Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

NEWSORG and science

Recently, news reports have come out declaring that a Nigerian mathematician has proved the Riemann hypothesis. For example, the BBC, The Telegraph, The Independent, CNN. It's blatantly clear that these stories are unsubstantiated nonsense. (At worst, this entire affair is an obvious hoax.) Aside from pointing to WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:REDFLAG, is there some bright line that we can point to regarding the unreliability of such otherwise well-regarded "news" outlets on scientific matters?

I've seen my fair share of news sources getting science just completely wrong (in some cases, just outright fabrication). In such cases, it's pretty clear to reasonably scientifically literate editors that this is the case. However, the trouble with news media is that it tends to bring a different crowd of editors to scientific pages: those that have had no exposure to the subject, apart from the news source that they read. In some cases, when a news outlet picks up a story, that story is immediately and uncritically copied by every other news source, without performing any additional fact-checking. So, we often get a situation where there is an overwhelming number of "reliable" sources, and editors without much scientific literacy lobbying for inclusion of content like this based on prevalence in those "reliable" sources. ⇔

For this reason, it seems like we need to firm up some guideline to clarify our collective position on using such sources. Editors without much scientific literacy tend not to be big on nuances, like: "The BBC is not reliable for scientific matters." Or, "That's a redflag claim. We need high-quality scholarly sources." I think some bright-line rule, to which we can refer such editors, would helpfully clarify our position and put an end to unproductive time-wasting. Sławomir
Biały 14:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Taking the BBC's article as an example, the key word that actually justifies them is "claims". Similarly, the CNN link is not outright sayng its solved, just that this professor claims to have solved it. So us using those sources and just stating that there's a claim it was solved is fine, doesn't break RS in any way. I will agree that there are likely some newspapers that might have taken it at face value but the highest quality sources here clearly are not stating 100% the problem is solved, only that the professor and this one conference think it is, so unless there's something else missing here, these seem to capture the situation appropriately. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is a serious enough piece of crankery to even mention in our article despite the newspaper buzz. I think you are very wrong to suggest doing so. Even the part you state, that he "claims to have solved the hypothesis", is not reliable. What this professor appears to have actually done is put together a collection of crank attempts at the Riemann hypothesis by other people, on a preprint site. But you can't get out of this sourcing issue by pointing to weasel-worded articles and saying that the weasel wording saves their reliability. Take a look at this story linked from Talk:Riemann hypothesis. It's in a mainstream newspaper. Its headline says ""Professor becomes a millionaire". This is false — the Clay math prize has definitely not been awarded. And yet, it's in a newspaper. That doesn't mean it can be included in our article. It means our standards of reliable sourcing for this sort of story are bad. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Two points:

