If a newspaper reports that (any group)'s opinion is (any opinion here), then that newspaper can be quoted but the name of the newspaper and date and article's name should be included to reference what that newspaper said. Whether "fringe" opinion or "mainstream" opinion, both must first be published. Terryeo 21:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a real-life example (to the extent that Wikipedia can be called real life). Several newspapers have ascribed antisemitic remarks to Pete McCloskey, based on a transcript of McCloskey's 2000 speech to IHR (Institute for Historical Review). There is evidence to show, however, that the transcript, published by IHR, is inaccurate. The controversy is briefly discussed on the page Pete McCloskey. The IHR transcript is cited there. Now, if you'll permit weasel words, IHR is widely regarded as a fringe group. But since the IHR citation is there to explicate the controversy rather than to advance IHR's point of view, I think the citation is permissible. But I can understand the point of view of those who say it is prejudicial to link to the transcript at all. Precis 21:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS doesn't use the word "fringe" once. "fringe" and "extremist" are not synonyms. E.g. nazism is "extremist" (always was), it wasn't "fringe" 70 years ago in Germany.

"Fringe opinion" is rather synonym with "tiny minority view". In this sense fringe opinions are dealt with in WP:NPOV#Undue weight:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

On the other hand, "extremist opinions" that are not "fringe" are reported upon in Wikipedia. Only, for example, we don't see a neo-nazist website as the most reliable source on nazism. There are enough reliable sources outside such "extremist" website that can be used as a source for a wikipedia article on nazism. --Francis Schonken 22:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for your replies. I still would like some more "clear cut" rules, but I don´t know if that is available? Francis Schonken is quite right in saying that WP:RS doesn't use the word "fringe", instead it use the words "widely acknowledged extremist views", which is probably much better. I think the groups/people I mentioned above all come under that description? I note that if you look at e.g. LaRouche_Movement#Current_villains, and then look at the articles about the differnt people ("the villains"), then none of these articles have included any critisism by LaRouche_Movement (even if they have included critisism by many others). (And I´m not suggesting that it should be included). What I´m conserned about is different standards. Take the example of David Duke: is his opinions more reliable/noteworthy, than say, Lyndon LaRouche? I would have said no, but still, I see Duke´s opinions quoted in other articles as beeing "noteworthy". Is he? (An example: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy) Regards, Huldra 23:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Duke's views would be regarded as noteworthy if reliable sources quoted them, in which case the publication, not Duke, is our source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

criticisms of the current definition of "published source"

The current definition says: For the purposes of Wikipedia, a published source is a source that makes information accessible to a public. For example, an available transcript, recording, or film of a live television interview is a published source, but the live broadcast itself is not considered published (because it is inaccessible). The following complaints about this definition have been made.

• We should say "the public" instead of "a public". I agree. Not only does "the public" sound less stilted, it is more in the spirit of WP:V, which suggests that in principle, any reader should be able to check a cited source.
• It is not clear what "available" means. Not a problem. We could use "publicly accessible" in its place if there is a huge demand, although I think it should already be clear from the context that this is the sense in which "available" is meant.
• Accessibility should not be part of our definition . I disagree. Many influential Wikipedians already understand "published source" to include the notion of accessibility. For example, look at the description of the policy at WP:V. The primary item states: 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Clearly the intention here is "published by accessible reputable sources", but accessibility isn't even mentioned. Why? Because Wikipedians already include accessibility as part of their conception of "published source".
• We should have longer list of examples of what we do and do not consider published sources. That's fine, but such a list is bound to be long, so place it in a separate section to avoid cluttering up the definitions section. Precis 09:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A good analysis Precis. I agree with all of those points. If we define the Wikipedia use of the word early on, if we give the spirit of the word to editors, then we can work on specific examples later. It is worth noting that many of the issues which get raised on this page revolve around "publish" or around "reputable". If we can get "publish" defined, we will have gone a good ways toward stability. Terryeo 09:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We need to state the definition of "public" then, which I propose, "a group of people who share a common interest". To justify this, I point out that quotations from an arabic language newspaper are only verifiable by arabic speaking people. So, There is a public, arabic speaking people. A published reliable source is only verifiable by the targeted public of the publication. Let's not drift off into the "verifiable by everybody" notion, because it just is not true.--Fahrenheit451 00:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe "public" should mean anyone willing to take the trouble and spend the money to gain access to the information, without having to become a member of a special group; information is not public if, in order to access it, one must join a religion, obtain a security clearance, sign a non-disclosure agreement, go to work for a certain employer, or the like. What fraction of the general public is able to understand the information is a separate issue from whether the information is published. Gerry Ashton 00:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree Terryeo 16:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I do think we need to discuss accessibility in some way. How does one handle a source such as a book that is out of print?... These can certainly be reliable, and at one time may have been widely published... but today they are not easily accessible unless you go to certain speciallist libraries. I do not disagree with the fact that a published and easily accessible source is preferred, but the two are not synonomous. Also, a lot of unreliable material is easily accessible on the internet... does creating a web page equate to bein published? The three concepts (reliable, published, and accessible) need to be discussed seperately. Blueboar 13:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of print books are the easiest and most accessible sources. Virtually every library has a system of inter-library loans that will obtain the vast majority of such books (except very valuable ones) at no charge in a week or two. Rjensen 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You assume all library systems are interconnected... they are not. A library in England may decide not to loan a rare book to someone in, say, Brazil.

Rare books are seldom loaned--but they are seldom needed by Wiki editors either. (They can be found in university libraries of course.) I was a librarian for years and my estimate is that 90+% of Wiki editors have access to inter-library loan channels that will supply 90+% of the books needed. Rjensen 14:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it is the 10-% that bothers me... these are the ones that will be causing edit wars and quoting, counter-quoting, and misquoting what we add to this article. While I understand that we can not make a guideline that is specific for every situation... we can anticipate at least some, and word things to help clarify our intent. That is why I would find it helpful to discuss "accessibility" as well as "publication" and "reliablility". Blueboar 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If we define publish, we can define other words too. Eventually we will come to the "accessible" or sometimes it is called, "easily verified", issue. But first has to be "published", no? So we know what we are talking about and what the other guy is talking about and we have a common ground to tred on. Terryeo 17:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. One term at a time.

To me, "published" means: anything transcribed or recorded in some form that is intended for public consumption. While not all published material is reliable, all reliable material is published. Blueboar 18:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I love that definition, if it includes the understanding that there may be reliable material not yet published. Terryeo 03:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) Blueboar wrote "while not all published material is reliable, all reliable material is published.". I don't agree with the second clause, for example, I'll bet the CIA has some very reliable information that is not published. Perhaps it would be better, though longer, to say that while not all published material is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, all information suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia is published. Gerry Ashton 18:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

picky, picky! :>) But the point is valid. Blueboar 19:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That would constitute published, just not available to the vanilla reader.ALR 19:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

BB is correct that no single definition can be specific for every situation. But BB's idea to eliminate the concept of accessibility from the definition altogether contravenes current Wikipedia policy at WP:V, which says that any reader should be able to check a citation. Let's look at BB's proposed alternative definition. To me, "published" means: anything transcribed or recorded in some form that is intended for public consumption. This is problematic. Let's say a world-famous composer from Nepal composes a new type of music, tres avant garde. He hopes to make money by selling the sheet music, but nobody likes it and he receives nothing but rejections. BB seems to be saying that the sheet music is still a published work because it was INTENDED for public consumption. It is not reasonable to expect Wikipedians to travel to Nepal to check facts stated about this music. Now if the music were placed on the internet, then I would consider it published, because now it is ACCESSIBLE. Precis 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Intention does not publication create, authors who are earning their daily bread, producing mystery novels could easily tell you that. I think you are rasing the question, "Is the information presented on personal websites, published?" I think it is published. Such information might not meet "reliability", but I think personal websites which can be viewed by anyone, present published information. Terryeo 03:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember that there are two prongs to Reliablility (at least as far as this discussion has defined things at the moment. I would say there are other prongs, but that is another discussion)... 1) it must be Published, and 2) it must be Accessible. My definition was only for the "published" part. In judging whether to cite to your world-famous Nepalese composer or not, I would say that he may have met the standard for publication ... but the work fails the standard for accessibility. Terryeo asked to limit the discussion to only publication and so my definition only dealt with that. Blueboar 00:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• BB thinks the Nepalese composer's personally written sheet music may be called a published source. And if this lone copy is lost in a monsoon, some others would even say it remains a published source. They view the concept as static rather than dynamic, i.e., once a published source, always a published source.
• There are hundreds of failed authors who have written screenplays that nobody is interested in. I'm amazed that BB would refer to these screenplays as "published sources". We certainly have different notions about what "published" means. And I'm quite sure BB's definition is at odds with the way "published source" is used on WP:V.
• Terryeo's question "Is information presented on personal websites published?" has the obvious answer "yes", and I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise, so posing that question here seemed pointless.
• Pretty much anyone in the world would say that if you put your picture on the internet, you are making it accessible to THE public; but since blind people are left out, F451 would prefer stilted language like "accessible to A public".
• If there is anyone else here I neglected to offend, I apologize for the omission. Precis 06:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hold on... I think I may have misunderstood the example... If the Nepalese composer only has personally written sheet music, I would NOT call it a published source. It would have to be printed or recorded for distribution to the public before I would call it published. The same with your failed screenwriter... if his screenplay just sits on his shelf, rejected by the major movie studios, then no - it is not published. But what if he spends the money to privately print it?

