Talk:Source (journalism)/Archive 1

Archive 1

"News source," well constructed article

This is off to a good start with a sound, solid name and a good temperate treatment of the subject. It should make a valuable contribution to Journalism and Media related articles. Calicocat 00:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding redirects, should we set up some kind of notice that tells people, "includes" Confidential, Background... and other such titles, so they know where they are? Know what I mean?

Embargo

I added Embargo to the lead. It seemed to fit there. Calicocat 07:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Merges

Merge

All of the info on all of these pages can be merged to News source to the appropriate sections, DB redirects to Background (journalism anyway. Heres a more concise breakdown:

1. Background (journalism) - direct information, source anonymity
2. Deep background - indirect information, source anonymity
3. Off the record - confidential information, source
4. On the record - direct information, source attribution

-SV|t 05:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I placed Merge to/from suggestion notices and a comment in discussion pages have been placed in the follow:

1. Background (journalism)
2. Deep background
3. Embargo (journalism)
4. Off the record
5. On the record

I didn't set any redirects or do the mergers. I thought there might become comments people might want to make. It might be that putting a "see main article at" notice here in this article might really be the better choice. Let's see what if anything comes up. Calicocat 09:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think those are good ideas for merges but would ask that we don't just do a cut/past. I don't mind a lift with notices made on appropirate talk pages that it's done, but a formal merge should be accomplished with notices and so on. If after a time the old articles which are now part of News source are no longer needed, they can be put up for deletion or maybe just dealt with using redirection? I'm not sure what the best method would be there, but that's a bit down the road anyway. Cheers, Calicocat 00:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Merge suggestion discussions

These merges were recently suggested (see previous discussion on merges) after looking over some of the articles. If you have arrived here to discuss the suggested merge, welcome. It seems natural that these things be brought under one roof. If there's a section you'd like to comment on I suggest opening a subsection on that. These merges, if done well, will no doubt bring more clarity to the subject matter. Calicocat 09:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Too much attention on confidentiality

I agree that at least three of the articles should be merged: Background, Deep background, and off the record. But this article itself and the totality of these articles give disproportionate attention to confidential sources. Confidential sources are getting about 90 percent of the copy here. But they're probably used for less than 10 percent of journalism. That should be made clear. Possibly the answer is a general aritcle on sources or sourcing and different one on the confidential type. And eventually this should cultivating sources, finding sources, etc. Maurreen (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point, but I think we can do it all in the same article. It's true, most sources are not anon or "confidential" but I think the accent on that here is more a question of the article being relatively new rather than any particular POV issue on what constitutes a news source. What I'd like to see is a nice, crisp lead about news sources and the subsections that deal with the various kinds of sources. Not all sources are "informants" some are just regular folks who saw the "car crash" or whatever. I'll give it some more thought. I do however think the article has a lot of potential and, while not perfect, is off to a great start. Calicocat 06:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind it all being together as long as something is done about the emphasis. I'll do a little. Also, I disagree with the use of "informant". I'd like to remove it but will wait to see what anyone else thinks. Maurreen (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Title

I'm thinking a better title might be "Sourcing" or somesuch. Although the articles is called "Sources", it's not about sources, but how sources are used (for lack of a better word) by the press. Maurreen (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The title "News source" is in the singular, but perhaps it should be in the plural, "News sources," since it deals with the various kinds of sources journalists may use or have to deal with. I could also see your suggestion of "Sourcing" but I think the word "news" or Journalism should be there to help with disambiguation. Perhaps the title, "Journalism sources" or "Journalism sourcing" would be better to bring it under umbrella of articles related to Journalism. I do think this is a significant subject and like where the article is heading. Calicocat 17:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I prefer Sourcing in journalism or Journalism sourcing, followed by Sources in journalism or journalism sources. Maurreen (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Of them all, "Journalism sourcing" seems the strongest. It keeps the focus on journalism and indicates the subject, sourcing, with clarity, it's also shorter and easier to use in links and so on. If you wanted to move it to that, I think it would be a good choice. Right off the top, I think we'd need some redirects, like "News source, confidential source...news source.. I'm not sure how that's best dealt with. Calicocat 19:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought redirects were made automatically from the old title to the new. Maurreen (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how that works. I was suggesting that if we do make a move or whatever it is that we also set some appropriate redirects for searches on those things that might be included in this article. Maybe we can get someone to help out on this. Cheers, Calicocat 04:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The redirect will be made automatically from the old title to the new one, and then you'll have to create others as you see fit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hi all. I'll be verifying and sourcing quotes here wherever needed. The article is good though some of it may need scrutinizing just in case its a little argumentative. Straight reporting as always! AlanBarnet 06:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research

There's a huge amount in this article which is not sourced. I realise two books are given as references at the end, but there's no indication that the claims made in the article come from these books. Eg: "beat reporters must be cautious of becoming too close to their sources" - says who? "Governments also have legitimate reasons for imposing embargoes" - who says this is legitimate? "Breaking an embargo is typically considered a serious breach of trust" - by whom? There's a lot of this stuff in this article.Hobson 00:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lobby terms

Many journalists who are not members of the Lobby *are* entitled to enter the Parliamentary Press Gallery. Thet are not entitled to enter Members' Lobby, however. Also, I have added a link which works.Hobson 00:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Deep Throat

If we're going to use the Deep Throat example, why be coy? It was Mark Felt, the world now knows this -- we should use his name here. --Christofurio 20:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)