• First, keep in mind that we have outright rejected any claims of sourcing based solely on the headline of a news article. That's nearly always written by a copyeditor and not the author, and they're going to pick up something to entice readership and potentially be wrong. There's no reliability to that. We go by the article body.
• Second, when looking at the range of sources, with sources like the BBC and CNN at the top end, it's clear that the higher quality sources are clearly aware this is only a claim made by the professor and not the actual proof. I'm sure if I poke around I can find a smaller paper that outright says in the prose the problem is solved, he got the million. That means there's conflicting information, and there we have to use the more reliable sources, which is clear that the problem is only claimed to be solved, and not an absolute. Our article should reflect those sources.
• Now, whether this should be included, I don't know. I thought I have remembered a few cases of people having thrown proofs at the Millennium Prize Problems that have gotten mainstream attention and later proven wrong; for that, I would think that en.wiki would cover the notable failures (whether well-intended but flawed solutions, or straight up hoaxes) as part of the demonstration of the importance of providing a solution to these proofs offers. I don't see that on these articles, but maybe it was decided not to. If so, then yes, we don't need to add this at all. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You didn't actually read the article I linked to, did you? You just picked up on the word "headline" in my comment. Because the first actual text sentence of the article, "A professor has received a prize of $1 million...", is flat-out false. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A lot of today's online news journalism seems to have been written by interns on zero hours contracts. An article about the Riemann hypothesis should be written by someone who knows the score and the long history of people claiming to have found a proof for it. There has been a failure of basic journalistic standards in a lot of the reporting of this latest claimed proof, with some sources getting the facts wrong, such as the Irish Independent story. In its current form, the claimed proof by Dr Opeyemi Enoch is no more notable than the many other similar claims floating around on Academia.eu and "publish anything you like" websites. This type of website is not much more reliable than a Facebook page, as been pointed out to various claimants at Talk:Riemann hypothesis‎ in the past. Some journalists should go to boot camp and be licked into shape before writing anything about academic research, as they are likely to go for whatever makes the most eye-catching headline, as we have seen here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I did allude to the fact that I suspect (and rechecking the Independent, confirmed) that less-reputable news sources would say he got the prize and the problem was solved. That's why there's the strength of journalistic integrity to consider. The BBC article nor the CNN article says he got it, just that he's claimed to have solved it, this conference claims its valid proof, but the prize-awarding institute has to review it. The BBC + CNN got it right. My point is that if we were to include this, we'd obviously be wanting to cite the BBC and CNN articles, over the Independent, and have to recognize that new editors are going to use less-reputable papers like the Independent to make the claim the problem was solved. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: Since these sources no longer appear to be engaging in fact-checking, they are no longer reliable. Any random crank can "claim" anything. Part of the responsibility of real science journalism is to interview independent experts. That didn't happen here, and even a moment of looking into the matter reveals that the whole affair is an obvious hoax. (The paper in question is just a plagiarized copy of an old preprint; it doesn't even have Enoch's name on it.) Journalists don't get to hide behind the weasel-word of "claim" any more than Wikipedia editors do. The sources are saying something that is clearly nonsense and obviously false. Sławomir
Biały 18:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What's false about [1]? If that story is false, we should be able to point to a story that says so. If it is undue (or too soon) that's something else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Saying that the claim by Dr Opeyemi Enoch is an obvious hoax might run into problems with WP:LIBEL. People often believe that they have succeeded in squaring the circle or whatever and won't be told otherwise, but they are not acting in bad faith. The modern trend for self-publishing academic papers online offers endless possibilities for doing this sort of thing, and journalists need to be aware of this phenomenon. Some basic fact checking and asking an independent expert would have avoided most if not all of the mistakes that have been made by the mainstream media here. The CNN article is one of the better ones because it has avoided mistakes that other sources have made.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. It's just a matter of following our sourcing guidelines - this probably falls in the "extraordinary claim" category, but it's always best practice to check multiple refs for multiple angles (extraordinary or not). Just look at the links above, we have already disproved the Irish Independent story (or cast such serious doubt on it that it will not be used) by looking to multiple reliable sources - so the guidelines are fine. (RS has never meant infallible.) And yes, I hope no one on Wikipedia says that this guy intends a hoax (if that claim is unsourced to RS), if they do -- it should be rev deleted per BLP. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Offtopic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here is the proof that was uploaded to academia.edu. I'll leave it to you to decide whether this proof is a hoax... Really, this is a no-brainer, though. Sławomir Biały 20:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC) It is a no brainer - don't even go close to slander, nor libel on the Pedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Offtopic sniping. It's clear you haven't looked at the source. Nor has MASEM, from his comment below. Sławomir Biały 21:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC) No. Not off topic at all. Just good advice, compliant with policy. I have looked at multiple sources. Have you? CNN says that the conference paper, the alleged proof, has not been published yet. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC) I gave you the link to the proof that Enoch is apparently claiming as his own [2]. It's true that the conference proceedings are not yet published, but the abstract is available. It's obvious nonsense. See, e.g., this, which is written by a mathematics PhD who actually collects wrong "proofs" of the RH. Sławomir Biały 23:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "Apparently"? You want us to take an "apparent" "self publication" of anything as RS for anything - not on Wikipedia - that is against policy and guideline. So, no we will not be taking your link as proof. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC) It's also original research and potentially a BLP to say the proof self-published by Enoch is "obvious nonsense". I've looked at it, and while I am far from a mathimatician, I can recognize the high level algebra it speaks to, so it clearly appears to be a proof. I can't judge validity but as a WP editor, that's something I cannot do without a reliable source. On the other hand, if expert math experts come out and called it "obvious nonsense", then we might be able to say that. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC) So WP:CHEESE? Nice. Also, apparently you missed http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin//zeta/RHproofs.htm. Sławomir Biały 00:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