The problem is that there are now miriad ways for someone to publish their work... A book can be privately printed or published on the web (both of which fit my definition of "published"). Suppose a musician recorded a song and up-loaded it onto an MP3 file sharing site without going through a recording company... to me he has "published" his song. One does not need to have a commercial publishing company under contract to be "Published". (although if you want to make any money, it is still a good idea). Blueboar 13:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would disagree that these are examples of published sources, because they are all accessible. But suppose a record company records the music and then decides not to release the album . If I understand your definition correctly, you would call this album published. Personally, I would say this album is NOT a published source, as it is not accessible to the public. Precis 13:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• To my mind it would count as being "published" ... but it would not be USABLE as a reliable source since it does not meet the test for accessibility. remember, we are not discussing reliablity in total here... just the definition of published. Blueboar 16:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A musician puts his music up on a password-protected website, and he gives the password only to a select group of friends whom he trusts not to steal his work. Does this website fit the definition of a published source? Precis 14:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The selected group of friends is not the public in general. I think "published" means "to the public". Terryeo 16:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• To my mind it would count as being "published" (although only as a limited publication) ... but it would not be USABLE as a reliable source since it does not meet the test for accessibility. Your example reminds me of a related one... In Freemasonry (the subject of an article I contribute to) some Grand Lodges issue a book of ritual (usually in some form of code)... these are printed and bound by a professional publishing house. The books are copywrite etc., and are for sale to Masons. However, they are not available to the general public. I would call these ritual books Published, but not be accessible. Blueboar 16:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think "published" requires the creation of information and then its distribution to the public. The ritual code book is distributed to people, but not distributed to the public. I belive it is the intent of WP:NPOV to cause articles to present "published to the public" references. A neutral point of view is arrived at by comparing those references which are published to the public. Terryeo 16:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

<<< I would argue that this conversation is not necessary. This is a guideline of Wikipedia and we cannot expect that every single term used is defined in a way that covers all gaps. There is no policy or guideline that will supplant the common sense and good judgement of editors. Let's leave some space for a robust debate when editing articles, rather than here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree... the problem is that this is where warring editors come to settle their disputes. People quote this guideline in the process... While we can not cover every situation, we can at least give a clear indication of how the guideline should be applied. Thus We have to make what we say in this guideline as clear as possible, and this may require giving a definition of terms. What we are doing is hashing out what each of us means by those terms to see if we can reach a consenus definition. This may take time, but doing so here is far better than having us revert and re-revert the actual guideline page. [[User:Blueb

oar|Blueboar]] 16:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is not the page for "warring editors to resolve their disputes". There is a process for dispute resolution that you may want to explore WP:DR, rather than do it here. Also note that this is becoming more of a dialog between three editors than an open discussion. Maybe there is no merit to it. Just a thought you may want to consider ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

From WP:DR#First step: talk to the other parties involved:

The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page.

This is a talk page, and as far as I'm concerned the most suited one to take that first step of WP:DR regarding the discussed issue. --Francis Schonken 18:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is using previously published ... a problem is that everyone knows what published means but everyone knows a little differently. Therefore, a definition is needed. We might use a straight dictionary or Wikidictionary definition. To prepare and issue for public distribution or sale, derived from to make known publicly [13]. Because any organization is better than no organization, then any definition is better than no definition. It won't stop disputes, but it will give us will give us a foundation to dispute from. Terryeo 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

To prepare and issue for public distribution or sale, derived from to make known publicly works for me. Blueboar 17:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest To prepare and issue in a long-lasting medium for public distribution or sale to exclude, for example, a live cable-TV pay-per-view program that could only be viewed while it was actually happening. Gerry Ashton 20:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should reach a concensus of whether a live television presentation is "published" or not. We should also reach concensus whether a recorded (by the presenting studio) television show is "published" or not. I think we have reached concensus that personal websites are "published" and therefore, hard drive storage probably constitutes "a long-lasting medium". Terryeo 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A quick observation about the last three comments of BB, GA, and T. Counterproposals are a constructive way of seeking consensus. In this case, the counterproposals involve ISSUING to the public. Hence it looks like in the end you've come around to the idea that accessibility is part of the definition after all. I think it is also constructive to come up with a list of examples of what are considered published sources (if the list is not included in the definitions section): unreleased recordings, live speeches, websites with very limited access, etc. I frankly doubt consensus will be reached, however. In the spirit of Jossi's remarks, this will be my last word on the subject here. Precis 21:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to separate accessibility from the discussion of "published" because "published" always means, "presented to the public", and comes from that idea since Roman times. Reliable Sources must confront the issue of "accessibility" of published information, but before that can be an issue, the information must have been published to the public. Terryeo 00:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, your "published to the public" is your own notion. We are working on just "published".--Fahrenheit451 17:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We certainly are, User:Fahrenheit451 and the reason we are is because I introduced the need for a definition when you edited Suppressive person with an unpublished reference document. Then you went further, insisting on my user page that "published" means "published to a public" while the dictionary says otherwise. If we were to go with "Published to a public", we could reference any duplicated document, speech, song or play distribued to any quantity of people. Including confidential CIA documents, Secret Military documents or any other information distributed to a specific group which could be called "a public". I understand perfectly that you hope a concensus of editors arrives at "A public" because then you can include all of the unpublished stuff which you possess. But that simply isn't the meaning of the word. Published comes from the idea of distribution to everyone, to "the public". Terryeo 00:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The course transcripts you are refering to ARE published, but limited in distribution. The cofs literature prior to the formation of the csi never claimed it was "unpublished". Problem is, once you publish something, you cannot unpublish something. The only person defining "published" as "published to the public" is you. If distribution is not targeted to a named or posted individual, a distributed work is published. I think you are confusing a private routing with a publication of limited distribution. They are two different bodies of data. There is no such thing as publishing to "everyone". That is absurd. Please think it through. When one publishes, you are targeted a group with a shared interest. For example, I have written several magazine articles. They were written in English, which limits the readership immediately. That is NOT EVERYONE. Also, please stop assuming what I believe. I recall you recently deleted a posting by ChrisO from your discussion page for allegedly assuming he knew what you thought about something. No double standards please, Terryeo. My concern is that we get the correct definition of "public". The article before it is of less importance.--Fahrenheit451 01:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to again assert that linking to published is *not* helpful. It contradicts part of what is being proposed above. It would only add to, not alleviate the confusion. The wikipedia article on "published", should not guide us in establishing the WP guideline on "published". Wjhonson 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wjhonson does have one point... we shouldn't cite to Wikipedia in any event (some how, I dont think the Article on WP:RS should violate itself by citing to an unreliable source!)... so lets look at some other dictionary definitions...

From Dictionary.com: 1) prepared and issued (printed material) for public distribution or sale. 2) Brought to the public attention; announce. That second part might be helpful here, as it can cover some of the gaps.

From Merriam-Webster: 1a) Made generally known; 1b) Made a public announcement of; 2a) Disseminated to the public; 2b) Produced or released for distribution; (specifically : PRINT); and 2c) Issued the work of (an author). This also has some potential.

And finally the Oxford English Dictionary: Made generally known; publicly announced or declared; offically promugated or proclamed; of a book, etc. issued or offered to the public. Who can argue with the OED! Blueboar 00:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea of "publish", I think, needs to be defined but should not be presented as a constrained, narrow idea which and need include ideas of reliable sources, verifiability, or how solid and stable a publication is. This very basic idea, if defined cleanly, will let us present the additional ideas which WP:RS must address, present those ideas in easy to understand ways. Terryeo 01:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the vicious, bloodthirsty debate between 'a' or 'the' public, perhaps I can offer a solution. How about if we say that publish means to distribute to A public. But, available must be to THE public. Wrote a little song about it, here's how it go....

Let's say that GM sends a magazine to their retirees, this is A public. In that magazine a spokesperson for GM states: "We are considering cutting retiree health benfits by 2 percent". If that magazine is then stocked in the stacks at the Dallas Public Library and cited from that location, you can prove that although it was published to A public, it is now available to THE public. I think we can really solve this back-and-forth by this sort of reasoning. What do you all say? Wjhonson 18:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say that is a great example if it is understood the information was not published to the public until that Magazine was catalogued by the Dallas Public Library, whereupon it because publically available. Not before an institution presented it to the public, did it become published. Terryeo 01:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There you go off again, Terryeo. The magazine in the example was published, then made accessible to that public who have access to the Dallas Public Library. It is not available to the generality of the public but rather a public.--Fahrenheit451 01:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A magazine that can be viewed in the Dallas Public Library is available to the public because there are many affordable ways to get the information, such as paying the library to copy the pages you are interested in, or paying $50 or so to a Dallas-based researcher to look up whatever information in the magazine you are interested in. If it had not been placed in the library, it might nevertheless be possible to locate a GM retiree and obtain the information, but that is a hit-or-miss proposition, so information provided only to GM retirees is not published at all, it is privately distributed. --Gerry Ashton 01:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

O.K. I think this scenario is not a simple one: Will there be a public announcement that this document is available at this library? And if it is written only in english, then it is available only to english-speaking public. So, there is A public it was published to, english-speaking GM retirees, and now it is being made available to all english-speaking people who can access, directly or indirectly, the Dallas Public Library.--Fahrenheit451 03:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451 wrote under this heading "We need to state the definition of "public" then, which I propose, 'a group of people who share a common interest'". I don't accept this definition because a person using this definition can falsely purport that information that is only available to members of certain religions, employees of certain government agencies, or otherwise secret, is "public", when in fact, it is not. I think a better definition can be found in the American Heritage Dictinary, 3rd ed., under definition #5: "Open to the judgement or knowledge of all." Of course, a person must go to a place where the information may be seen, and some people will only be capable of the judgement "that looks like a bunch of funny marks on a piece of paper", but those aren't the publisher's problems, those are the reader/viewer/listener's problems. Another way of putting it is that public is the opposite of secret. --Gerry Ashton 03:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

