Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 59

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

→

Archive 65

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2018

41.190.3.64 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 16:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Source rating list?

Is there some list of sources which have been evaluated and known to be RS or not? I know about WP:DAILYMAIL, but that's just one extreme case. Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist tells you how to evaluate, but it would still be useful to record the results of previous research. Does such a list exist and I just haven't found it yet? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant page elsewhere.

For your reading pleasure or displeasure: Wikipedia:Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy.

Originated as a WP:Village pump (policy) post, now developed into an essay. Reception has been uniformly positive so far, though it's a bit of a mix of a list of issues and recommendations of what to do about them. I might split off the latter material to a userspace page at some point, especially if a key boldfaced item gets resolved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

You start with "This is a list of key points of frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy" but what you write is not the misinterpretation but rather how you think the interpretation should be. It took me a couple of minutes to figure that out, and even to figure out that the section headings are your positive statements and not a summary of misinterpretations. You could be clearer about that. About the content, I think you make too much of the primary/secondary classification, which I have always thought does more harm than good. On the other hand, I like the "disruptive editing" section very much. I also think AE should be less quick in dismissing complaints as being "merely content disputes" when they are actually about wilful misrepresentation of sources and similar sins. Zero^talk 03:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

When I'm glancing over this i'm sure whether it removes misinterpretations or creates some. In particular the formal classification or distinction between primary, secondary and tertiary sources is imho problematic and can be a bit misleading. A much higher emphasis should be given to reputation and quality of source rather than formal primary, secondary and tertiary distinction, in particular with regard to secondary and tertiary sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Caller suddenly a RS?

I read a rather surprising claim here:

• "... Daily Caller is part of the same fact-checking network relied on by Google and Facebook.[1]..."

While it's apparently possible for an unreliable and extremely partisan site like The Daily Caller to have a special site like http://checkyourfact.com/ for fact checking that somehow got approved by the Poynter Institute, I don't find any confirmation on the Poynter website that The Daily Caller itself is suddenly a reliable site. Can anyone else provide more information about this claim? Is this just a conflation of two sites and attempt to give TDC more credit than is due? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

We are neither google nor facebook, what they use for fact checking or reliable sources is there business not ours. By our standards the daily caller is not an RS and suspect some other publications that facebook and google might use are neither. In fact afaik google is using WP for fact checking and to identify/combat fake news. However from our perspective WP is anything but a RS.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Colleague BullRangifer. First off, yours is an example how fake news are spread. You cite the statement from a dubious wikipedian, who (a) cites the PR babble of TDM and (b) actually misstates what it said. Good thing that we stop it right here in wikipedia:-) Your guess about conflation is correct and verifiable from sources. No. TDS did not state it is "part of network" It did state that checkyourfact is "part of network". Second, for a source to be RS fact checking is not enough. While the basic fact may be true, the truth may be spun in surprisingly numerous ways. Finally, I second the opinion that we in Wikipedia decide ourselves who is RS and who is not, so TDC cannot suddenly become a RS for us. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Bingo. Very well put, and exactly as I have always understood things to be. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

We must also keep in mind WP:USEBYOTHERS. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Google Ngram Viewer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is there any way Google Ngram Viewer can, could, or should be used as a reliable source? Or is it considered complete WP:OR? Wolfdog (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Definition of a source

Section "Definition of a source", does not provide an accurate definition of what a source is. Is a promoting site such as visitgreece.com or parisinfo.com a source? If so, what kind of source is it? Primary, secondary or tertiary? What about the site of a village, providing non sourced historical info that includes trivialities.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Reading between your lines, I think that you may be starting in the middle of this issue. Only material from a reliable source can be included in English Wikipedia. "Reliable source" is a defined term which only has a slight relationship to what that term might mean in plain English. The actual definition of the term is not found in this guideline, but in the Verifiability policy beginning here and continuing through the following "Sources that are usually not reliable" section. At root, however, the definition of a reliable source is "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and which are not, in most cases, self-published sources. Those terms are all discussed in some detail in the Verifiability policy and then are further explained in this guideline. If, after reading those you have questions about particular sources, you should ask them at the reliable sources noticeboard, as questions about particular sources are not appropriate on this talk page (which is for discussing improvements to this guideline). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

TransporterMan, thanks for bothering to answer my question. It seems I was not understood correctly. I totally agree with verifiability policy and WP:Sources. My question is on a slightly different topic. What is the definition of a source? Why don't we have one? Problem with not having a definition is that one might claim that anything that we read/hear is a source. Is that the case? Is everything a source? Is a post in a random forum a source, albeit an unreliable source or it is not a source at all. Cheers Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

All those things are, indeed, sources, just not reliable sources (and thus not usable here). Websites such as you mentioned in your original post are sources, but may or may not be reliable sources, depending on reliability. Be aware that in discussions here editors often just say "source" - "that's not an acceptable source" - with the understanding that they mean an acceptable reliable source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Section "Definition of a source", does not provide an accurate definition Huh????

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

The piece of work itself (the article, book)

The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)

The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Please explain what is inaccurate here? So, parisinfo.com is a publisher hence a source Staszek Lem (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

"Source" is also used by some editors to refer to the host of the work (website), whether or not it had anything to do with the original creation/editing/publishing. In context people will often distinguish then between the "source" and the "original source", which can just get darn confusing if there is a simultaneous debate over the original source of a piece of information found in a particular source. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please let us not increase confusion with source types. A webhost is either a media or a publisher. In it, a webpage or hyperlinked collection of webpages is a piece of work. And of course, someone wrote this piece of work. The "original source" is ..er.. original source, which is not easy to track in case of gossip, copycat reposting or plagiarism. Of course, it is often important to have "original source", e.g., if there is a doubt in transmission via secondary sources, the "chain of evidence", so to say. In particular, one of criteria for reliability of secondary sources is whether they provide the sources of information processed in them. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

If anything worth splitting hairs is to distinguish "formal publisher" vs. "creative publisher" or something, the former being essentially a dumb instument for self-publishing, while the latter selects authors, arranges reviews, works works with authors to improve the published material, etc. This distinction is important for Wikipedia because the former ones do not count as reliable sources, or, rather, the reliability measure is shifted to the author. The latter ones are towards the reliability spectrum, depending on editorial policy and bias. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The most basic meaning of "source" is "where you got it". The fundamental principle in WP is that editors are not authorities -- you cannot write something just because it is in your head for whatever reason (doing so is WP:OR). You need to fetch the information from somewhere else. The use arises from the question: "What is the source of that content you just added?"

The minimum definition of a source that the community would even start to consider the reliability of, is a "work". We use that term, like it is used in copyright law (see here for example) - something "fixed in a tangible medium of expression.” So, a book, an article, a movie or video, a recording of a dance performance or the written choreography of a dance (but not a dance performance itself! -- this is not "fixed").

A conversation you have with somebody, is not a "work". So no way is it a reliable source. A transcript or recording of a conversation, is a work. It is fixed.

V and RS elaborate what kind of "works" are reliable sources. (it needs to be published somewhere, by somebody with a good reputation, etc)

But basically a source is "where you got it". Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is a "work" that can be cited in wikipedia. And now it occurs to me that a bit of rewriting is due here, starting from this point:

• A source is a piece of published work.
• The reliability of the source is based on the following:
  • Work's own merits, as judged by peer review (how it is cited, how it is reviewed)
  • Author's merits: author's reputation of producing solid, reliable works
  • Publisher's merits: publisher's reputation of producing solid, reliable works by means of author selection and thorough reviewing process

Staszek Lem (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

While far from perfect, this gets close (without overcomplicating the issues, I might add).--Bddmagic (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hah are you sure without complications? The "assesible" part is deeply philosophiocal one, known as the problem of the sound of a tree falling in a forest without anyone to hear it. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