In agreement with Alanscottwalker: the CNN and BBC seem to be 100% truth: the professor claims he solved it. They aren't judging or confirming as journalists, they went to speak with appropriate organizations that would be experts and learned that it will take time to confirm, so they still with this being a "claim". The only "sin" I could see here is that this is jumping the gun on the reporting, as it will take a few years to confirm (assuming the proof is not shot down sooner), but that's far from making either unreliable. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

When you say "the proof", what do you mean? What proof? There is no proof. You are being far too generous to the reporters. Their sin is not quick trigger fingers, it is a lack of any pretense of fact-checking. That's why they should no longer be considered reliable for this sort of story. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a document that anyone can see. It is the proof spoken of in these BBC and CNN articles. Whether that proof is valid and actually demonstrates the solution, I don't know, nor do I expect reputable journalists to know. Hence why they contacted the group that hands out the Millennium Prize awards and a conference to see if the proof was legit. That's fact checking on that the proof exists, but in no way validates the proof as the solution. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"There is a document that anyone can see." This is silly. Go look at the document. Sławomir
Biały 21:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no such published proof, the BBC does not say there is, the Telegraph says there is no proof, yet, and CNN says publication has not occurred yet. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a claimed "proof", and it is "published" by someone claiming to be Enoch. Sławomir
Biały 23:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Not RS, so not usable. "Someone claiming to be" and it makes some "claim", should tell you right there it cannot be useful to us. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing to use the source for Wikipedia though. I'm arguing that there are some other sources that are bad sources. See the difference? (I'd ask that if you really want to pursue the minutiae, that we can conduct it privately on my user talk.) I agree completely that it would be inappropriate to use this in an article, but it is a clear indication that something is fishy with the story run by CNN/BBC. It is not the only indication (e.g., you can find some blogs, including the aforementioned guy that collects wrong proofs). But, generally speaking, when WP:FRINGE things make headlines like this, you won't see actual WP:RS jumping at the opportunity to prove the headlines wrong. Mostly it just doesn't even make it on the radar, unless someone has a blog whose mission it is to do just that (e.g., Peter Woit). We even have a humorous essay that lampoons precisely this situation: WP:CHEESE. This is a very real and relevant problem for us, though, precisely for the reason that you've correctly identified. Even if a story doesn't even pass the most cursory sniff test, it might still pass the letter of WP:RS (even if it fails the ephemeral "common sense" test MASEM alluded to, like the Nobel teen). That is a real problem, and this case shows precisely how. Sławomir
Biały 01:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It's clearly not a problem. No one has even been successful in getting this story into the article. Why? Because if you actually know how to read and use sources, and how to operate per this guideline, you would know that all the story is, is someone has made a currently unpublished, unproven claim. That they have made the unpublished, unproven claim is sourced to RS, but just because something is in RS does not mean it goes into articles, like this has not gone into the article. Your other weak case on the noble prize fluff, is just morning program fluff, so hardly any problem. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is edit-protected, and edits are swiftly reverted by experienced editors who understand both the mathematics, and the guidelines. That's "why" it hasn't gotten in. However, this is not an isolated incident of some editors attempting to misuse sources like that, which suggests that the guidelines should be clearer. The "morning program fluff", that is a problem. Indeed, reams of proverbial ink were spilt defending that source and other similar sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination) and the subsequent Wikipedia:Deletion review/Jacob Barnett. The sources were defended as absolutely reliable at Talk:Jacob Barnett. If you don't think it's a problem, you're wrong. There are many editors who think that sources like this are reliable, because they have the name "BBC" attached to them. You see very clearly that this is a mistake, but I assure you that not all editors do. The guideline needs to be made clearer on this point. As you aptly put "This is not at all a problem for anyone who understands sourceing, which apparently you do not". Surely the task of a guideline is to make me (or other editors) understand sourcing. Where does it say that "morning fluff" is not allowed? Sławomir
Biały 02:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett is apparently some prodigy or "whiz kid" that has been noted by multiple sources. So what? That's not a problem of reliable sourcing. It's therefore not a problem for this guideline. (You may wish to take up your concerns over at WP:GNG). Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No, no. I'm curious about the sourcing. And I can only share my experiences with other editors regarding sources like the "morning program fluff", which you feel is not a problem. But very recently, many kilobytes of debate and hours of editor time were spent at Talk:Jacob Barnett discussing this very point. And it keeps coming up again and again. It's a long story. But the short version is: yes it is a problem. So I'll ask again earnestly, where does it say BBC Breakfast (aka "morning fluff") is not a reliable source? Many editors believe that, because it has "BBC" in it, it is reliable period. Even after pointing at WP:REDFLAG and WP:NEWSORG, these beliefs persist. And these aren't necessarily new editors either. What's the nuance that they're missing, that you seem to see very clearly? Sławomir
Biały 03:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What you are missing is that just because something is considered RS does not mean you use it for any particular sentence in an article. RS is not a state of being, it is only determined in the context. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