But Gerry, that issue is addressed by the complementary notion of "accessible". If the information were published to a secret group, and stayed secret, it would not be accessible and so not valid for wikiuse. If the secret meetings of the Freemasons were donated to a library, then it would be accessible (although it may still not be "reliable" which is another matter). So your concerns can be satisfied even with Fahrenheit's definition, by simply remembering that the material also has to be accessible in order to meet the minimum standards. We can't say that it's "published" once it appears on a libraries shelves. That only makes it "accessible". Similarly, it becomes inaccessible if no library has it, even if they once did. The twin principles of published and accessible constitute WP:V, they don't stand in isolation. Wjhonson 06:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, published and accessible is not enough for WP:V. It has to be a secondary source, from a reputable publisher, and not of dubious reliability. "The Sun", to use an example given in WP:V, is clearly published and accessible, but is probably not the best source per WP:V to use in a biography on Wikipedia. If we would agree that published and accesible is enough for WP:V then everything can be added, no matter how dubious, as soon as someone decides to make one hundred copies and perhaps put it on his website as well (it's published and accessible!). WP:V is much more strict than this, and with good reason. It is not perfect, but this proposal, if intended as a definition of what constitutes WP:V, is much worse (and should be conducted at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, not here). Fram 08:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Published", as opposite to "Secret" is exactly and precisely the core of WP:NPOV. "Published" is the core and the spirit of Wikipedia ! These other elements of "accessible" and "verifiable" come up but they are not the core of the issue. The center of the issue is "published", compared to "secret" and our task is to present readers with published information. Therefore we should define the word accurately. Then an editor can provide published information which is accessible (accessible needing close scrutiny too). Terryeo 13:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, bringing in WP:NPOV as well... To me, Collecting Correct Information is the core and spirit of Wikipedia. "Collecting" means it has to be previously published, "Correct" means that it has to be verified (i.e. a secondary source, not a primary) and verifiable (reputable publisher, accessible information), and "Information" means that the contents of an article are notable and meet WP:NOT (we didn't have that one yet, I think :-) ). What some of you seem to propose is to redefine Wikipedia as simply "Collecting Information" or even just "Collecting Stuff", thus disregarding WP:V (and its subsidiary WP:RS) and WP:NOT. The standards are already pretty low at Wikipedia, to lower them even more would make it quite useless as an encyclopedia and would turn it into just another collection of text. Fram 14:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Fram, I rather think your idea may be a very common one ! However, what WP:NPOV actually says is: All significant published points of view are presented. The word "published" is used, you see and not any distributed information. Terryeo 14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I mispoke. I was not intending to imply that publication and accessibility are the *only* principles of WP:V although I may have said that above. I was only addressing the concern that publication alone would be enough for wikiuse, which it isn't. We all know that, no one has disputed that. Wjhonson 16:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fram is concerned that some of us are proposing to redefine Wikipedia as just "Collecting Stuff". Not me, and I think few, if any, of the other editors want to do that. I think the goal is to clearly define our term, so that when we tell other editors why their material is not suitable for Wikipedia, we can concisely and clearly direct them to the part of the policy or guideline that shows their material is unsuitable. For example, if I come across a claim in an electronics article, which is supported by a citation from an XYZ Corp. internal report, I would tell the editor the internal report is not published. Another editor might pipe in with the claim that it is published, but it isn't verifiable. The discussion would be shorter if we all agreed what published meant, but in the end, the material still isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Gerry Ashton 14:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, no: the discussion would have been shorter if you just started out that the example you give is not verifiable as per WP:V, period. No need to get draged down in a discussion if it is or isn't published. And my main objection is against the arguments made here that being published and accessible are the core points of WP:V and even of Wikipedia as a whole. This simply is not true, and would change the intention and the contents of Wikipedia enormously, and for the worse. I truly don't see what this guideline wuld accomplish except confusing the issues on WP:V and opening the floodgates for all kinds of unverified or trivial data and endless discussions even more. Fram 14:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just looking through WP:V and I don't actually see anything in it that unequivocally forbids material distributed to a limited audience, so a definition in this guideline would be an improvement in that area. --Gerry Ashton 15:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson suggests above that even if we included "published to a secret group" in our definition of published we would still avoid unwanted material in WP because the secret material would not be accessible, and therefore not verifiable. I believe that the ordinary meaning of published excludes the concept of information published to a secret group, and if we adopted a different definition, we would have confusing discussion on talk pages. Also, the concept of publication is used by the US Copyright Office to determine how long copyright lasts for anonymous or pseudonymous works; the 1976 Copyright Act defines publication as follows:

“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

I think our definition should be in harmony with the Copyright Act because I hope some of our editors will be professional writers who are already familiar with this definition. Gerry Ashton 14:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a darn good definition, but a little awkward for our purposes? Could we parse it to:

"Publication" is the transfer of ownership of copies of a work to the general public by sale or other means. Terryeo 14:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the US Copyright Act definition is awkward and long. If we want to base our definition on it, I would adapt it as follows:

“Publication” is the distribution of copies of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, lending, or licensing.

I dropped phonorecords because I think most people already regard phonorecords as copies. I added licensing to cover software, most of which is licensed rather than purchased. --Gerry Ashton 15:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with that definition Gerry. I was only trying to present a solution to resolve the issue between Terryeo and Fahrenheit . But I still have a question. What if the previously secret meetings of the "Brotherhood for the overthrow of Wikipedia" were donated to a library, making them accessible. Are they published? If they are published, at what exact moment did they become published? Wjhonson 16:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say the previously secret meeting minutes become published at the point where any person who walks in off the street into the library, even if the librarian does not know the person, can view the minutes. --Gerry Ashton 18:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Great ! I'll take a flyer and put that definition into WP:RS. As it stands it completely handles the difficulty which started this thread and provides a simple, direct handle of several previous, convoluted article discussions. Terryeo 05:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

There's a particular link that keeps showing up in the Freemasonry articles called FreemasonryWatch.org. The editors there (including me) have been treating it as an unreliable source due to its heavy reliance on conspiracy theories, and reverting it on sight. We've gotten the idea that it was officially ruled as unusable somewhere -- is there a list somewhere? If not, should there be?--SarekOfVulcan 18:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the way you want to handle that posting is to define the author and maintainer of the website. A personal website, maintained by an individual with no fact checking, no legal responsibility, nothing but an individual pasting together information which he, himself considers important to "his cause", is not useable as a secondary source of information. Such websites can be linked (as I understand WP:RS) in an "exterior links" or "further reading" section at the end of an article. In looking through that website, the only responsibility I can find would have me email mason_stoppers@yahoo.com. The website is a very low responsibility, personal type website and couldn't be considered a reliable source of information because nothing there is attributable. No individual and no organization takes responsibility for putting the information into public view. Terryeo 03:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. The individual would need to establish themselves as some kind of subject matter expert or other person who would for some reason be some kind of authority on the subject.--Crossmr 06:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt there is a list... it would be difficult to maintain. There is also the question of who would be in charge of maintaining it. Unless editing was limited to admin only, what would keep a POV pusher from simply deleting their pet unreliable source from the list any time it was added.

That said... I do think that such a maintained list would be worth while. There are a number of topics that attract conspiracy nuts who repeatedly cite to the same unreliable source (for another example of an unreliable source that is repeatedly being cited, see the 7 World Trade Center article, where the infamous "Larry Silverstein quotation" is constantly being added and removed.) Perhaps we should set up a volunteer "reliablilty check" committee that could be called upon to mediate disputes over reliablility, and would have restricted access to any list of sites deemed "officially unreliable". Blueboar 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Foreign or pay sites?

"For example, do not use a foreign-language newspaper as a source unless there is no equivalent article in an English-language newspaper."

What if there are 1. a freely available article in a foreign-language newspaper and 2. an article in an English-language newspaper which requires payment to view? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

1) Not acceptable... WP:V says: English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly

2) While I don't find anything about Pay-to-view news sites either here or on WP:V, I do know that they have usually been considered inappropriate (as they are not accessable by all readers). Blueboar 01:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Foreign language newspapers are acceptable, but another editor who can find an equivalent English-language source should add it, and maybe even replace a quote that was translated from a foreign language with a similar quote that was originally written in English

2. Quotes from subscription-based web sources are in principle no different from quotes from paper newspapers and books, which also must be paid for; they're acceptable. Gerry Ashton 01:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A real good example, as it pits one quality of source against another. How about listing both sources, the English language, subscription based one first ? We might even be able to come up with a list of source preferences, listing highly preferred to less preferred to barely acceptable. Terryeo 01:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The English-language one must come first as it's the one that's most likely to be useful to the reader. Pay-per-view (e.g. an article in the New York Times archive) simply isn't a useful criterion for exclusion, as Gerry rightly points out. -- ChrisO 07:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I certainly can not back up my statement (which was based on a few talk page discussions I have had, and not on anything I can find on the policy pages), I will freely admit that I am probably wrong ... pay-to-view is fine. Blueboar 13:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if it's over $100? Consider the case of Delphion, a site about patents intended for use by legal professionals. Access costs roughly 4 USD per day, billed in 30 day increments. So it could cost $117.50 to read the English translation of a foreign patent document that is available for free in the foreign language from the foreign country's patent office. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Some people have access to expensive books and expensive online services. I see no reason not to use them; that way we all get the benefit without having to spend lots of money. There will be a few editors who can verify the information if they want to. Of course, a good citation, instead of just a web site link, will help others find less expensive places to verify information and read further. --Gerry Ashton 03:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not willing to be a dupe for a prankster who claims he is properly citing some expensive online service. If there were independent editors to corroborate the claim, that's a different story. Precis 13:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A similar discussion has been approached on the Village pump about the acceptability of "pay for content" sources. It would be beneficial for consenus to be built on this matter so that it could be codify to an extent in a guideline. Agne 06:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Toward a published consensus!