That "works" for me, Staszek Lem! Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Linking something with related meanings, does not define it. [[User:Staszek Lem|Staszek Lem] asked me to point at the inaccuracy. It 's not just a point, but I 'll give it a try. Our working definition is apparently an Extensional. Our definition says ~ has 3 related meanings, where it should state that "~ could have one or more of the following meanings". It is obvious that is not mandatory for Source to have all three meanings simultaneously. Secondly, and most importantly, I would expect in a definition, not to state the meaning(s) of something, but to state what that something is. The problem that arises by the borderless definition we are now using, is best presented by the notion that source means "where you got it". That includes everything. The inclusion of everything diminishes the claim that we are actually having a definition of a source. Sorry for my bad English and thank you for answering.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everybody who is contributing to this Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Τζερόνυμο what matters in Wikipedia is whether a given reference is a "reliable source" for a given bit of content, and there are reasonably well defined definitions for that. You didn't ask about "reliable source", you asked about just plain "source", so of course the answer is vague. If you have questions about whether a specific reference is a reliable source for a specific bit of content, please bring both of them to WP:RSN.Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog Well seems that we are getting somewhere, we both agree that the definition of a source is vague. I think that causes problems to the definition of "reliable source" but anywayz...Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Highly biased list of supposedly unreliable sources included on this page (as a citation)

Within the section of this policy page titled "Questionable sources," there is a link (citation number 9) to this highly partisan smear piece which claims to somehow be an authoritative source on non-reliable sources: http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/fake-facebook-news-sites-to-avoid.html That article links to a Web page that smears reliable American conservative Jewish news sites such as American Thinker, Breitbart, and David Horowitz, yet fails to mention a single left-wing or Islamic fake news site. Mysteriously absent from the list are any unreliable far-left extremist sites like Buzzfeed, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times (went from being center-left to far-left within the past decade), Salon, all Vox Media publications (including the The Verge and Polygon), Mic, Now This, Democracy Now!, Truthout, Truthdig, The Nation, or The Intercept. There is also no mention of any Islamist anti-Semitic hate sites posing as news sites such as Electronic Intifada, Mondoweiss, and Al Jazeera. The far-left polemical site AlterNet does make the list, but it erroneously claims the notoriously anti-Semitic activist site is "reliable." Counterpunch, another far-left anti-Semitic hate site that espouses Marxist and communist views, is merely called "political," while the Daily Caller is smeared as being political, clickbait, and having an extremist bias. The author even says in the bottom of her list that she regularly reads Truth-Out to get her news. Truth-Out is a far-left blog with a strongly anti-Semitic and anti-American bias that promotes 9/11 conspiracy theories. Surely a biased and spun list compiled by some random Marxist professor of communications whom a notoriously left-wing lifestyle magazine happened to mention should not be included in this highly important policy page for Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that supposedly advocates for a neutral point of view. You wouldn't trust a list compiled by a neo-Nazi, would you? Well, Marxism is just as racist and just as evil.--Riferzippy (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

While I don't have an issue with labeling American Thinker, Breitbart, and David Horowitz as unreliable, I do have an issue with the source. The section cites a New York Magazine article which links to a list maintained by Melissa Zimdars (notice the redlink), an Assistant Professor at Merrimack College. I think this is a poor example of using wp:rs, especially given this is an article specifically about finding and using reliable sources. Work permit (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Somebody believes that their edit is so important that they are trying to force it into this guideline, regardless of WP:PGCHANGE. Maybe they will try to get consensus for it here. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring over wording in a guideline is not good, but using WP:ROLLBACK in a content dispute is grounds for having that user right revoked.- MrX 🖋 01:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe it's earth-shatteringly important. I do believe that it's inappropriate to revert a change without giving a clear reason why. You've made three reverts, and not one of them has met that quite basic standard. For the record, there's nothing in WP:PGCHANGE requiring me to accept a vaguely-explained reversion of an edit I made, especially when that edit was just acknowledging the existence of a previous consensus, not asserting some new piece of guideline. So go on, explain your objection. Explain what you found so noxious about my edit that it still hasn't merited an explanation of why it was wrong. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

A reason was given. I'm not sure I understand it, but it was a reason. Jytdog was unwise to use rollback but the greater sin was PinkAmpersand trying to force an edit into a guideline by edit warring. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes i should not have used rollback the last time. My bad on that. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I have self-reverted the rollback and reverted with yet more reason. DMRFC is already discussed here with appropriate WEIGHT; we don't need a separate paragraph "reporting" on it with the date of the RfC etc. Others may disagree but this needs to gain consensus. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually what needs to get consensus is the original edit that said "prohibited source" instead of what the RfC closers said, by Lourdes, here. Lourdes: was it discussed? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: the sentence opens with "Beware of sources that sound reliable..." -- Daily Mail does not "sound reliable" to begind with, so a ref to the RfC is a bit out of place in that particular location. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to end conflicting date formats within the same citation

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#End "date-forking" into different styles for publication and access/archive in same cite
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Casual musing

Are we at a point where reference table for the most commonly used sources, both good and bad, would be easier than all the protracted discussions e.g.

Source	Current status	Politics	Link to discussion	Date of discussion	How to use	Disagree
A Voice for Men	Blacklisted	Right-wing	Name of discussion (wikilink)	Date	1 (wikilink)	What if I disagree? (wikilink)
Breitbart	Unreliable	Right-wing	Name of discussion (wikilink)	Date	2 (wikilink)	What if I disagree? (wikilink)
Daily Express		Right-wing	Name of discussion (wikilink)	Date	3 (wikilink)	What if I disagree? (wikilink)
Daily Mail	Unreliable	Right-wing	Name of discussion (wikilink)	Date	2 (wikilink)	What if I disagree? (wikilink)
The New York Times	Reliable	Nonpartisan	Name of discussion (wikilink)	Date	4 (wikilink)	What if I disagree? (wikilink)

What if I disagree?

The list is based on previous closed(?) discussions. You may start a new discussion about a source but unless you have some new information regarding the source and the discussion was within the last x year(s) it is likely to be closed and the existing status will stand.

1

Unfortunately this source is currently blacklisted and therefore can not be used.

2 etc.

END –––––––––––––

Something like that. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of the page. ... ... Done? Now my opinion (just musing): Wikipedia endorsing political stickers in the context of WP:RS is BAD. It worries me you collected a bunch of "right wing" cases for examples. Wikipedia is already being accused of leftist bias. Do you like this sticker on us or are you proud of it? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

May I ask you to re-read what you have written and strike out an uncivil comment(s) that you find, or re-word it calmly and neutrally? Thanks in advance. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree that listing the political leanings of sources is not appropriate. Besides the inevitable edit wars that will invite, sources are not unreliable because of their political leanings. They're unreliable because they don't have  a long standing reputation for responsible editorial oversight and fact checking.

Having said that, compiling a list of RfC and robust RSN discussions could be helpful, especially for newer editors. GMG^talk 18:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Compiling a list would require a lot of maintenance. I think the seacrh function work well[2].

Really? I think the search function is crap. It pulls every time a phrase is used ever, even if the core discussion is about something entirely different, and...honestly what it is even sorting the results by? It's not uncommon in my experience to have to sort through a half dozen or more threads of non-starters and 10-year-old discussions to find something that's recent, well discussed, and relevant. GMG^talk 19:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree it could be better. I suspect a hand crafted list may turn out worse. Work permit (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I could see something like this being helpful:

The American Conservative, RSN Depth Passing mentions RSN links [3], [4], [5], RfC None, Blacklisted No

Since...it took me ten or fifteen minutes to put that right there together. You wouldn't necessarily need to actively maintain it, just add entries when you happen to be searching for them at RSN. That way someone else doesn't have to next time. And people at RSN can add entries whenever a particularly fruitful discussion pops up. GMG^talk 19:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

That is very good. Easy to maintain. I would support that. Where would we put it? How different would "passing mentions" list be then a raw search on the term? Work permit (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I don't think this is useful for several reasons:

• As we are all aware, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. A source must be deemed reliable for the context in which it is used. As a newspaper the New York Times is generally considered reliable for statements of fact. The New York Times is not a reliable source when using their analysis. The New York Times is a primary source. Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. A table as you've outlined could clearly confuse editors on this point.

• Did I mention context matters. For example, an expert scholar on Chaucer who wrote an obscure PhD thesis about literature, is a *better* source than the New York Times, on that subject. An expert scientist with an obscure PhD in astrophysics is a *better* source about black holes than the New York Times.[6]

• You somehow believe Brietbart is as reliable as the Daily Mail. I would argue it is not. You believe the Daily Express is somewhat reliable. So what do we conclude when they publish an article like this[7]. I see edit wars over this subjective categorization.