True enough. But saying "context matters" does not answer the question either. The fact is these sources have been a problem. You have at various points agreed that sources like BBC Breakfast are fluff. But nowhere in the guideline is it really spelled out when such sources are acceptable and when they aren't. So, yes, a source can be a reliable source for one thing and not another, and so context does matter. But where in the guideline is it actually spelled out that the CNN source is not a reliable source establishing weight of Enoch's solution for our article? Or that the BBC Breakfast is not a reliable source on Barnett's future Nobel prospects? Maybe there's no easy answer to questions like those. Mostly, we get misconceptions of the kind that "context doesn't matter". That, because it's written by the BBC or CNN or whomever, it is 100% reliable (see MASEM's post below). Sławomir
Biały 08:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This guideline gives guidance on what is by consensus considered RS in general, it does not determine the issue of whether something is WP:DUE, nor whether a sentence construction is WP:OR, nor whether something offends WP:BLP, nor meets WP:GNG, nor issues covered by other policies and guidelines. It cannot say that the sentence "Person claims to have solved this problem", belongs anywhere, in particular, in the encyclopedia. That sentence on its face is not science - it is either reasonably certain that they have made that claim, or there is not sufficient evidence that they have made that claim. Similarly, the sentence "BBC morning program calls person a future prize winner" is not science - either the BBC program has or they have not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying that news items are reliable as primary sources, then, which I agree with, not as secondary sources. Perhaps the guideline should be adjusted to reflect that. This is already what MEDRS says about news concerning medicine. Sławomir
Biały 11:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the first paragraph of WP:NEWSORG? As for whether some source is primary or secondary, it depends on text and context, see generally WP:NOR. It's not a neat dichotomy. CNN, for example, used multiple primary sources, and that CNN article is generally a secondary source for the history of the award. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I read the first paragraph of WP:NEWSORG. In the past, there has been confusion over what "fact" means there, probably because people don't really understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. A source (like the BBC or CNN, recently discussed), while reliable as a primary source of the fact that Enoch claims to have a solution, is not a reliable secondary source on which to base encyclopedic content. It seems like this is a grave omission from the guideline, since in assessing the worthiness of a news source, this is perhaps one of the most important considerations. Yes, we cover that in detail in policy, but there is no rule against linking to policies when those can helpfully clarify a guideline. Sławomir
Biały 12:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

In agreement with Alanscottwalker: the CNN and BBC seem to be 100% truth: the professor claims he solved it. They aren't judging or confirming as journalists, they went to speak with appropriate organizations that would be experts and learned that it will take time to confirm, so they still with this being a "claim". The only "sin" I could see here is that this is jumping the gun on the reporting, as it will take a few years to confirm (assuming the proof is not shot down sooner), but that's far from making either unreliable. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. The BBC states, flat out, that Enoch has "been shown to have solved [the Riemann hypothesis]". It gives the misleading impression that it's already been decided that Enoch will receive the million dollars. So half of the interview is about when and how he'll get the money. The CNN piece does not interview any experts on the Riemann hypothesis. Instead, they cite one of the conference organizer: 'Nina Ringo, a member of the conference committee, said in an email statement: "I consider his results to be very important and confirm his discovery."' That's the only "expert" commentary they have. Then there is a bunch of text about when and if Enoch will collect the money. It's fine if they don't want to confirm or deny it as journalists, but if they want to be journalists, the expectation is that they will do journalism. Obviously, a journalism is not necessarily knowledgeable about the Riemann hypothesis. So, presumably it's a best practice to do research and interview people who do know something. That's where the reliability of science reporting comes from. It's called journalism. If someone at the BBC or CNN doesn't want to do research on a topic, that's fine too. But they don't get to be considered reliable sources. Sławomir
Biały 21:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