Onward! Please continue in this new section. PS someone want to Archive this page? It's getting monstrous. I have gone through the entire discussion (I believe) and summarized on this white board here. Please review my whiteboard and then post your comments back here. I think we're close to a consensus on publish... I really do... I may be myopic though. Wjhonson 18:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the white board to here Wjhonson 19:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the use of an ultra-broad definition of "published" when the relevant WP:V half sentence is "published by reputable publishers"? We are now creating a list of everything that could be called published in the broadest sense, only to then remove most of it again as "not reputable". I don't think it makes sense to dissect a policy into single words and then try to make a meaningful summary of it again. It is clear from the current pages WP:V and WP:RS what is intended by published (they also mention online publications and so on). The important facts to judge a publication is if it is reliable and if it is verifiable, as per the definitions in those policies / guidelines. A local, unverified (not peer reviewed, fact checked, ...) publication (like a flyer or so, to take one of the examples in the whiteboard) is published, of course, but so what? Many of the examples given (emails, flyers, pamphlets, posters, ...) are usually primary sources or otherwise "sources of dubious reliability" and so do not go to the heart of WP:V at all. Fram 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The need for a definition of published exists because editors use unpublished references within Wikipedia articles. The specific reference which prompted this need for a simple little definition was distributed to a small quantity of people and is available if you purchase 1000s of dollars worth of courses which take perhaps 2 years to do. Along in there sometime you would get to view the unpublished reference, never published to the public. User:Fahrenheit451 of course wants, "published to a (meaning any people) public". The dictionary presents that published means "to the public" (possibly to everyone). The situation also occurs in the Freemasonary document, distributed to some selected individuals whom are members of Freemasonary. In addition, if we define the word "publish" in a clean, easy to understand manner then we could move toward "reliable sources" more easily, without confronting the problems "published" raises. Terryeo 01:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I advise you to be civil and assume good faith. I have presented the defintions of "public" which are NOT my own. "Public" is a group of people who share a common interest. You seem to be distorting what I have presented and I object to that. I am giving you one warning. --Fahrenheit451 01:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not uncivil to state the actual situation. User:Fahrenheit451's comment which sparked the need for a definition is difference. Terryeo 14:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You are distoring what I said and it is interesting that you make the constant reference to a single comment I made in the discussion of another article. We are discussing definitions of public and publication. Please stay on-topic.--Fahrenheit451 16:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There must be many WP editors who have only skimmed the policies and guidelines, and never read any talk pages for policies and guidelines. Also, there are new editors constantly arriving. So I think we should try to use words in their ordinary English meanings, and not try to develop a jargon where published means something different within WP compared to the world at large. --Gerry Ashton 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So we don't need a page which lists what is or isn't published, as that is "common knowledge". I agree, and don't see what the proposed or discussed guideline WP:Published could contribute. Fram 20:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Any new editor, joining this discussion, might want to read the over three weeks worth of discussion (see above) that we've had on the meaning of "published". Evidently, the idea is unclear to the many editors who have participated in these discussions. Wjhonson 20:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Fram, maybe we don't need a stated definition, but there may be merit in putting up a definition that reminds editors of the everyday meaning, and perhaps clarifies a few ambiguous points, such as whether something that was shown once on television and for which no DVD or vidiotape is for sale is published. Also, the presence of the definition emphasizes that published is not synonymous with the phrase published by a reputable source. --Gerry Ashton 21:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? If all editors understood "published" in the same way it would not be an issue and there would only be agreement and very little discussion. There is quite a lot of discussion ! Therefore there is a need for a definition. Terryeo 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "published" definition

I removed Terryeo's definition of "published" because it contains a few clear flaws:

• Free publishing: every case in Terryeo's definition requires payment or, most liberally, mere "lending"
  • Wikipedia is clearly a publication, and it doesn't fall into such categories. The GNU FDL doesn't qualify as lending, and the other categories imply payment.
• Paid publishing: "publishing" itself generally has little to do with licensing and sale of rights. Ownership or licensing is a prerequisite to publishing. People can buy rights to content to force it to never be published; it happens all the time. Certain organizations visibly wield that axe.
  • If I buy a copy of Rolling Stone, I'm not licensing it. I'm not being "sold" the content (I don't own it post purchase). I'm not renting it, leasing it, or being loaned it, either. That's what the publisher does before publication.
• The "public" qualifier is a clear move by Terryeo to exclude Scientology documents that are only sold to people within the Church.
  • As other people have explained, Science isn't distributed to the general public (if one truly exists).

--Davidstrauss 11:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some other editor would re-insert a definition of "publish" Davidstrauss and I have danced before in the Scientology articles, I'm not going to get into a revert war again.Terryeo 19:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Some publication is done without the publisher hoping to recover his publication costs, but all of your examples exhibit that publication is an attempt to get information into the hands of the public, the common person. That's sure what we are doing here, too. I'm not sure this is an appropriate place to discuss the Scientology issues and my user page might be better, but the same difficulties of "reliable published sources" is foundational to all of our articles. How can we expect agreement about sources when we can't agree on what constitutes the most fundamental element of a source? Publish is the foundation of all our policies and all our editing efforts! Terryeo 17:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, excluding privately circulated items would also exclude any item sold by "subscription only". There are thousands of magazines sold in this manner, and they are called "publications" by the mainstream press, even though essentially circulated to a group of subscribers. I've pointed out several times, that if you just see this *entire* process through, you can certainly find *other* criteria that Science magazine may fail. There is no need to pound so relentlessly on the concept of "published", when we still have at least four more concepts to work out. And you haven't addresses my issue yet Wjhonson 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to address your issue. Magazine subscriptions are available to the broad general public. A person pays, not unlike a public person purchasing a book. Many copies of the publication have guarenteed sales before it is printed, but its main intent is to publish information to the broad, general public. Heck, it would happily distribute copies to every person on the planet! What you are calling "my" definition certainly includes magazine subscriptions. What issue besides magazine subscriptions are you raising? Terryeo 19:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

How about the Berne convention definition (Art. 3, (3) of the current text of the convention):

The expression “published works” means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication.

? - There are at least 162 countries that would see this the "common" definition of published work. The Berne convention may be problematic from several angles, but not as far as I know for its definition of published work. And it reflects the common understanding of the term, afaik. --Francis Schonken 12:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it ! It would provide a good foundation for us because it has been widely accepted ! However, it is less simple than might be ideal. Terryeo 19:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The definition is circular :" published works means works published...." Precis 12:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Furthermore, there are many examples of works published without consent of the authors: posthumous compositions, leaked Pentagon papers, Juan Cole's email, etc. Precis 13:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree they are defining "published work" not "published". I'm also not in complete harmony with Terryeo's definition. I think it would be useful to tweeze apart these concepts of "membership in a specific group", versus "potentially available at request". A local newspaper is not distributed to "everyone" and they certainly have no delusions that it will be. Their circulation may be a thousand homes, in a small town. However it's a publication. The GM Retirees magazine is also a "publication", as they self-state. I wonder Terryeo if you can say that that GM Retirees magazine is not a publication? Are you willing to state that? I'm still concerned that you're merging two seperate concepts of "published" and "accessible" into one definition when they should be kept seperate. We really need a definition of published that does not include accessible. And then a seperate definition of accessible. I thought that is what we were trying to achieve. The publications of Scientology, albeit secret, would still be considered publications, even though they are distributed to a select group, just like the GM Retirees magazine. I think Terryeo, if you just go along for the ride, you'll see that we eventually get to what you wanted in the first place. Wjhonson 16:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Both the US Copyright Act definiton of published and the Berne Convention definiton of published work include the concept of the work being available to the public. Absent this concept, what's to stop me from claiming that my love notes to my girlfriend are published? I distributed them, didn't I? By the way, this is not an academic discussion for me, I have works I wrote for a past employer that could contribute to the Electronic Load article, but even though they were distributed to hundreds of people in the US and Europe, they are neither published nor publicly available. Also, my firm opinion is that works only available to members of a certain religion are most emphatically not published, and if such were declared to be Wikipedia policy I would cease using any form of the word published when writing on Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton 17:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Several editors pose several problems with having "published" defined. Our most basic policy states that a neutral point of view is arrived at by presenting published information. Published is the first and primary threshold of inclusion. If we ignore this foundational term, the problems that could have be handled by its being defined will have to be handled in other ways. Problems such as "reliability" and "distributed secret document" and "never publically accessible". If we will define "publish" and then define "reliable", we will save ourselves many discussions. Terryeo 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the fence on the issue Gerry, but I feel it's really a bad precedent to claim that if the works are donated to a library, that they become "published" by that action. I don't think that sort of wordsmithing would pass the "sounds acceptable" test. Wjhonson 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled about the idea of including lots of information that is available in one moldy book in some obscure library. On the other hand, some important material may only be available in places like presedential libraries. --Gerry Ashton 00:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

But then relying on primary source material that raw requires a lot of synthesis which comes dangerously close to original research in violation of core Wikipedia policies. See Wikipedia:No original research. --Coolcaesar 00:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Using primary source material that raw could be used to resolve discrepancies between secondary sources. For example, some sources say Jefferson proposed the US adopt the metric system, other sources say Jefferson proposed the US adopt a different decimal system. The collected reports to the Congress show the later source is correct. --Gerry Ashton 00:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The Berne Convention definition sounds pretty good but we shouldn't forget the fact that the definition is tailored to the needs of publishers. The clause "published with the consent of their authors" is problematic for us. As Precis points out, it would prohibit our using a swathe of works which have been published by third parties without the authors' consent. This would exclude, for instance, the Pentagon Papers, the Halloween documents and the Diebold Election Systems#Leaked memos. The definition would also prohibit us from citing documents published as the outcome of court cases or wars, such as the seized Iraqi government documents on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction which the US Government published following the 2003 Iraq war.