• For some reason, you have decided to include a "politics" line. I think that just opens another can of worms. I would easily argue, and can find wp:rs that would label The New York Times as left-center biased[8]. An example of an "unbiased" newspaper would be the Financial Times[9]. Is see countless edit wars over this field.

Work permit (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• I called the thread "casual musing" for a reason. The general idea was that of having some kind of list. I hadn't intended people get bogged down in the detail I was just chucking things on it as an example.

• There may be degrees of reliability (1 to 10 for example, I left the Daily Express blank because I wasn't sure how to scale it).
• I only included a politics column because there are many instances, at least in British journalism, where newspaper ownership / politics informs the way a particular story is reported ("Theresa May whinged" versus "Theresa May said" reliable but slanted). Also various text qualifications: How to use this list - its only meant to be a rough guide based on past discussions. can be included. The Guardian has "comment is free", "opinion" sections and The Independent has a "voices" section I think - which is similar to NYT's analysis.
• Such a list shouldn't affect PhD thesis. WP:Commonsense on sources should still be used.

• I was considering it in terms of time spent by editors repetitively. If you think of a individual discussion regarding source x as reliable, then another article, source x again, then a third same again – would that time not be better spent on something like this where it could be said the general view is... I was under no illusion that it was a case of "and with one bound WikiPedia was free", I was just trying to address the issue of Discussion A where an editor says "I don't think x is a reliable source", followed by Discussion B elsewhere on WikiPedia where an editor says - as a matter of undisputed fact - "as per Discussion A, x is not a reliable source".
• As for the issue of edit wars, if the actual list was maintained by administrators with suggestions for alterations taken somewhere else (Village Pump?) then I see it as reducing edit wars, as there would be less Discussion A leading to Discussion B, spurious declarations of "that source is reliable / unreliable". In fact editors could be advised to refer to the list as opposed to discussions they have cherry-picked. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• I do appreciate your making a suggestion. I appreciate it enough that I took the time to make comments are on your specific implementation. Make another one, I will comment more.
• More degrees of reliability, more areas of ambiguity, more edit wars.
• Newspaper ownership / politics informs the way a particular story is reported throughout the world. I have cited a source indicating the New York Times is Center-Left. It is not, in your words non-partisan. Do you agree? If not, can you see an edit war brewing over this categorization?
• I may not have been clear when I used PhD thesis as an example. My point is that the New York Times is not a reliable source when discussing many issues, such as science.
• I think you missed my point on analysis. I was not speaking about op-ed/opinion/comment sections. I was speaking about analysis. The New York Times can be considered reliable on reporting facts, for example Donald Trump was elected president. It would not be reliable when analyzing the socio-economic reasons on why he was elected.
• More time will be spent arguing in generalities over a central repository then in specifics in articles IMHO.
• Edit wars come from an inability to reach consensus amongst editors. In this regard, administrators are editors like anyone else.

Work permit (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The NY Times reporters are very good at technical jobs. Their science reporters, their election reports understand the field very well and have built a network of experts they phone for help on technical issues. Their jobs depend on credibility and accuracy. Yes I think they are reliable sources on most of the topics covered in the daily paper. Rjensen (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Work permit,

• When I talked about degrees of reliability it was really in answer to your comment: You somehow believe Brietbart is as reliable as the Daily Mail. I would argue it is not. I would argue that it is not either, but then I would argue that the Daily Express is no better than the Daily Mail and I'm not aware what the current consensus on the Express is.
• As a Brit I probably don't know enough about The New York Times but their front page Clinton Impeached" doesn't strike me as being pro-Centre-Left. Also, I take your point that a PhD thesis will be more detailed and more knowledgeable on a particular science topic but is the NYT really seen as unreliable when it comes to science? I presume when they are hiring their science correspondents they check they have a knowledge of science.
• About a month ago in a discussion about including a piece from the London Evening Standard I was told There is an ongoing discussion on the reliability of the Evening Standard on WP:RSN, where it has been compared with the Daily Mail. link The discussion about the Standard came to nothing but the link to it was presented as "so there". That's going on all over article discussions. It's disruptive even when it's done in good faith. I'm not expecting that there wouldn't be disagreement but I think it would lead overall to a reduction in edit wars.
• I'm not sure about this point, I've not been involved in WP:RSN enough, perhaps someone can advise, but what about initial entries being (a) the result of RfCs only and new additions have to go through RfC before they can be added or (b) the result of a discussion involving 10 or more editors within 3 years of being added to list (so for a source added Aug 2018, the consensus would have to have been since Aug 2015).

I'm happy with GreenMeansGo's format and K.e.coffman's suggestion of changing “current status” to “current consensus”. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it’s a good idea – provided someone is willing to put together such a list. It could include obscure and perennial discussion topics, such as SPLC and Washington Times, etc, rather than NYT (Is there someone really questioning its reliabillity?). I would make a couple of changes: A. Drop the political leanings column; that should be obvious from the linked articles. B. change “current status” to “current consensus” as consensus can change, and nothing is set in stone. C. change “Unreliable” to “Questionable” as that’s where the link is pointing to.

I also like GreenMeansGo's format. It's short, to-the-point, and non-judgemental. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I agree GreenMeansGo's format is very good, because it is a compilation of existing discussions. There is nothing to edit war over, since it is not new content. The table presented above is new content. As presented, I don't see how it will gain consensus.Work permit (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I like this idea, but I do not think we should include political affiliation at all, and I don't think we include a disagree column (it can be summarized above or below the table). I'm going to boldly create a page that incorporates these ideas, and some others that I've gleaned from other similar pages like WP:EL/P and from numerous discussions. I will re-post a link here when I have something fleshed out.- MrX 🖋 12:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I have started a page here: WP:RS/P

• I'm tracking the discussion and I like the spitballing. I'm AFK for a couple days, but I'll follow up more tomorrow night or Monday morning. GMG^talk 13:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Wow MrX that's impressive, perhaps the "what if I disagree" can just be a note, so after "no consensus" I was just thinking of some way that editors who don't agree with the current consensus and said "What!" were made aware that it's not set in stone. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you The Vintage Feminist. Yes, a note as you describe could be very helpful. I hope others will join in to improve this list so that it becomes a useful resource. - MrX 🖋 14:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

A reference to MrX's page has been added to WP:IRS. I tried to remove it, but MrX reverted me saying "Actually, there was a discussion on the talk page and a list such as this was favored by everyone." I believe MrX meant this "Casual missing" discussion, and I believe that MrX thinks that's enough to get WP:IRS to refer to MrX's list. Is there really consensus? Incidentally MrX has also decided that WP:DAILYMAIL henceforth should refer to MrX's page, instead of to the RfC, and I'm wondering whether that too has consensus on this talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Does it improve the encyclopedia? I think so, because it make the information findable. What are your actually objections? - MrX 🖋 18:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Well I for one did not and do not agree with MrX's page, which can be seen here: WP:RS/P. I did agree with GreenMeansGo's format for some sort of summary, which looks roughly like this:

The American Conservative, RSN Depth Passing mentions RSN links [10], [11], [12], RfC None, Blacklisted No

Work permit (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't have a source blacklist. "RSN Depth" is ambiguous. The rest of the information is included.- MrX 🖋 18:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

My issue is that more is included. I'll start with your "Notes" section. I take it this is your summary of the discussions? If it is, everyone of those notes are up for debate, and a wp:consensus will have to be developed for everyone one of them. I'm also curious where you pulled your data on labeling various sites as "questionable source". Was those your conclusions? Just to reiterate the point I've made before, while I support a list which links to previously discussions, I do not support a list in which conclusions are synthesized from previous discussions.Work permit (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If you think any of the summaries are not representative of the actual discussions, you could raise your concerns on the talk page. Editors close discussions all the time, giving their conclusions about each discussion and assessing consensus. As a matter of fact, I've closed quite a few RfCs. The comments I added are synthesized from the linked discussions, as one would expect. If something is hotly contested, it can go to RfC where it can be formally resolved (or not) Let's keep in mind that wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.- MrX 🖋 19:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I've made a few edits, the most innocuous I could think of. I do have an open mind, but I am still not convinced, especially with summarizing discussions that have not gone to RfC. The sample you have provided is easy, I expect a flame suit on some of the trickier ones. Work permit (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should Hope not Hate publications be considered reliable sources?