So even if the BBC didn't contact the Millennium Prize committee, CNN did and confirmed that there's no confirmation the proof has been shown valid. There's nothing broken here about RS relating to science, its basically being smart that on controversial statements (in this case, if the proof has been validated which has different answers depending on source), we avoid stating anything as fact. I will note this has little to do with any actual science or math understanding of the hypothesis, but a lack of understanding of how the Millenium Prize system works that is rearing its head. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let's set aside the Millennium Prize. CNN confirmed the validity of Enoch's proof by asking Nina Ringo. Do we accept that her opinion is made with the appropriate independence and scientific authority? Should CNN have bothered asking an expert specifically on the Riemann hypothesis, like Peter Sarnak, Pierre Deligne, or Michel Lapidus? Or is this misleading by omission? Sławomir
Biały 22:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere in CNN's article, in the words of author Thomas Page, did they validate that the proof was right. Page spoke to Ringo, Ringo's response is quoted. Page spoke to CMI, CMI's reply is quoted, including the process that the proof needs to go through before being validated. Page makes no attempt to affirm the proof's validity. That's good reporting, and nothing like the Independent that jumps on Ringo's statement as conclusive. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

They interviewed an "expert" who confirmed the validity. But they didn't bother to ask a real expert on the Riemann hypothesis. It's lying by omission. Sławomir
Biały 22:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. They quotes a person who I have no idea of their expertise on the hypothesis who claims it was solved. That is not CNN saying it was solved. They are not lying. Further, they turned to the group that administers the prize and were told that just the act of publication was not sufficient for saying it was solved; that's trying to get the whole story and a sign of good journalism. Contrast that to the Independent story that took Ringo's statement as word of god, which is lying and/or poor reporting. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry MASEM, but the hypothesis that the BBC and/or CNN piece is "good journalism" is just a non-starter, and I don't think even you believe that. Good journalism should at least try to get the story right. In this case, CNN is presenting their source (Ringo) as an authority. There are hundreds of authorities that CNN could have consulted with, many of whom would be very willing to supply their commentary. But the best expert CNN came up with was this one.

"They quotes a person who I have no idea of their expertise" - seriously? If Ringo is not an authority on the Riemann hypothesis, then why is she being interviewed? Why is there a story here at all? There are people that think the CIA sends secret messages to their fillings. But we don't see viral news stories saying "Mr. Quackenbush of Hackensack, New Jersey, claims to have discovered secret radio transmissions from a CIA satellite to his dental fillings. According to Dr. Pembroke, at the University of New Hampshire, 'The CIA definitely sends messages to fillings.' The CIA issued a prepared response that 'Thank you for your interest in the CIA. Per executive order, we cannot confirm or deny any clandestine programs at this time.'" Just because you wrap nonsensical bad journalism in the phrases "claim" and "according to so-and-so" does not magically make it good journalism. Sławomir
Biały 23:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

En.wiki also uses wording like "claim" and "according to so-and-so" to place contentious statements as claims (see WP:YESPOV). That is good practice to avoid asserting a statement that one cannot otherwise verify as the truth. CNN went the extra mile to provide a counter-point to Ringo's statement in that the proof is not considered conclusive until certain steps happen. So a reader from CNN's article will walk away known that a proof has been presented but the world doesn't know yet if it passes muster, only that one conference head thinks its looks legit. There is nothing wrong with that approach. If BBC and CNN were reporting like the Independent, your concerns are fully valid, but they simply don't exist here. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm astounded at your apparent contention that using words like "claim" and "according to so-and-so" is a necessary and sufficient condition for good practice, in journalism or encyclopedia writing. One cannot write a sentence without a noun. But not all sentences noun with grammatical are. Sławomir
Biały

If we are talking about a situation where the "right" answer is not known - whether it be if the mathematical proof here is legit or a more controversial social issue - using wording like "John Q Smith claims X" or "According to John Q Smith, X" for WP articles is perfectly good writing as to avoid stating a potentially incorrect statement as fact, and thus if it is shown wrong, no damage is done to Wikipedia; we are just reporting it like it is. CNN did it here too, a good sign of an RS. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I think I can more clearly see the divide here. You're thinking of news items as reliable primary sources. In that case, I would agree, CNN is a reliable source that so-and-so has such-and-such view. Whether so-and-so's views on a subject should be represented on Wikipedia is an issue of policy (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR). Do we agree on this? I disagree that using this terminology is a sufficient condition for using the source as a secondary source. For example, although the CNN quotes Ringo, Wikipedia should treat Ringo's view as (essentially) the view of a random person on the street, and thus carries practically no weight. The mere fact that CNN interviewed an individual doesn't implicitly stamp that person with more authority and weight than if they had (for instance) just blogged about it.