I would adopt the Berne Convention wording but leave out the clause "published with the consent of their authors" as this would unnecessarily impair our freedom to use published sources. Authorial consent is important for the publishing industry but not so much for journalistic comment or academic research. -- ChrisO 17:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Going back to the first post in this section, the deleted definition read "Publication is the distribution of copies of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, lending, or licensing." It has been suggested that this excludes free distribution. Free distribution is "other transfer of ownership". Davidstrauss objects that "Ownership or licensing is a prerequisite to publishing", but the definiton is about distributing copies and it is ownership of the copies that is transferred. Also, the word licensing is in the definiton to cover the case of software. A typical arrangement when buying software is that one buys the copies, but at the same time agrees to a license, such that one can't use the copies on one's computer except as specified in the license agreement. --Gerry Ashton 18:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that answers the question I had about "ownership transfer" Terryeo

Responding to another point in Davidstrauss's first post in this section, "as other people have explained, Science isn't distributed to the general public (if one truly exists)", Science is distributed to the public in the sense that anyone can purchase a subscription; when the subscription order arrives at the Science circulation department, they won't inquire into the subscriber's religion, politics, race, or professional credentials. As long as the check clears the bank, they'll send the magazine. Also, Science is readily available in larger libraries. --Gerry Ashton 18:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that "published" needs to be suffixed by " by a reliable source". There is no point in trying to describe what "published" means, outside of the context of reliables sources, and verifiability. When we say "published by a reliable source that can be verified", we have all the definition we need. It does not matter where, why and how it was published: whatever it is, it needs to be such by a reliable source and verifiably so. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to jossi, if it were possible to require that everyone who challenges or deletes unreliable material explained their action using the phrase "published by a reliable source" and everyone who defended the inclusion using the same phrase, we wouldn't need to have this discussion. But since people challenge and defend material using many different phrases, I think it is helpful to have clear definitions of the words (not phrases) that come up frequenty. --Gerry Ashton 20:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is the lack of understading of what [[WP:RS}} and WP:V that creates the problem, and it will not be resolved by attempting to define "published" out of the context of these policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Jossi can you point to any person in this entire four week discussion who disputes your points? I can't. We are trying to define, publish, and accessible. We are not trying to subvert any guidelines. The point is to clarify, not replace. I'm not sure what you think you're seeing here, but it isn't what you said above. Wjhonson 21:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me try again. My argument is that if we simply apply WP:V and WP:RS, we do not need to attempt to define "published". The criterion of "published by a reliable source" is not an ambiguous statement. I argue that it is made ambiguous by those that want to bypass it. Can you show me an example of a statement that is "published by a reliable source" that is disputed to be such? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

GA writes: Free distribution is "other transfer of ownership". But if I place my poems on my website, am I really transferring ownership? I'd say that for the purposes of Wikipedia, a published source is a source that makes information reasonably accessible to the public. (Of course such sources may not be cited unless they are reliable.) This definition would never be accepted here due to incessant quarreling over the meaning of "reasonably". Precis 00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that placing a poem on your website is publication for two reasons. First, when I view the web site with my computer, the information is placed in the memory of my computer, so I now own a copy of the information, because I own the memory. Also, since web sites exist primariy to allow people to read the information on the web site, when you put the poem on your web site, you granted me an implied license to read the poem in the way that people typically use web browsers. After seeing the way that interested and intelligent people don't parse this definition the same way, I'm starting to feel we need a definition that is easier to parse. --Gerry Ashton 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

But if that's the interpretation, then isn't a copy of publicly distributed info NECESSARILY owned or borrowed by the user? So what's the point of having all the qualifying language about sale, lease, lending, and the like? It's like saying an opera can be two hours long, less than two hours long, or more than two hours long. What extra information is conveyed by the sale-lease-lending language that wasn't already inherent in the notion of public distribution? Precis 01:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

At WP:NOT it says "More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia..." Yet the user page is a copy of info that is in my hard drive. So yes, clarifying one's interpretation is always a good thing. Precis 01:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This definition is derived from the definition in the 1974 US Copyright Act. Since pseudonymous and anonymous works get 120 years of copyright protection from their creation, or 90 years from their publication, this definition is meant to make it clear on what date a work becomes published. For our purpose, we might want to keep rent, since DVDs are often rented (but the same DVDs are generally for sale, so maybe we don't care about being rented). I think we could safely drop leased, since that is close enough to rented for our purposes. And maybe we need a different definiton that isn't so tricky to parse. --Gerry Ashton 02:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What else is part of a Reliable Source

I am concerned that in debating the definitions of "Published" and "Accessible" we may forget other criteria that should be included (and defined?) as sub-requirements for a citation to be considered "Reliable". Surely a reliable source is more than simply one that is published and accessible? "Attributable" (ie, we have to know who published the statement) comes to mind. I am sure there are others. Perhaps we should make a list of these sub-requirements so we don't forget them when we are done with the more contentious topics. Blueboar 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar (if that *is* your real name!) I would welcome your contributions on this very germane topic over at WP:Published. I completely agree that published, and accessible are not sufficient to define "Reliable" or "Verifiable". Perhaps we could list the various things which are, in seperate sections on that whiteboard, so everyone can see, that we are not trying to change the guidelines, only define them more precisely, esp. for borderline situations. I mean right now we have "poster" as a publication. Some people might find that highly dubious however if they further see that that poster is most likely to fail the "accessible" criteria or the "reputable publisher" criteria they might feel more comfortable with allowing it to remain a "publication". Wjhonson 17:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, I was tinking along the same lines. I have created a reliable source decision tree at User talk:Gerry Ashton/collaborate, and I'd be interested to know if you think I left anything out. --Gerry Ashton 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Because "published" means the distribution of information to the general public, then that action makes information "accessible" to some quantity of people who are random public persons. After that action takes place, then, the question of "accessibility" can arise, but can not arise before that action takes place. Therefore, a definition of "publish", first and then, after information is published, there can be a question of how "accessible" that information is at that time. Terryeo 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Splitting hairs, Terryeo... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "reliable published sources" is understood as revolving around "reliable". If defining the second word of that phrase is unhelpful to defining the whole phrase, would you please tell me how it is unhelpful? I am presenting that it is helpful to define the second word because it will be easier to define the whole phrase when the second word is understood. Terryeo 02:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

rather than looking at this as "reliable" and "published" and "source", look at it as "reliable-published-source", and note that it is greater that the sum of its components. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A good definition of published would remove questions which are discussed here because some of those questions are about whether an information was ever published. However, in meeting those questions, editors are relying on "verifiability" / "accessibility" and while that works, the more direct use of "that has never been published to the broad, general public" would be better. If a situation is complex and difficult, then it is best to define each of its parts, when its parts are combined, its totality is more easily used. We can only strengthen our concensus if we define each part before combining them into a whole (which is greater than its components). Terryeo 14:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest a different standard?

Instead of arguing over what is "published," we should consider the real goal: reliability (the topic of this page). We keep talking about "published" when we're really seeking "current, authenticatable, and trustworthy." It's easy to confuse this with "published," as publication often is synonymous with that the three criteria.

To take a card from my experience in computer authentication protocols, we need to know a few things to ensure information reliability:

1. It must be fresh (not out of date). In a historical context, this would mean current information about a past event.
2. It must be authentic. (We must be able to verify the actual source of the information.)
3. The actual source must be trustworthy.

To make a factual statement, all parts of the chain must be satisfied. This idea is derived from Burrows-Abadi-Needham logic. I suggest we adopt it instead of arguing about what constitutes "published." This standard would also include "accessibility" as part of #2.

What we agree are accessible, published, trustworthy sources indisputably meet these criteria. --Davidstrauss 02:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

With respect to freshness, I think even a very old source can be fresh, as long as current sources either do not contradict the old source, or even better, refer favorably to the old source. --Gerry Ashton 03:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A source remains "fresh" as long as it is new recent enough to provide the necessary information. A source can remain "fresh" even if newer sources exist. The freshness requirement is only present because the same trustworthy, verified source often updates its information. What Newsweek said about HIV in 1985 is probably not reliable but what they report in 2006 probably is. The distinction is only the freshness of the information. --Davidstrauss 06:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Davidstrauss hits the nail in the head: "all parts of the chain must be satisfied", as in "published-reliable-source-that-can-be-verified" ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, my intention is to remove "published" from our definition of a reliable source to circumvent the controversy inherent in defining "published." It seems easier to debate the three numbered points than argue over whether something is "published."

Much of the controversy here centers on Church of Scientology documents, specifically ones introduced in court cases. Is evidence in a court case "published?" There's been plenty of argument, but my point is that the "published" status doesn't matter. The items are fresh (primary source material is always fresh), verfiable in origin, and worth trusting when it comes to reporting what the CoS actually thinks (or thought) internally.