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Should Hope not Hate publications be considered reliable sources? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

https://www.nhl.com/capitals/

2601:155:8400:216B:F9B9:7129:F304:A00 (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@2601:155:8400:216B:F9B9:7129:F304:A00: If it's a source you would like to have assessed, please see WP:RSN and its searchable archives. If making a request there, please provide more context like where you would like to use it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Petition and fundraiser sites

I would like to propose a new section to clarify the problematic handling of petition and fundraiser sites as "sources" on Wikipedia. A recent discussion at WT:WPSPAM#Fundraiser websites has shown a significant amount of unsuitable usages and outright promotional activities for fundraisers. Several petition sites are already blacklisted for similar issues. And valid irreplaceable usages appear to be an exceedingly tiny minority.

A new subsection in "Questionable and self-published sources" should generally prohibit such usages, with some guidance about the reasons and possible exceptions. A raw first version:

Petition and fundraiser sites

Details about petitions, fundraisers and similar activities to raise public awareness should be based on independent secondary sources to provide unbiased information and to establish their encyclopedic significance. Petitions, fundraisers and similar sites do not meet the requirements for an independent reliable source, and are implicitly promoting these activities and their causes. References to petitions, fundraisers and similar activities for publicity are generally prohibited, unless the activity itself is a notable topic and the source could be considered self-published. Exceptions, that cannot be replaced by a proper independent source, should be proposed with a strong encyclopedic rationale on the article's talkpage or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard before inclusion.

As this is a new aspect, I'd appreciate any feedback or suggestions for possible improvements beforehand. GermanJoe (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably should mention that for all purposes the petition/fundraising sites are considered primary sources, which still implies all that follows, but it helps. --Masem (t) 17:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a perennial subject. Here is a not-so-recent discussion:[13] My thinking is that there could be exceptions where including a citation to the campaign as a supplementary source could be useful, for example to update the amount of money raised. I think such citations should only be used in conjunction with other reliable secondary sources. I think "generally prohibited" is a little too strongly worded. Also, it is not accurate to refer to a fundraising campaign website as self-published. Only the project description and comments can be considered self-published. The campaign tally is published by the website owner, and barring evidence to the contrary, can be considered to be a verifiable fact.- MrX 🖋 17:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Exceptions are possible of course if a strong encyclopedic argument for inclusion can be presented (per the last point in the proposal). Maybe that point isn't clear enough - any suggestions to tweak the phrasing are welcome. Regarding "self-published": technically your distinction is correct, but without independent coverage these numbers are not noteworthy anyway. And if such independent coverage about the results exists, a supplemental source would become redundant. GermanJoe (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• The problem with the use of these petitions and fundraisers as primary sources (as with facebook, twitter etc.) is that WP:RS's suggestions for the allowed use of primary sources becomes an excuse: 'look, it is true, they said so themselves'. It however lacks the consideration 'and who cares?': 'blahdiblah got 5000 euro in a crowdfunding campaign (ref to fundraiser)', 'otherblah got 1323 votes in a petition (ref to the petition)', 'Britney Spears had cake with her father (ref to a tweet from Britney) ... all three completely true, all three sufficiently referenced, except for the fact that maybe no-one cares about it. The moment it is then 'current' (open petition/fundraiser) it becomes plain soapboxing (especially if the sentence becomes 'blahdiblah currently has only 5 out of the necessary 5000 dollar collected,(ref to fundraiser), please [(link to fundraiser) donate here]'; see e.g. a recent edit that hit the blacklist: '16:28, 28 July 2018 82.71.25.145 (talk | block) caused a spam blacklist hit on The New Mutants (film) by attempting to add www.change.org/p/the-new-mutants-needs-a-new-release-date.' - the petition is still open).

The 'truth' is fine, but the 'who cares' is important here as well, and if someone cares (that is, there is a secondary source) then the primary source becomes way less necessary (and for both the open petitions and fundraisers, avoiding their use cuts down on spam/soapboxing significantly).

For the blacklisted petition sites the current approach of blacklisting seems to be having low impact on editing. It should be noted that there are sometimes requests for petitions to be whitelisted because the primary source is needed, and that those do get whitelisted if there is material there that cannot be secondary sourced. I am of the opinion that also the fundraisers should be blacklisted like we do for petition sites, using whitelisting where links are absolutely needed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. We should be using secondary sources especially for content about fund-raising and petition drives. The direct links are generally spam, intended to draw money or signatures. This is rather obvious, especially when they are placed high in the article so they are the first or second "reference". Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Petitions, fundraisers and similar sites <..snip..> and are implicitly promoting these activities -- implicitly?? Aren't they doing this explicitly? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

"Implicitly" is probably the wrong term here or atleast it isn't particularly useful - thanks for pointing this out (I wasn't sure about it to be honest). We can just skip it in the final version, if the description is seen as misleading. Such minor tweaks are hopefully uncontroversial. GermanJoe (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

perhaps are intended to promote the activity DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• In general, I think a cautionis necessary, but it is sometimes appropriate--we use a primary source to say wht an organization say that it's purpose is. Theorganizations true purpose may be somethign very different, but it's something we cannot know except as secondary sources discuss them. I'd normally word such statements, as "according to the organization, ... , and this could be used here also, as according to the petition , .... .The same applies to legislative billsand the like, especially to their prefixes. The purpose ofa bill is a matter of interpretation and comment, what itsaysin its preface is what it chooses to say, so the wording would be, The bill says in its preface that .... DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• I know this is not a formal RfC (frankly I dislike bureaucratic RfCs instead of collegial discussions, even though RfCs are sometimes necessary of course), but I'll try to include a slightly tweaked section in a week or so, unless anyone has a strong opinion against such a clarification for these types of sites. This thread has also been announced at WP:VPP beforehand. GermanJoe (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Russian or German sources on English Wikipedia

Hello. I want to make English page but all sources are in Russian or German. Can still manke make with Russian and German sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaf Sergi Vlademere (talk • contribs) 13:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Olaf Sergi Vlademere. You can read more about it here: WP:NONENG. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on reliability of InfoWars

There is a request for comment on the reliability of InfoWars:

1. Is InfoWars a generally unreliable source?
2. Should the use of InfoWars as a reference be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist?
3. Should InfoWars be used for determining notability?
4. Should InfoWars be used as a secondary source in articles?
5. Should an edit filter be put in place going forward to warn editors attempting to use InfoWars as a reference?

If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC on reliability of InfoWars. — Newslinger talk 07:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should this guideline contain a link to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Strong consensus for Y inclusion.∯WBG^converse 16:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Should this guideline contain a link to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources?- MrX 🖋 18:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