Now, a news source can be a secondary source, if many eyewitnesses were interviewed and the reporter comes to conclusions in the editorial voice of the newspaper. A lot of wire news has this character. But we've run into problems in the past with sources that tend to blur the lines more (a good example is The Independent) and present facts without sources. It's tempting to use those as secondary sources. How does this guideline help us determine that this is not acceptable? Is there a way to make it clear why one class of sources or one way of using sources is acceptable and the other isn't? Sławomir
Biały 16:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that's what I'm thinking. CNN's article, specifically, is clearly reliable as a source (I'd say it's secondary, but it doesn't matter on this point) for the fact that Enoch has published a proposed proof for the hypothesis, but CNN's article, and all the others provided as links, is absolutely not a reliable source to assert the proof is valid, even with the quote from Ringo, who I wouldn't necessary say is just a random person (they represent this conference, so they have to have some scientific knowledge), but not necessary an expert to judge fully if the proof is valid. We (en.wiki) know that nearly all scientific advancement goes through the peer review process, this will too before plus more before the prize is award, and only a few articles (like the CNN) get this fact correct. If we assume that every news source said the proof was valid based on Ringo's statement, even though we know CMI hadn't made its judgement yet, we have the ability to correct that. And to that end, yes, we do have to be careful when newspapers make scientific conclusions without lack of established evidence. The way I would take this without having to modify any policy or guideline is to follow what's at WP:YESPOV - if a contentious statement has been put forth in sources, primary or secondary, (here "The proof is valid" asserted by Enoch and Ringo, questioned by CMI), we have the ability to write it as a claim made by a person or work, in this case, Enoch's offering and Ringo's statement. We do no harm as we're not asserting something true that hasn't been proven out, and maintain WP:V as we are still reporting what the sources say. In the larger generalized case of a mainstream newspaper making a novel statement of scientific fact without presenting or indicating the origin of that fact, we know nearly all such facts are only accepts after peer-review, and the lack of such would make that statement contentious. (Most good RS newspapers will always link to the published paper or indicate the upcoming paper when a new scientific theory is presented). --MASEM (t) 16:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

But this view seems based on the presumption that mention of the claimed proof is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Rather it is pretty clearly not suitable. Lot's of people claim to have proven the Riemann hypothesis, and we don't cover all of them. How do you convince me of that? What guideline or policy (beyond the one under discussion) rules it out as suitable? WP:NOR? WP:WEIGHT? WP:REDFLAG? Sławomir
Biały 17:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A combination of WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE , WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and WP:SCIRS/WP:SCICON. If there are lots of proposed proofs that these problems get and this one only just happened to get an amount of media coverage, to cover it and not the others is clearly undue. To also add WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM - just because a large number of mainstream sources presented this, doesn't mean we have to include it until we understand it better. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted a BOLD good-faith edit by Slawekb to create a presumption, if not a near-prohibition, against general news sources being used for scientific "matters" based upon this discussion. That edit goes far beyond anything which has been discussed here and, with a principle as broad as that edit would create, really needs specific, focused discussion here (and probably a RFC published at VPP) before being adopted here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't really think it would be all that controversial to say that we should demand science news sources to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. That's already part of RS and NEWSORG. All I've done is add "science" to it. It's clear from this episode that some news sources that may have a good reputation for fact checking in some areas (e.g., world news) may run columns that do not have as solid a reputation (e.g., science news). We already advise caution in citing opinion content. Sławomir
Biały 21:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

We already demand that news sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, as you say, so if that was your only point, then the addition would have been objectionable as rule creep. But that wasn't all that it said. It said, "News sources are not generally reliable for scientific matters, unless the column has a reputation for scientific fact-checking." (Emphasis added.) That's quite different and far more restrictive than having a general reputation for fact checking and accuracy (especially, but not only, when the breadth of the word "matters" is taken into consideration). It seems to me that the second bullet point of NEWSORG already deals with this sufficiently. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