Requiring that sources be "published" is tangential to the goal of seeking reliable sources, so we should revise the criteria instead of arriving at a tortured consensus of "published." --Davidstrauss 06:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, Terryeo seems to be trying to find a general rule to suit the specific particulars of the case that he's concerned about, which doesn't seem a very satisfactory way to proceed. I would look at court-released documents in the same way as freedom of information-released documents: that is, they're not necessarily available in a library or reading room somewhere, but can be obtained on application to the court or government department in question. They're still reliable and verifiable despite not having been actively published in the same sense that a book or journal would be. A somewhat similar situation applies to collections of unpublished private papers that have been donated to academic libraries where they can be accessed by the public, e.g. the Winston Churchill archives and collections in Cambridge. The act of making the documents available to the public is, I would argue, a form of passive publication - the difference is that the "publisher" expects you to apply to see the materials, rather than actively pushing them out in the hope that you will buy or download them. -- ChrisO 06:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A source must be "published". Period. NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source. "Published" is absolutely necessary, and, according to NPOV, non-negotiable. Your secret documents which are distributed and not published can not be cited in Wikipedia. Those drug tests which drug companys run but don't publish can not be cited in Wikipedia. To be used here, the information must first be published, i.e. distributed to the broad general public.Terryeo 13:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea of adopting "passive publication" as a form of publication signifies just how archaic using publication as a requirment for realiability is. Can't we just drop the publication requirement and list what we're really looking for? Even if we end up agreeing on what "publication" is, it will inevitably turn out to be a list of requirements for a document to be considered trustworthy and accessible. --Davidstrauss 07:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that for the two cases of documents obtained through freedom-of-information requests, and private papers donated to a library, that neither is published. Neither the library, nor you, are publishing them. What you're doing is making them accessible. So they would not meet the standard of being created by a reputable publisher. There are documents that the government does publish, such as the census returns, which are published on microfilm and distributed to various libraries and archives, who then make them accessible. In the case of court documents, these are published by the clerk of the court, and made accessible by the staff at the courthouse, and sometimes in archives and libraries as well. I don't believe we can cite personal letters even if they were in a library, since they are unpublished as you stated yourself. Wjhonson 07:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If a proposed WP:RS standard excludes using letters archived in a library (at least as a primary source), it's a bad standard. --Davidstrauss 07:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a proposed guideline, its part of the current one. Primary sources (like letters) can only be used *if* they are published by a reputable publisher. Wjhonson 07:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I quote the main page WP:RS "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. " So your letters have to be in an "edited collection" in order to be citeable in wikipedia. Wjhonson 07:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A reliable archive (say, the Harry Ranson Center at my university) verifies the authenticity of its collection. Why does it matter if it's "published" in an "edited collection"? If I can go to the HRC and verify something from its archives, it should be usable. --Davidstrauss 07:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

using archives = original research. Rjensen 07:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is not about what's original research, so that's irrelevant. Regardless, an archive isn't any more in violation of WP:NOR than a published collection of letters. They're both primary sources. "Research" is drawing conclusions. What claims one may draw from primary sources is the question of WP:NOR, not how easily one may access the sources. That's the only difference between a published collection and an archive: ease of access. --Davidstrauss 07:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A collection of letters would not be useable (except in an article about the collection of letters) until a publication existed which included the collection of letters. WP:NPOV requires that information be "published" to be included in Wikipedia. It might be possible to define the word there, but this is the first guideline under the policies and the reliability of information is, in part, based on its being published. Terryeo 14:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually Terryeo, a collection of the actual primary documents. The *originals* would not be useful whatsoever. The most we could say is, "the catalog of the University of Dallas says that they have the Letters of Joan Crawford". But we could say nothing more really about what those Letters state. If those Letters are *published* in any form, offline or on, by a reputable publisher, *then* we could cite the content of those letters, in an article about those letters. If they are *edited* with discussion, then we could cite those letters in articles about which they speak, so in the article on Betty Davis we could cite "I had sex with Betty Davis" (Crawford:Letters, p 92, 9 May 1941) Wjhonson 17:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As letters they are private correspondence and not published, therefor could not be included in Wikipedia. I think that's your point? Terryeo 04:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that to say simply "they are not published". The mere act of depositing an item in a library, having that item appears on a library shelve, and then be read by a patron, does not "publish" the item. That's my current view of the matter to resolve the issue that a library is a "publisher" which I feel they are not. The library does not "create, make, bind, gather, edit, prepare" materials for publication. They are merely a vehicle to make items accessible to the public. But accessibility is not the same as "publishing". So the letters, and any other item, not published by some party "disconnected from" the library, would not be published, and not citeable. You can see how an editor could have simply evaded the need for publication, by donating some controversial item to a library and then citing it, claiming it was now "published". That however isn't my rationale for this change in my own view. Rather my rationale is my distate for the idea that a library, or other accessibility vehicle could be considered a publisher, and contrariwise, that the vanishing of said item from the library could be considered an act of "un-publishing" or "causing to go out-of-print". I don't find that logical.Wjhonson 16:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that, coolness. Terryeo 09:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

there is a serious difference between using documents edited by a scholar in a book--the scholar does the original research, selecting the material in terms of an interpretive framework. Versus an editor going into an archive that contains documents. The latter is always going to be original reearch and is always Wiki-forbidden and so should not be discussed further. Rjensen 15:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"Published" is basically a WP:NOR requirement

I'd like to bring this idea in. I've argued that "accessibility/availability" of a source is not so much a "reliability" requirement, as that it is a wikipedia:verifiability requirement. It's impossible to bring WP:V in practice if a source is *exclusively* available/accessible to the person adding content to Wikipedia and using that source as reference.

Likewise, I'd like to argue now that whatever requirements regarding the reliability of sources we describe, sources need always to be *published*, because of several reasons, but *unavoidably* also because of avoidance of original research.

If Wikipedia would be the first *publisher* of information not yet *published* elsewhere, that's a clear break of Wikipedia:No original research. --Francis Schonken 07:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I exactly agree. But the word "publish" is used on WP:NPOV to describe how a neutral point of view is arrived at, too. Terryeo 04:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Then that's a standard for the WP:NOR page, not here. This page should not be making WP:NOR restrictions. Second, you're mistaking my intention. I don't seek to introduce more leniant guidelines; I just want to get past defining "published." Every definition I've seen of "published" here is a tortured way of creating a list of reliability requirements. Just give the reliability requirements and drop the "published" pretense. WP:NOR is a concern handled elsewhere. --Davidstrauss 07:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify that I support paraphrasing and linking to other Wikipedia policies and guidelines from WP:RS. I just don't think the WP:RS criteria should be built from the ground up to only include sources that satisfy WP:NOR. WP:RS should say things like, "While such a source may be reliable, its use should be carefully predicated on meeting WP:NOR policies." --Davidstrauss 08:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

How can we ignore WP:NOR? That is policy, and WP:RS is just a guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

We should strive to make all our policies and guidelines mutually orthoganol. That means WP:RS shouldn't be making restrictions akin to WP:NOR. Orthoganol policies and guidelines are far easier to understand and manage because they minimally overlap; each big question has one key document answering it. Because we can completely separate the questions of reliable sources and no original research, we should.

So, if an editor includes a source that's reliable but constitutes original research, we should simply point them to WP:NOR. If they quote an unreliable secondary source, send them to WP:RS. Writing WP:RS to pre-satisfy WP:NOR is difficult and not all that useful. I don't see why everyone here thinks what we call reliable sources must exclude sources that constitute original research. It's not a question this page should answer. --Davidstrauss 19:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The word first appears in WP:NPOV and should be understood to mean there, what it means in every policy and guideline. I think that "published" is the first threshold for inclusion of any information into Wikipedia. However, the question remains, does "published" mean something like, "any production of information to any audience of any size, anytime?" (private distribution to be included), or does "published" mean, "to the broad, general public?" (without any qualification of who obtains copies).

• The second threshold for inclusion of information would be "produced and distributed by reliable sources" (so the information is what the author intended and worthy of public attention) and
• Verifiable. Terryeo 14:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

TV shows mentioning blogs

TV news shows used to go and mention blogs and sometimes cite information from that blog. Where does the information from a blog fall then when a TV news show mentions it? Anomo 03:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In the article about that blog, if there is such. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

reliable published sources

Wikipedia frequently refers to "reliable published sources". For the purposes of Wikipedia, this means "trustworthy sources of information made accessible to the public." Yes, there are extreme examples of sources that push the envelope of reliability or of accessibility, but this definition captures the spirit of what Wikipedia requires of a source. Precis 10:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"Trustworthy sources of information made accessible to the broad, general public" is more exclusive but more accurate, is it not? Terryeo 09:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and especially so because Precis' exemplification calls out "the public", rather than; a targeted, but limited group of persons to be called "a public". Terryeo 14:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, Terryeo, I guess that would end up excluding some controversial Scientology documents. --Davidstrauss 19:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Aye, Aye! , "reliable published sources" means just that: "reliable published sources". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to look up "reliable published sources" in my Webster's and it's just not there! What do I do now Mr Jossi Wjhonson 17:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You will not find NPOV, either :) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the reason we're all debating this is because no one can agree on what "published" means in the context of reliable sources. I still suggest we dump "published" entirely from this document. It's dealt with in WP:NOR. We're not opening any floodgates by dropping a requirement from a guideline that seems to exist in Wikipedia policy. --Davidstrauss 19:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly object to removing "published" as that is Wikipedia policy, see WP:V (my highlights):

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My argument was and remain, that this discussion is based on the lack of acceptance of WP:V and WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No, this discussion is based on whether WP:RS should reiterate WP:V and WP:NOR. At no point have I argued about what's in WP:V or WP:NOR. --Davidstrauss 20:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If it would be true to say, "any duplicated information, distributed to any group of people is published and satisfies WP:NPOV, then there would be need for a definition. But, this is not the situation. WP:NPOV uses the word "published" to mean "published to the broad, general public" and, therefore, "in common knowledge, commonaly accessible"; there is the difference, David. Terryeo 02:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes... A guideline cannot bypass an official policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That any editor doesn't immediately understand that statement from WP:NPOV as talking about "broadly published, to the general public" information should make it very clear that there is a need for this definition. Terryeo 02:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of this guideline

Is the purpose of this guideline:

• Merely identifying reliable sources, or
• Bringing WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V all together coherently

If it's the latter, I can understand the objection to removing the "published" requirement. If it's the former, "published" is irrelevant. --Davidstrauss 20:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree... no matter which purpose you look at, the requirement that something be published is an important prerequisite. I would object strongly to removing the "published" requirement. The problem is that we have yet to reach consensus on what "published" means.