---

• Yes - The list of perennially discussed sources is a useful supplement to the Identifying reliable sources guideline. He helps organize and index discussions that have taken place on the 246 pages at WP:RS/N.- MrX 🖋 18:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - both directly (for the ones listed) and indirectly (for similar sites) a useful guideline/addendum. Note, I'd also add a link to WP:ELPEREN in the see also, and maybe these two should be brought into relation to each other. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• No - The list which MrX created two days ago contains opinions of MrX as to what previous WP:RSN discussions have concluded regardless of context, despite the fact that (like most such discussions) they didn't get formal conclusion or were specific to particular cases because context matters. This No applies to the other misuses of WP links -- there's now one from WP:V and MrX has even pointed WP:DAILYMAIL to MrX's page, despite objection. I hope other editors will examine and comment on those links as well. By the way, the earlier discussion of this matter, including MrX's false claim of agreement by everyone, is above in section "Casual musings", so I hope the participants there are following this new thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - This list will be very useful. I don't think it is fair to call it opinion-based, when every entry on there has links to associated discussions. The list is merely a summary of what the community has deemed reliable/maybe reliable/unreliable. Above all else, some sources like the Daily Mail (maybe that's the only one?) are actually prohibited (generally). This is a rule and/or guideline, whatever you want to call it, so it must be documented somewhere. Where better than in a list of other sources that the community has taken positions on? — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Not Yet - A list would be very useful, and I think it should eventually be linked when it is ready. I don't feel it is ready yet. If this were an article, I would label it WP:STARTCLASS. I believe a link to a guideline should be at a higher standard. I think there is much to work out, such as the specifics on how discussions that have not gone through wp:RFC should be categorized and summarized in the table. Linking now may just cause confusion. Work permit (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• The problem with a list like this is that it gives the appearance that reliability is a black and white issue. It does not take context into account... there is no such thing as a 100% reliable or a 100% unreliable source. You ALWAYS have to ask: is it reliable in context. To give an example: While the Daily Mail is only reliable in a very narrow set of circumstances, it is reliable IN those circumstances. And there will always be borderline circumstances. So NO... the list is not helpful. Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  Nothing on the list is categorized as 100% reliable or unreliable. Yes, context matters which is why it says that at the top of the list. The list is intended as a non-binding guide and an index to previous discussions. I'm sorry that you don't find it helpful.- MrX 🖋 21:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  Is there a better way to present it that would make it more clear about context? Indeed this is clearly written at the top. Maybe it should be in bold? The notes meanwhile nicely summarize the consensus (or lack of) gathered from the discussions. This concise, easy-to-read list seems a lot better than having to comb through all those discussions manually to get the same information. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes and I would suggest adding an "ownership" column too, just in case someone needs to check on potential dependency issues. (We have WP:VG/S for video game sources that we've used for years for this same purpose; this just makes it more clear for all topics, broadly) --Masem (t) 21:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Also to Bluebore's comment, I think the fact that it links to all previous known discussions about a source it helpful to show that things are black and white. But it helps to avoid questions like why we can't use Forbes contributors or the like without caution. --Masem (t) 21:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - quite useful; a good start. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - If some entries are questioned then we could revise the inclusion criteria and/or those entries. If the status field can be improved, that could also be worked on. This seems like a good alternative to searching the RSN archives for sources which have been discussed over and over. —PaleoNeonate – 01:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - If this happens, the page will inevitably expand and become the "official" record of which sources are reliable or not. People will refer to it in RS arguments. It will then attract a lot of contention as editors seek to move sources between the three categories. FenceSitter (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - I found the page very useful, gives good real-life examples of what's reliable and what's not in 95% of the cases (there will always be exceptions). I see it as a net improvement. As with everything, it is work in progress and if there are any specific grievances, they can be worked out. Suggestion: add more genealogy websites. Renata (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - Changed my vote from above. I believe this list is now ready for more general distribution. Certainly it will benefit from more changes which will come with more editors having their eyes on it. Work permit (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - The phrases "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable" provide strong guidance, but still give editors leeway to argue against the classification of a source in the context of a particular article. — Newslinger talk 14:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - When should we close this discussion? It seems we have a broad consensus to add this page as a link? Work permit (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• No [will change to Yes if change is made to title per Work permit, below] - The list seems quite incomplete in that 1) it lists only a very few ‘popular press’ (using the term in the NY Times ‘Notes’ entry) and 2) there is no indication of corporate ownership. Also, as that page has a template that says “This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.”, is this link promoting that page unduly — at least until such fixes are addressed? Humanengr (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This is meant to be a list of sources that are frequent topics of discussion. I agree we will need to have some guideline on what is a "perennial source". Per the talk page, "The guideline that I used was at least two discussions at WP:RSN, or at least one WP:RSN discussion and multiple talk page discussions about the source. I believe that all of the sources currently on the list meet those criteria, and probably several more that have not yet made it to the list." Work permit (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

imo, the name ‘Perennial sources’ provides a bit too much imprimatur. By your description, perhaps something like ‘Frequently discussed sources’? I agree a list is useful because as others (including GreenMeansGo below) have said, searching is a hassle. But I’d like to be careful in how it is couched/presented as I don’t believe there are other such ‘not thoroughly vetted’ lists linked to from this policy page. Humanengr (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Meh, would a rose by any other name be any less useful for building an encyclopedia? The nature and content of the list may change significantly over time, but the fact of the matter is that having some list is useful, especially for new users. So we should work to form some list and try to mold that to be as useful as possible. GMG^talk 22:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Many are not roses — they are recommended against — Ancestry, Breitbart, … . Per WorkPermit’s worthy efforts and description, it’s a search result summary — of both ‘roses’ and ‘not roses’. Neither are ‘perennials’. They have just been ‘Previously discussed’ Humanengr (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps “recurringly” discussed? Work permit (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Glad we're on same page. Your call. With that fix, I've changed my vote. Humanengr (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

See further discussion carried over by Work permit re title of page here. Humanengr (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - In case that wasn't clear already. Problems with the content of the list can be fixed like everything else here is. Fact of the matter is, the search function for RSN is pretty crap, and there's no reason to expect new users to be willing to figure it out, because half of experienced users can't be bothered to half the time. Any disputes over the content of the list will be beneficial in the end, since they'll likely lead to their own discussions and RfCs that can then be linked to from the list. Add all the daylight and then just record the results. GMG^talk 21:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Emir of Wikipedia (talk) has included this link in WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. I fully support his edit[14], which happens to be a reversion of mine. Work permit (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

My edit was just based on what the consensus appears to be here right now. Feel free to revert in the unlikely case that this changes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Copying over my suggestion from the discussion I referred to above: ‘Perennially discussed sources’ markedly clarifies the intent of the page. See, in particular this comment from Sunrise and my response. Humanengr (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes This is a useful list, though future additions and the wording of future additions should be made through consensus on the list's Talk page referencing a discussion in the RS noticeboard (or some other relevant place) and not unilateral editor action. Chetsford (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• No - it's too young about at just a month old, and also notes of 'what MrX thinks' might be helpful for him but is not policy, consensus, nor fully complete. Ultimately a source is only judged RS in some context and is subject to RSN. This list could only get in the way of that. Really now, this is looking a bit of a censorship board or enemies list. There is no consistent and predefined criteria, no explained method, no consensus, do not convey the entries, and are not complete consensus. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure. — Newslinger talk 23:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:Genetics_references Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

National bias in WP RS re ‘intervention’

Are there any WP RS news media that refer — in reporter’s voice — to their own country’s intervention in other country’s electoral (or other) affairs as ‘interference’? Humanengr (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

By way of example, U.S. news media considered as RS in WP rarely (if ever) refer to U.S. intervention in other countries as ‘interference’. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Good question! Writing from memory, several members of the Indian press were critical of the Indian takeover of Sikkim. (India had been "interfering" in Sikkim for a long time, apparently legally, but the last election before the take-over was controversial.) Similar sitation applies to allegations of interference in Nepal, esepcially when there are allegations of a blockade. I am sorry that I don't have any references handy, but I can dig them up if it is important. (Mind you that non-interference in other country's affairs is a core principle of India's foreign policy from the days of Jawaharlal Nehru.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. That would seem to run directly opposite to what my searches show for U.S. news media regarded as RS on WP. Any such refs would serve as useful counter-examples, so if you happen across them, great. And thanks for the cite to Nehru’s foreign policy; I see here that he “described the five pillars to be used as a guide for Sino-Indian relations, which were first put forth by Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai Called Panchsheel (five restraints), these principles would later serve as the basis of the Non-Aligned Movement. Jawaharlal Nehru was the architect of the Non-Alignment Movement.” Principle #3: “Mutual non-interference in domestic affairs” invokes ‘non-interference’ explicitly.

But my primary interest is to see if any here can identify similar use of the term ‘interference’ by a U.S. (or, if not that, any Western or allied nation) RS reporter to characterize U.S. intervention abroad? Anyone? tia, Humanengr (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. See also Non-Aligned Movement, of which Nehru was a champion. The Parchsheel agreement did not do much good for India because China still blamed India for CIA's interference in Tibet. This (mis)perception was one of the causes of the Sino-Indian War. Some scholars still believe that India was involved in Tibet. Knowing Nehru, I think it would have been highly unlikely.