To answer your underlying question... To me, the porpose of this guideline is to define what a "reliable source" is. However, we can not completely divorce WP:V from our thinking... "Published" is part of the definition of "Reliable", and "Reliable" is part of the definition of "Verifiable". I don't think we need to bring WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V all together coheretly (at least not on this page)... but we do need to think of this page as a sub-page of WP:V. Blueboar 20:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me spell something out. There is a vast sea of information. It is divided into two oceans. One ocean of information has been issued to individuals.

• Ford Motor Company distributed information to its empolyees about the annual picnic.
• A corperation distributed information about its officers to its board of trustees.
• The CIA distributed information about how to deal with terrorists to its officers.
• The local church issued a newletter it its members.
  
• The other ocean of information has been published to the broad, genral public instead of being distibuted to individuals. This ocean of information is useful for Wikiepia articles. It may be used in articles about itself, about its author, about its publisher.

• Within the published ocean is a sea which is different because it has been published by reliable sources of information and futher, those reliable sources have published in such a way so that people can verify they published the information they published. This sea of information can be included as primary or secondary source and is likely to be the sea of information Wikipedia articles are drawn from. Terryeo 02:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, going with consensus here...

The consensus is clearly that we should include "published" in the WP:RS requirements. Thus, we need a consensus definition. I don't consider "I know published when I see it" to be workable.

My suggested definition: "An item is 'published' if it has been prepared for publicly accessible distribution. Public access at a fee is still public access."

I've modified only one part of the American Heritage Dictionary definition. I've removed "for sale" because selling something is distributing it. Furthermore, many archived items are prepared for "sale" to other archives. Including such items would be against the consensus here about what "published" is supposed to mean.

I hope this brings WT:RS closer to a viable definition. --Davidstrauss 00:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: My omission of any trace of "reliability" in the definition of "published" is intentional. WP:RS's job is then to explain what takes a source from being merely published to being reliable and published. --Davidstrauss 00:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you give an example of what you mean when you sayd that "archives items are prepared for sale to other archives." Not a definition, an example. The way I'm understanding it now, it *would* be published, while you are saying it would not. Wjhonson 00:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I continue to argue that this is much of a do about nothing. There is no need to define "published", same as there is no need to define "reliable" or "reputable". The policy states: "published by reliable and reputable sources". The sum of these terms together is as unambiguos as we can have it, and greater than the individual terms evaluated separately. Editors should be capable to make the judgement about what material is "published by a reliable and reputable source", and if they aren't they can ask for assistance from those that are. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And you continue to skirt any discussion of the actual examples, where we as editors cannot agree. How is that helpful? If you want to be helpful, you could at least address the examples that have been brought to the table, by giving your opinion of whether they are "published" or "not published". If in four weeks, we cannot even come to a consensus of what is published, how exactly are we to ever decide what is a "published by reliable and reputable sources" item ? Maybe you could answer that instead of just repeating over and over how this is a useless task? Wjhonson 02:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:Fahrenheit451 would have us consider every information ever created as copyable information was published to a pubic and thence, is a perfectly good piece of information to use as a secondary source if only he is able to prove the bonafieds, the reliability, the reputability and, lastly, the verifiability (however torterously complex). This simply won't work, it is not the meaning of the word WP:NPOV uses when it says, All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. Some examples might clarify.

1. The Church of Scientology has never published several informations. However, copies which have been purported to be accurate copies have appeared (some were obviously stolen, others might not have been stolen). Those information, being "published to a public" could be included by F451's definition, but not by mine (unless they were "published to the public")
2. Ford Motor Company's flyers which are distributed to their sales staff which might state what the cost of an automobile is, as it leaves the Ford Motor Company factory would be perfectly good information to use (published to a public, the sales staff) by F451's definition but not by the common language definition (published to the broad, genearal public).
3. Obviously secret CIA documents have never been published to the public, but have been, by F451's definition, "published to a public" which means that if those documents can reliably reproduced and attributed, they can be cited as secondary sources in Wikipedia articles. This is obviously not the intent of WP:NPOV. A clarification of what is meant by "publish" is needed. It is not just User:Fahrenheit451 who holds this broad, general misunderstanding, but other editors too in the Scientology series articles. It will save huge amounts of endless bickering if we simply define this word "publish". Why would you not want clarity, Jossi ?Terryeo 02:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo is bordering on a personal attack here: He is distorting the dictionary definitions which I have advocated in various policy and guideline discussions. It seems to me that Terryeo holds a broad, general misunderstanding and if he did not have this blindspot, he would have never been given a arbitration and banned from editing Scientology articles. --Fahrenheit451 22:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I will do my best (I have numbered your examples):

1. The material you refer to may have been published, but was not published by reliable/reputable source. If the material was referred to in a book, scholarly article, etc. then we can cite that book, scholarly article or Journal. If the material was published and its content verifiable, then these could be cited in the article about that subject only and not on other articles.
2. The flyer will fail the verifiability test, unless it was referred to in a published secondary reliable source, in which case we can cite how latter describe the flyer, but not the former.
3. These CIA documents are not citable as these also fail WP:V. Citing them will be OK, only if these were referred to in a published reliable/reputable source, in which case we can cite these as described by that source only.

In summary: the examples provided fail WP:V in most cases. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jossi, all of those example fail WP:V, but the point I am attempting to communicate is that they all fail even before WP:V ever comes into play. They fail because they are in the other ocean of information which is unpublished information. There is no need to discuss or argue about information in that other sea of information which is unpublished information because it is not even worthy of notice. We shouldn't need to confront each and every instance of unpublished information and decide by editor concensus whether it satisfies WP:V or not. Because it is unpublished information it can not even be considered for inclusion into Wikipedia, which is published information only ! Terryeo 04:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My argument, Terryeo, is that there is no need to dwelve in a discussion about "published", when these examples are not citable as they are simply not verifiable as per [WP:V]]. If ever a question of "has this or that been published by a reliable source?" arises, I am arguing that it would be very simple to assert nay or yay. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I do see the point you are making, Jossi. All of the examples are refuted because they can not be verified. I think you state the test for, "is an information published" is actually, "will a concensus of editors agree / disagree that the information can be verified" ? Such a concensus has worked and this discussion page has been the platform. But I think there is a step below the step of "verifiability". I think that bottom step can be stated; Has the information been published to the broad, general public. A comparison would be; Was the information privately distributed to a specific audience. My proposal is, we editors would have less work to do if we define published to mean, to the broad, general public.

Remember also, that the different core policies of WP work together as a whole. WP:NPOV + WP:V + WP:NOR + WP:NOT. You need all four to be compliant. So, when you talk about WP:NPOV as it pertains to "all significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one", you need to also talk about the material's verifiability, the availability of that material from a reliable source, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

First I would like to personally thank Jossi for providing an excellent analysis of the examples. Second I would like to state that I'm now wavering in my view of the GM Retirees magazine example. I now think it's "unpublished" but accessible once donated to a library. As such it cannot be cited. The same would apply to a collection of primary material donated to a library. You cannot cite it in its original form. Third, lest someone fall on the floor with gnashing of teeth, I would like to clarify that... *IF* a reputable publisher were to publish a facsimile edition of that magazine or those letters, then that edition, albeit a mere copy of the primary source, would be citable as per the current WP:RS guideline page which expresses allows primary sources "which have been published by a reputable publisher". So there is still an "out" if you will, that allows citation to a primary source i.e. a facsimile edition of that source. Note that a self-published facsimile edition would not pass this test. Wjhonson 04:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm tending to agree with you about that particular, hypothetical example. Terryeo 04:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the spirit of WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been re-reading the exchange between Terryo and Jossi. It seems they both agree that the hypothetical CIA information is neither published nor verifiable. But in the case of the supposed Church of Scientology documents, I think they might be talking about different things. Since I know next to nothing about the Church of Scientology and the documents in question, let me make up an example.

The hypothetical X Church has a fairly good reputation, and many editors would consider it to be a reliable source. It distributes some information to the general public and other information to members only. In particular, document Y was distributed to members only, but somehow a purported copy of document Y showed up on a personal website W of unknown reliability.

A quote from document Y shows up in a WP article, with a citation to W. I remove it. The placing editor puts it back, this time with a citation to the version distributed by X Church. I remove it again, saying the source is not verifiable. The placing editor puts it back yet again, saying that the Church X document is published by a reliable publisher, which is the critera in WP:V. Furthermore, I can verify it either by joining the X Church, or by finding another WP editor, or a neighbor who belongs to X Church, and asking them to verify it. My feeling is that the word publish in WP:V excludes privately distributed material, but some other editors obviously disagree with my interpretation. --Gerry Ashton 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

example where a quote in a reliable source should not be cited

The following passage appears in the NY Sun [14]:

• In 2000, Mr. McCloskey spoke at a conference organized by the leading Holocaust denial organization in America, the Institute for Historical Review. "I came because I respect the thesis of this organization - the thesis being that there should be a reexamination of whatever governments say or politicians say or political entities say," he told the group, according to its Web site.

A description of Pete McCloskey's views should not be supported by the NYS quote "I came...", because the NYS admitted that it took the quote from the (highly unreliable) website of IHR. Precis 09:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not follow your logic. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That he was there may be cited, that he "respects the thesis" may not, on his own article. There is no independent source stating that he "respects the thesis". However the Sun independently states that he was present. However the entire quote may be cited on the article about the Institute for Historical Review. That's my view. Wjhonson 16:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think i see where Precis is coming from... while the NY Sun is a reputable source, the website that they took this quote from is not. However, I think inclusion would depend on how the citation is used and what the article was trying to say. If you say that the Holocaust denial organization claims that McCloskey agrees with them, then the citation verifies this, and can be included. If you are trying to say that McCloskey actually does agree them, then no, it is not a reliable citation and can not be included. Blueboar 16:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Context is everything. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Righto. But I thought I'd made the context clear: One should not support the quote to describe McCloskey's VIEWS Precis 20:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC).

The government as a publisher

I feel this section is necessary to refine the view that the government is both an author and a publisher of various material, and to discuss the distinctions that need to be drawn and when and which of, that material may be cited and how. Wjhonson 16:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the premis... the author would be the individual government employee or committee who wrote what was being published ... the Government itself is the publisher. But that does not really matter. Given that governments most definitely undergo fact checking and review before publishing things, I would say that government publications are reliable sources. At best, I could see adding a caution note that some governmental publications might have political bias, but I don't think it is really needed (If an editor disagrees with what is in a government publication, they can probably cite opposition publications that address the issue). Blueboar 16:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Blueboar. The exception that springs to mind is situations where the government publishes verbatim information from testimony or public hearings, where the authors range from Nobel Prize winners to mob bosses. --Gerry Ashton 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Consider Blueboar, two documents.

1. Office of Housing and Urban Development, How to put up drywall, Government Printing Office, 2005
2. Wills of Jackson County, Alabama 1832-1899, being film-strip images of original documents, on microfilm, Jackson County Probate Clerk, undated

Who is the author and who is the publisher? Are they self-published? Are they primary or secondary? Are they reliable and verifiable? Wjhonson 16:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The wills are primary documents that can only be used in original research which is forbidden in Wiki. There is no author and no publisher. The Office of Housing etc is both the author and publisher ofthe pamphlet (which I sould call a secondary source, probably written by the PR office rather than by housing experts.). Rjensen 16:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR states "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged" so it is not correct to say that using primary sources is not allowed. Of course, a document such as a will could easily be used in ways that constitute original research, but not always. If, for example, two secondary sources disagreed about how a certain person spelled his name, the person's will could be used to decide which secondary source to believe. --Gerry Ashton 17:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS states "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher". If Rjensen asserts that this is in conflict with WP:NOR than that should be discussed more fully. I would also note that "e.g." following that quote, does not mean "the following is an exhaustive list", it is only for illustrative purposes to show some examples of what might be considered valid primary sources. I surely don't feel that Rjensen can claim that the Jackson County stenographer is somehow more reliable than the Jackson County clerk sitting in the next cubicle. Obviously they have the same reliability status, i.e. the published version is the official product of the Jackson County governement in its role as the reliable publisher of primary material. Wjhonson 18:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In the case of "How to put up a drywall"... the author is probably a committee of government employees who work for HUD. HUD itself (and by extension the US Govenment) is the publisher. It is certainly a reliable primary source on Government instructions on how to put up drywall. It may be a reliable secondary source if it quotes or cites reputable contractors and drywall experts. In the case of "Wills of Jackson County" The individuals (attorneys?)who wrote the wills were the authors. The Jackson County Probate Clerk would be the the compiler or editor, and Jackson County, Alabama is the publisher. It is a reliable primary source, if I am correct in assuming that the film strip is listed in a database somwhere and is accessible to the public. Blueboar 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The legal prefession has long grappeled with reliable sources. In fact, the "hear-say rule" is an analog of the Wikipedia requirment that everything be cited. Interestingly, under one of the exemptions to the hearsay rule, "official government documents" are generally automatically admitted as evidence without being "proved up". Pproctor 13:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Advice with RFC

We are having a RFC debate at Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry over whether some sources are reliable or not... there are two issues:

• 1) One editor wishes to back a boad statement that "Particularly controversial is the Knight Kadosh or thirtieth degree, purported to have been written by Albert Pike and in use in the Southern Jurisdiction of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in the United States, where it is alleged that the Papal tiara is trampled or alternatively that a skull with a Papal tiara is stabbed during the initiation." He is not stating that this allegation is true, only that the claim has been made. I am not denying that the claim has been made. However, problems have arrisen over the citations he uses to back up the claim. The editory cites this page which is a sub-page linked to this page. The sight claims to have copied an article from the Remnant magazine (which the other editor tells me is a "mainstay of the American Catholic scene.") I have accepted that the Remnant is probably a reliable source, but that the web site that copies it is not (there is no indication that it is not a personal web page... The only indication of who runs the site is "mario.website@spamslicer.com" listed as the email contact.) I have suggested that the editor obtain a copy of the Remnant, and cite directly to that... he objects saying that his web based version is OK.
• 2) In backing a counter claim on the same issue, I have included the following statement... "However, it can be demonstrated that these anti-Catholic elements do not form part of the rituals of the Scottish Rite, but are instead taken from Jonathan Blanchard's Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated, an exposure of Cerneauism (an illegitimate pseudo-Masonic organization founded by Joseph Cerneau and chiefly active in the 1800s). (At which point I cite: Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated, by Jonathan Blanchard, p. 286, ISBN 1930097387.) The other editor has removed the citation and statement, saying that just citing the book is not enough... that to "prove" my statement, I must include a quotation from Blanchard. I disagree... the book is readily available on Amazon, and at libraries... as long as I have given enough information for someone to obtain a copy I think it meets WP:RS. I am willing to tinker with the wording of my underlying statement, but I think the citation is valid.

Please pop over to the page and comment. Blueboar 19:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I went to the cited page and here is what I found "In his article regarding Vatican II in the February 28th issue of The Remnant, Michael Matt refers to Michael Davies article in which he seems to suggest that "Masonic conspiracies" are part of "paranoid Traditional Catholic fantasies." With that in mind, allow me to offer a bit of history of prior Papal concern regarding Freemasonry and similar secret societies." This is the only time "Remnant" appears. The interior quotes however do not represent quotes from the cited article. This can be seen by the use on the cited page of "seems to suggest" which implies that the situation is not clear. That by itself is enough to cast doubt on the cited page as representing what *that* article actually states. Wjhonson 19:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Errors in an otherwise reliable source

OK... first, thank you to those of you who have popped over and commented on the above RFC. I have a question that tangentially relates, perhaps you can advise me....

Another citation used to back the "In the Kadosh degree they trample tiaras" statement (see above) is the 1918 Catholic Encyclopedia (CE). Now, this is normally a very reliable source (at least it is reliable for stating what the official Catholic view of things was in 1918). However, in this case there is a problem. Here is what the CE says:

• "The Kadosh (thirtieth degree), trampling on the papal tiara and the royal crown, is destined to wreak a just vengeance on these "high criminals" for the murder of Molay [128] and "as the apostle of truth and the rights of man" [129] to deliver mankind "from the bondage of Despotism and the thraldom of spiritual Tyranny"."

Now, I checked the CE, and it does indeed say all of this. So the underlying statement: that there is an allegation that Masons trample papal tiaras is verified... for it is clear that the Catholic Encyclopedia says so.

However, the numbers in the CE article being cited refer to foot notes in the CE... citing Albert Pike as the author of the material in quotation marks, listing volume and page (but not listing the book). This is where we run into trouble. The volume references do not match up to any known volumes of his work. And to make matters worse I have checked every book written by Albert Pike and can not find the words that the CE attibutes to him anywhere. I can only assume that the CE has incorrectly cited Pike. As far as I know, however, I am the first to spot this... at least I can not find any reputable source that points this error out.

So what am I to do?... I don't think I can challenge the citation on WP:RS grounds ... even if the CE has its facts wrong, it is clear that the CE does make the allegation that tiaras are trampled in the Kadosh Degree. Can I point out that the CE is wrong in attributing the words in quotes to Pike? Or would that be Original Research? And if I can, how? In short, how do you discuss an obvious error in a citation when there is an absence of reliable sources pointing out the error. Your advice is appreciated. Blueboar 23:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly you can look through the edit history, find when that citation was inserted and who inserted it. The editor who inserted it has the burden of proof. If that editor can not or will not stand up for his edits, then you should remove what you have, through careful investigation (and no communication from the other editor), found to be misleading and put the information which you know to be good information, into the article.

I disagree with Terryeo (unsigned, but directly above). We as editors should not be in a position to remove a quote from an otherwise reliable source, simply because it says something demonstrably vague. Also Blueboar, while you may state that you've checked every work of Pike, it's entirely possible there is an *edition* that has say 8 volumes instead of 3, that is rare and out-of-print. Rather, I would suggest you add a note saying that it has been attempted to verify, but cannot. You should reference back to the CE with their footnote. By the way, this way of doing it, is upheld by DNB, in similar situations, where the source is suspect, but no competing source states otherwise. Wjhonson 00:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, The editor who added it is still quite active in the article... and I can guarentee that he would object. His argument is that even if the CE is wrong in its citations ... it still makes the allegation. Thus, it is a valid citation for the statement that the allegation is made. Wjhonson, I can see how there could be an edition that is organized differently... but that does not help solve the fact that the CE does not tell us which book is being cited, or the fact that (as best as I can tell) the words cited do not appear in any of them. Oh I clicked on DNB... it is a disambiguation page that does not relate to any of this... a typo perhaps?

I have found out one other interesting piece of information ... subsequent editions of the CE do not include the allegation. Could I say that the 1918 edition is unreliable because it has been superceeded by subsequent editions? Blueboar 00:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary of National Biography and as to later editions of CE which do not include the allegation, yes you can remove the allegation based on CE removing theirs *provided that* they have an article on this subject whatsoever. If they've removed the entire article, then no. In my opinion. Wjhonson 01:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A slight modification, which may satisfy all parties. "Although the 1918 Catholic Encyclopaedia states.... this allegation was removed from the 1931 version and does not appear in the current version..." Personally I think that historical claims of this nature, that is, the history of the ideas, is interesting enough for the article. But it's your call. Wjhonson 01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I like your last idea. That would solve my immediate issues Thanks. As to the underlying issue of incorrect information in otherwise reliable sources... I will check out the DNB. Blueboar 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)