The principle of non-interference had its roots in the anti-colonial movements, because colonialism was nothing but interference in the extreme. So, the former colonies would appreciate the worth of non-interference. The former colonial powers probably think it is a yawn. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

References

And they continue to yawn while effectively pursuing similar ends under the heading of ‘foreign intervention’ (a neutral or positive term) rather than labeling it ‘interference’ (a more negative term). (Thx for the various details re Soviet, China, Tibet, India, CIA; that all rings bells.) Humanengr (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Please remember that the question asked is not: “Did country X interfere in country Y?” ... but “Did the media of country X use the term “interfere” when talking about what X was doing?” Most media would use more positive sounding terms if they approve of what X is doing... and would only use “interfere” if they disapprove. So... you would have to look at opposition media for the usage. Blueboar (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thx, Blueboar, and you’re exactly on point that the question is “Did the media of country X use the term ‘interfere’ when talking about what X was doing?”. Also thank you for the phrasing “if they approve” and “if they disapprove”. Using that, imagine two situations: 1) nation A takes action in nation B, and 2) nation C takes action in nation A. Media in nation A overwhelmingly approve #1 and characterize it as ‘intervention’ and disapprove #2 as ‘interference’. Just checking that makes sense before proceeding further. Humanengr (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, "intervention" does not necessarily indicate approval... but "interference" almost always indicates disapproval. I would suggest you explore media reports from the late 1960s regarding the US involvement in Vietnam... I doubt many US media outlets would have used "interference" in the early 1960s (when involvement was generally approved of in the US). However, by the late 1960s or 1970s attitudes had changed, and the chance that an outlet used "interference" goes way up. Do I know of a specific instance of the word being used? No... but I would be surprised if no one used it. Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Basically agree re ‘intervention’ and ‘interference’; the former typically neutral or positive, the latter negative. Also, thx for enunciating the temporal element.

Backing up a step, I’m realizing I should amend the § title to “National bias in WP RS re foreign ‘intervention’”. I struggled with the title as it is a compound topic, bringing in effects of national bias in news media, WP criteria for identifying media as RS, and weighing of RS for use. Your statement of the question captures the first part of that, but I wanted to indicate the broader context. Will write after further research. Humanengr (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Blueboar and all, Offered for consideration:

A WP search for <"Russia interfered" OR "Russian interference”> yields 470 hits, the phrase appears in 3 as an article title; in many of the news media sources cited therein; and in the title of a WP ’Sister Project”, … . The phrase is freely used by U.S. reporters and editors to describe Russian actions.

In contrast, a WP search for <"America interfered" OR "American interference" OR "U.S. interfered" OR "U.S. interference”> yields 61 hits. In 0 of those 61 does the phrase appear with a supporting citation of a U.S. reporter using that phrase to characterize U.S. actions. Where it does appear, it is used, e.g., to characterize foreign perceptions of U.S. actions; with citation not to news media but to a book or an academic work; or without citation to a source.

(A search for <Vietnam “American interference”> yielded 5 hits, one of which was relevant. The mention was, again, that of foreign perception of U.S. actions.)

For further context, note that, per Foreign electoral intervention,

A 2016 study by Dov Levin found that, among 938 global elections examined, [fn: These covered the period between 1946 and 2000, and included 148 countries, all with populations above 100,000.] the United States and Russia [fn: including the former Soviet Union] combined had involved themselves in about one out of nine (117), with the majority of those (68%) being through covert, rather than overt, actions. The same study found that "on average, an electoral intervention in favor of one side contesting the election will increase its vote share by about 3 percent," an effect large enough to have potentially changed the results in seven out of 14 U.S. presidential elections occurring after 1960.[cite; fn: This is, as the author points out, "Assuming, of course, a similar shift in the relevant swing states and, accordingly, the electoral college." Others cites have argued that foreign electoral intervention is likely to have the opposite effect.] According to the study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36.[cite to Levin]

Further searches welcome.

To what does anyone attribute the above discrepancy between “Russian interference” and “American interference” in WP? Humanengr (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

People not creating articles.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

And to what do you attribute the dearth of U.S. news media articles that characterize U.S. ‘interference’ as such? Humanengr (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, How can users create articles that indicate the U.S. ‘interfered’ when so-called ‘Reliable Sources’ characterize U.S. actions as ‘intervention’ rather than ‘interference’? Humanengr (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Which sources, what exactly are you talking about?Slatersteven (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is that, AFAICS, there are -no- U.S. news media cited in WP that refer to U.S. actions in other nations as ‘interference’ rather than ‘intervention’. As I said above:

a WP search for <"America interfered" OR "American interference" OR "U.S. interfered" OR "U.S. interference”> yields 61 hits. In 0 of those 61 does the phrase appear with a supporting citation of a U.S. reporter using that phrase to characterize U.S. actions.

Can you find any instances where U.S. news media are cited in WP to refer to U.S. actions in other nations as ‘interference’ rather than ‘intervention’? Humanengr (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, Does that clarify? Humanengr (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven or anyone, Do you dispute that Russian actions are consistently characterized in WP as ‘interference’ whereas analogous U.S. actions are not? Humanengr (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not what we say but what the sources say that matters. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly...and so what. RS in each language will tend to have a national bias. The Russian Wikipedia no doubt has the opposite bias because it uses Russian sources. So what? Just document what RS say. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The 'so what' is that it needlessly fractionates 'RS' as a standard and promotes conflict. Who does that serve? Humanengr (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer, re: “RS in each language” — right, ‘WP:RS’ is not a WP designation, but rather a WP-en, WP-ru, … designation. To label it as WP:RS is misleading. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

??? Is this still alive? After my "so what", I thought you'd get the point, but I guess this really means something to you, but I'm not sure what you want to do with it, if and when you get it figured out.

I could edit in the Scandinavian language Wikipedias, besides this English version, but I assume that the standards for what are RS follow similar principles. I haven't noticed any difference. I'm speaking of the language in the source, not just the particular country's wiki. (The RS used in each language's wiki will tend to be sources written in that language, with few exceptions.) Therefore, your comment "To label it as WP:RS is misleading." is confusing to me. What on earth are you talking about? All along, since the beginning of this section, all who commented here have been using the term RS to mean the policy WP:RS. Are you now referring to something else? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Your assumption — “the standards for what are RS follow similar standards” — is incorrect. RS on WP-ru includes TASS per Russian Wikipedia Authoritative sources. The standards for inclusion as RS differ. Humanengr (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

But the English Wikipedia also considers TASS a RS, but recognizes it is under the control of Putin, and thus far from neutral. American and British news media may have their biases, but they are not under government control, with the exception of Trump's channel Real News Update. (Trump controls it, but Fox News controls Trump's POV.) TASS is thus, as with many RS, reliable for its own POV. This is just a good example of how national bias exists, and how that bias is affected by many societal and political factors. With TASS, RT, and Sputnik, we're dealing with Russian propaganda and misinformation, which goes beyond mere national bias. Their actual "reliability" is questioned by those outside Russia, while Russians have little choice but to accept them, and not voice disagreement too loudly. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

[Cont’d in new section below] Humanengr (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

[Should’ve asked before starting new section; apologies] Perhaps I missed it, but I didn’t see reference in WP policy, guideline, essay pages to considering TASS as RS or for characterization as “far from neutral”, “propaganda”, and “misinformation”. Or is that from article or talk pages? Just curious as to your sources. Humanengr (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

LOL! That's national bias, experience, and then western intelligence agencies. TASS is a RS for its own opinions, and some of the time also for general news. When it comes to politics and east/west relations, they only print what Putin, FSB, and GRU allow. Unlike most western European nations and allies, Russia does not have a free press. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Humanengr, replying to your deleted comment, yes, we do have articles which address the subject of press freedom in Russia. They are filled with RS for further research: Media freedom in Russia and List of journalists killed in Russia. In 2013 Russia ranked 148th out of 179 countries in the Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders. In 2015 Freedom House report Russia got score of 83 (100 being the worst), mostly because of new laws introduced in 2014 that further extended the state control over mass-media. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thx for responding to my question. (Undeleted here: Do you have a reference in WP policy, guideline, or essay pages for ‘free press’?) That clarification might prove helpful later. For now, I’ll continue below. Humanengr (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

See WP:PRESERVEBIAS (essay). -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Should such gross bias be indicated or remain hidden? Humanengr (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It would violate NPOV to interject editorial opinion or to hide it through censorship. Editors are supposed to remain neutral and faithfully document what RS say. Direct quotes are obviously what they are, and paraphrases should not deviate from a quote by whitewashing out any bias. It should be preserved. A lot of what we do here involves documenting bias, without taking sides. It is editors, not sources and content, which must be unbiased and neutral. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:PRESERVEBIAS: "This does not mean that no attempt should ever be made to rectify gross imbalance …". We seem to agree there is persistent national bias. To expect readers to accept such biased characterizations — when presented persistently — as 'verified' much less 'true' seems to be asking a lot. Humanengr (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that type of bias exists, cannot be avoided, and it is our job to document it, not neuter it, hide it, censor it, or even point it out (with our own comments or way of including it). That bias just might be the correct POV, because the correct POV is rarely in the middle. It's nearly always somewhere off-center. BUT, whether it's true or the correct POV or not is not our concern. We document all POV.

Each country, culture, and language will tend to have its own biases, ways of looking at things, and ways of expressing biases (IOW its view of what is true). Sometimes those biases are built right into the language. It is not our business to interfere in that. We must remain neutral and simply document it. We literally document a worldview. At the English Wikipedia, we document the worldview as presented primarily in English language sources, although no wiki is bound to only use their own language sources. We are allowed to translate and use sources from other languages.

Regarding "as 'verified' much less 'true'", we must prioritize "verifiability, not truth". That phrase used to be part of policy, and is still a fundamentally important concept to understand. There is an essay about it: [[WP:VNT. Our job as editors is not to allow our own ideas of truth (which are subjective) to influence our editing. We are not here to "right great wrongs". See the policy about that: WP:RGW. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Re your 2nd para: A claim of 'verifiable' is quite an overreach when 'worldviews' conflict across 'countries, cultures, and languages'. 'Reliability' is certainly not assured. For such cases, the guidance in WP:NEWSORG and WP:SOURCE is inadequate. (Aside: Do you have a reference for the 'worldviews' term in WP policies, … ?) Humanengr (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

"Interference" to some extent implies not only the action but success at it. For all of these cases, why not just neutral words that still convey the information? E.G "Efforts to influence".North8000 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Because that would violate NPOV. We must preserve the meaning, bias, and intent of our sources. Articles are not OUR articles. We can use our own websites, blogs, Facebook, and Twitter for that. No, our job is to neutrally present biased content, warts and all. We aren't allowed to remove the warts first or put make-up on them. We must present content accurately to readers, without the content being affected by our filters. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer, You acknowledged that “American and British news media may have their biases”. The problem is that articles on international disputes do not acknowledge that bias and readers are left unaware. How do we address that? Humanengr (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? You're still obsessing over this? Just get over it. It's part of life. English language sources will tend to have their biases; Russian sources will have their biases; Arabic sources will have theirs. That means there will be contradictory information between sources and the Wikipedias in each language. For really serious matters, like lying about factual matters, then use fact checkers. English language fact checkers are objective enough so their bias is so much toward truth thay they openly call Trump a liar. You won't find Russian fact checkers getting away with that, and if Trump remains in power much longer, American fact checkers won't be allowed to serve truth to that degree much longer either. Relish this fact and use those fact checkers. They surpass and transcend these national/language/cultural biases. Thanks to them, especially on the news sources which Trump calls "fake news", there you will come closer to truth than anywhere else on earth. The sources he likes disdain fact checkers. During the presidential campaign Trump even warned not to trust fact checkers. Only dishonest people do that. That's my last on this subject. Get over it. Life goes on. Use fact checkers. That's the only way to get closer to truth. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: “English language sources will tend to have their biases; Russian sources will have their biases; Arabic sources will have theirs. That means there will be contradictory information between sources and the Wikipedias in each language.” Why do you want to hide the existence of such contradictory information? Shouldn’t an encyclopedia that ostensibly offers the world’s knowledge want to highlight the existence of such differences in order to further a more common global understanding? What gain is there to reinforcing biases by constructing each language version as an echo chamber? Why not have, say, a template at the top of all articles involving an ongoing international dispute identifying it as such? Humanengr (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Who benefits from 'contradictory information’? Anybody other than those who want to sow discord and support military tension or conflict? Humanengr (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a NPOV-related issue, so it belongs on another noticeboard. NPOV is based on a rationale of proportional representation, so, hypothetically, if the body of RSs on a topic has a certain bias, then WP should mirror that bias to comply with NPOV. We're here to reflect RSs, not to "debias" them. It may be that the body of RSs published in one country is more substantial than that in another country, based on international reputation of the publishers and authors -- that's another NPOV factor. In this particular case, I'm not sure there's a problem of nationalistic bias in RSs. Major news outlets may be subject to it, but there are also reputable academics and journalists in the US and UK who have written about this topic without a "patriotic" slant. In fact, I would venture that most historical studies on US interventions probably take care not to sugarcoat its actions. Eperoton (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Eperoton Thx for your thoughts and also for your noticeboard suggestion; will consider. Follow-up q on your other comments: It seems we agree it is reasonable to presume news media have nationalistic bias, historical sources less so. Correct? Humanengr (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Humanengr That has been a tendency I personal observed, but I don't think we can edit based on such an assumption. Rather, we should seek to reflect a balance of different perspectives found in RSs based on the WP:NPOV notion of prominence, which favors majority views over minority views but also more authoritative sources over less authoritative sources. For example, if we find different analyses of a historical event in a newspaper article and a peer-reviewed academic publication, the latter view should get more prominence. On the other hand, if we find one perspective in a broad swath of news media and another one in one academic publication, that's a trickier case to handle. If it's a prominent source, we should present both those views, but there's no simple formula on how to do that in the most policy-compliant way. Eperoton (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Eperoton Thx, I think you’ve hit the ‘nub’. The difficulty is, in disputes between governments, determining ‘preponderance’ when one side by virtue of its favoring individualism/corporatism over society as a whole has more ‘news media’ than the other. (In the case of ongoing disputes, news media are seemingly the only source category.) Humanengr (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Eperoton, What I was hoping to get to was this: Given that ‘RS’ news media are biased as I indicated (no contemporaneous characterization in WP of U.S. actions as ‘interference’), then for those articles that rely on news media to describe such actions by either U.S. or those it treats as opponents, should there not be a template that makes that bias clear? 1st cut:

Humanengr (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Hmm, I doubt you'd be able to get consensus for something like that. I don't think WP policies give us a mandate for dealing with biased sources beyond WP:BIASED. Eperoton (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS is a misleading designation

[Picking up on this issue as discussed above]

The fact that RS standards vary between language editions, as indicated in the example above, shows that identifying the WP-en RS standard as ‘WP:RS’ misleadingly presents it as a global WP standard rather than a WP-en standard. This subsection focuses on the misleading nature of that shortcut identifier. Humanengr (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see you as making any point not assumed already (you're just pointing it out). Is this really a "problem"? Do you have a better suggestion? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, enwp.org is pretty enwp-centric... Nearly none of the policies mention that they're enwp policies, and don't apply to other Wikipedia projects! Misleading! Bright☀ 17:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

But that is the fault of those who don't know that. engwp.org doesn't make such a claim, so it's incorrect to assume it, and yet there will still be many similarities. Each has its own version of RS and NPOV. National bias will also affect how local editors word their policies. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. Bright☀ 09:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks for the clarification. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I really think this forum should be used for specific cases of specific edits citing specific sources in specific articles. To discuss general philosophies is above our pay-grade, or if really necessary, something for discussion on a policy page. Personally I think the simplest way to approach the problem on WP is to say that we summarize what the best sources we can find say, and if we find no decent sources we say nothing. The sources do not have to be neutral or on any particular side. It tends to be easiest to try doing this first and then discuss difficult cases as specific cases. (Apparently when it comes down to working on something practical, people apparently agree about a lot of things. When it comes to deciding on general policies they never do.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: The Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is for “posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.” Humanengr (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Note the "particular" and the "in context". There are far too many generalized discussions now, and these rarely achieve anything. Wikipedia is not a forum for philosophical discussions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Now I see what you mean. Yes, it seems I wrongly thought this discussion was on that forum! However, while that may make my wording look silly, I still think my point is relevant. I do not think WP wins anything by having very specifically defined and generalized rules, and I think the RSN approach is the right one for WP generally: case by case. We are nowhere near a level of perfection where for example it becomes realistic to expect that all language versions have similar opinions, not only for controversial subjects but even for surprisingly simple ones. In that context I think the differences between WP versions can even be helpful.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster, Assuming that the differences can be helpful, have you seen the differences being highlighted in WP? Humanengr (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Seeking an indication of NPOV

Can anyone identify -any- action by the U.S. on any of the following or related pages — Foreign interventions by the United States or United States involvement in regime change or Foreign electoral intervention or Interventionism (politics)#Foreign_interventionism — where news media considered as RS per WP-en characterize the U.S. action as 'interference'? Humanengr (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Tharoor, Ishan (October 13, 2016). "The long history of the U.S. interfering with elections elsewhere". The Washington Post. Retrieved 23 April 2018. --GRuban (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• "The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 23 April 2018.
• "Russia Isn't the Only One Meddling in Elections. We Do It, Too". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 April 2018. --GRuban (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, those are the only ones I found. Note that all 3 are distantly historical, drawing on Dov Levin’s journal article that addresses Russian and U.S. electoral intervention from 1946-2000.

No WP articles cite any contemporaneous RS to portray U.S. intervention as 'interference'.

Yet we have near uniform characterization of Russian actions as ‘interference’.

Further, the Tharoor article states: "While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it, the United States does have a well-documented history of interfering and sometimes interrupting the workings of democracies elsewhere."

On what basis is the underlined claim made? Humanengr (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

For disputes between the U.S. and its opponents, by what measure are U.S. news media any less propaganda or misinformation (BullRangifer's terms above) than those of opponents? Humanengr (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a loaded question if there ever was one. The answer is, depending on the context, specifically meaning of "the U.S. and its opponents" and "U.S. news media". If the dispute is between the governments, then government-controlled media is a directly involved party, while media that happens to be published in one of the countries, but is not government-controlled is less involved. If the dispute involves all facets of a society - say WWII - then the lines blur. But I'm guessing you're talking about the Syrian Civil War, and why RT (TV network) and TASS are not considered reliable; well, because the Russian government is directly involved in the war, and TASS is directly owned by the Russian government, and RT is widely considered to be controlled by the Russian government. The extent to which the U.S. Government is directly involved is debatable, and in any case the New York Times, etc., are not directly controlled by the U.S. Government. --GRuban (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thx; to clarify if you care to answer: re ‘loaded question’, how would you express the ‘controversial or unjustified assumption‘; re ‘extent to which’, does that include ‘whether’? Humanengr (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Er ... what? Sorry, I didn't understand that question. --GRuban (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

[re our prior 2 posts, we can set that aside for now.]

Presenting information using loaded language is propaganda. Using negative terms (e.g., ‘interference’) to describe A’s actions while using neutral or positive terms (e.g., ‘intervention’) to describe analogous B’s actions is loaded language, hence propaganda.

Adding qualifiers to classify actions by ‘direct involvement’, ‘extent of involvement’, etc., doesn’t change that. It’s still loaded language.

Those qualifiers are at best distractions from the base issue — description in negative vs neutral or positive terms.

Western media use the former to characterize Russia actions but -never- characterize U.S. actions in those terms. This is inappropriate bias for an encyclopedia ostensibly trying to capture the ‘world’s knowledge’.

(I can address each of your ‘qualifiers’ (my term) if needed, but wanted to address in summary first.) Humanengr (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS is a misleading designation? Y'all have been out in the real world too long

Judging from the above discussion, many folks have been out in the real world too long. :-) That's where "reliable" source means reliable. That would mean objectivity and expertise on the topic/text in question.....two things that have been kept out of Wikipedia reliable source policies and guidelines, where "reliable" just means having other trappings. A tongue-in-cheek way of saying that we should start to introduce those things, and this guideline would be a good place to start that. I tried it on a small scale a few months back and got reverted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliable doesn't have completely different meaning. The WP policies simply define the best proxy for reliability in the real world. Since WP is an open system with unknown authors such a proxy is necessary.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

How was the standard for "reliability in the real world" in the specific case of ongoing international disputes determined? Humanengr (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@North8000 and Kmhkmh: One strange thing about Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources is that the definition begins in a circular fashion: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources …” as if the common meaning of ‘reliable’ is being invoked. Humanengr (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Humanengr:Yes, for clarity it should say wp:reliable instead of "reliable"; in some areas there is little correlation between wp:reliable and real world reliability. Again the missing link is objectivity and expertise with respect to the item which cited it. North8000 (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree re "in some areas there is little correlation between wp:reliable and real world reliability."

Re "for clarity it should say wp:reliable instead of 'reliable'": That would yield:

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources: "Base articles on WP:RELIABLE, third-party, published sources …”

citing WP:RELIABLE which begins::

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources …

Where from there? Humanengr (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Good point. I guess my idea was really pointing out the problem rather than fixing it. The big fix would be relatively simple, but Wikipedia has lost it's ability to make big fixes. It would have two parts. Amend WP:VER to say that more controversial claims require stronger sourcing. Then amend wp:RS to say that two of the measures of the strength of sourcing are objectivity and expertise with respect to the text which cited it. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)-

It already requires the former. --Izno (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

And the latter, mostly. --Izno (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

So then we have re the former: "more controversial claims require stronger sourcing" (per North8000) --> WP:EXCEPTIONAL (per Izno) leads to:

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
  
• challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;[9]
  
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
  
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

References

[Note included for completeness.]

Anything strike you about WP:EXCEPTIONAL? Humanengr (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Well, if you mean replacing my two part idea, it does not do that. The cornerstone of my idea is to introduce "objectivity and expertise with respect to the item which cited it" as a factor in determining strength of a source in context. And that requires a new idea/metric .....overall strength of a source in that context, which does not currently exist. Second wp:exceptional is narrow special case. I was proposing an overall continuum. Including that text that is not per se challenged would have a lower requirement for source strength. I'm thinking about wiki-lawyering in both putting in and removing material. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The cornerstone of my idea is to introduce "objectivity and expertise with respect to the item which cited it" as a factor in determining strength of a source in context. See WP:BIASED. We already have a policy that explicitly says that objectivity is unimportant (in a general sense). I doubt you will get any such proposal passed, as too many people will see the potential for citing it to justify, for example, barring the use of CNN as a source for Trump related material, as CNN is quite obviously not objective when it comes to Trump. This, applied across politics and fringe subjects as a whole, would result in site-wide WP:GEVAL problems. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Taking that as an example, CNN would rate high "objectivity and expertise" if cited on "Trump introduced XYZ tariffs on August 20th" text and low as a cite for a "Trump is a bad president" statement. Both as it should be. Similarly, a book by Britney Spears would have sufficiently strong objectivity & expertise for a "Britney Spear's favorite color is red" statement but not for a "Britney Spears makes great music" statement nor a "String theory is a mistake" statement.North8000 (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@North8000, Thx for elaborating that context; apologies for not making clearer that I wanted to focus only on WP:EXCEPTIONAL for provenance and definition/understanding/… of 'wp:reliable'. I'm pre-occupied with other matters but hope to return after not too long. Humanengr (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The first thing that strikes me re WP:EXCEPTIONAL is that 'mainstream' appears and that it appears twice: 1) "claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" and 2) "claims … that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions". Looking at #1 first: it looks like that 'mainstream sources' (the WP:EXCEPTIONAL phrasing above) was added 4 February 2008 by SlimVirgin as part of a longer phrase, “mainstream sources such as news media or historiography") with this edit. That was a change from "mainstream news media or historiography” which had been inserted 4 December 2007 by Francis Schonken with this edit that changed from the single bullet

• Surprising or apparently important claims or reports, not widely known or not covered by reliable sources

to two bullets

• surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known;
  
• surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography;

with edit summary: "WP:ATT version (WP:ATT#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources), avoiding circular reasoning: no RS coverage? then use MULTIPLE RS!”, which does not provide specific rationale for mainstream.

As of that date, WP:ATT carried those same two bullets. The text there had been added a month earlier by Francis Schonken with this edit and this edit summary: "'developing current events' exception, using exact wording of ArbCom case".

I haven't yet tried to track down the Arbcom case or checked whether this was the first occurrence of 'mainstream' wrt #1. Does that provenance look right so far? Humanengr (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)