If it were just this one issue, they rulecreep would apply. But there is a pattern of disregard for scientific fact-checking in otherwise respectable media outlets like the BBC. For example, here the BBC puts a Nobel Prize in a teenager's future, as does this article by Medical Daily ("now a top candidate spot for the Nobel Prize"). This is a problem with viral news stories that appear to get picked up by one source, and then reprinted everywhere else. Facts appear to take a hiatus in a lot of science reporting. So I think special emphasis is called for. Just because it's the "BBC", and isn't "opinion content", doesn't automatically mean that it is subject to the same degree of scrutiny as world or political news. Context really matters, and I think (I hope) we all agree about that. The danger is that viral news stories also tend to bring swarms of editors, and we shouldn't rewrite articles based on these stories. So, it's good to have a bullet that specifically addresses this issue. (Anyone remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinay Deolalikar?) Sławomir
Biały 21:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

But here again, it's less about deep understanding about science or math, and more about what I'd consider as human interest reporting; they are adding a spin that brings humanity and personality to a story but that would have no place in a proper discussion on the scientific merits, if only to draw readership. It's not bad reporting in terms of the science, but exaggerating claims to make the story seem more important as a human interest element; eg the viral news stories. The Nobel Prize links are a good example, and while I don't know how many people attempt proofs of these Millenium Prize problems, I suspect this story got interest because the professor is from a rather impoverished area of the world. We need to clearly recognizes puffed-up claims that are associated with these science stories but I don't think this is necessary an issue with how RSes report on scientific details. It doesn't just affect articles in science, but any type of modern journalism where works are fighting for pageviews. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. But surely such human interest stories should almost never be used in an encyclopedia. Perhaps we at least could agree on that? Sławomir
Biały 22:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we can ignore these as it becomes more prevalent in sources, but we can be using enough common sense to know when stories are trying to tickle the human element and discount those claims (like the Nobel prize teenager above) while keeping other more factual claims that are not so puffed-up. Its unfortunately how WP has to deal with new media which I've seen rear up across the board over the last few years years. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers can not afford to pay fact checkers any more - at least that is the usual excuse given for the reliance on "press releases" even by the most recognized journals now. Any suggestions how to deal with this rapidly increasing unreliability of "reliable sources"? Collect (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As a small followup, I have seen evidence that the BBC did change their initial story, which ran as stating , without question, Enoch proved it and won the prize. The article had been changed since. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Redux

Details of this particular case aside, I'd like to summarize three basic points that I hope we can more or less agree on.

1. Journalistic standards have eroded with the rise of new media. One can no longer regard the "BBC" as a reliable source for all news. Context matters. For example, BBC Science might be more reliable for scientific content than BBC Breakfast. Collect has pointed out that "Newspapers can not afford to pay fact checkers any more", and that research shows a growing reliance on press releases. (This seems to be true across the board. Even BBC Science relies increasingly on press releases, per Collect's observation.)

2. I think there is (probably) agreement that there are viral human interest "news" stories, often relating to scientific matters, that tend to get picked up by a lot of sources. These sources may not be the most reliable sources on scholarly matters. However, these are also the same sources that are likely to attract a lot of prospective editors to articles. Many such editors might be new editors, or editors who typically edit in some other content area. (See the recent history of Riemann hypothesis, Talk:Jacob Barnett, or the inordinately long Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinay Deolalikar). Probably there are other examples, but I am not very active as an editor these days.

3. Wikipedia editors aren't expected to be experts in the subject matter. Although User:Masem advises "common sense", Talk:Riemann hypothesis has four proposals over the last few days to add these human interest pieces as stories, and a number of editors have even attempted to add those sources to the article Riemann hypothesis. It's clear that "common sense", while a useful guiding principle for those with some experience in the subject matter, may not be so readily available to all editors. Another example is Talk:Jacob Barnett and the archives therein, which is full of claims that the sheer number of sources must be reliable. Common sense (apparently) be damned! (And invocations of "common sense" are dismissed by some parties as "original research".) Then there is the aforementioned case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinay Deolalikar, which was a contentious battle.

We already do have a guideline in place for just such a situation, namely WP:MEDRS:

• The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles.

and:

• Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may be based uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source

and:

• For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources.
• A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example, with the |laysummary= parameter of {{cite journal}}.

The last item seems to be equally true with "medical" replaced by "scientific", in light of recent examples.

The wording in NEWSORG is horribly unclear: "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports.... News reports may be acceptable depending on the context." What is the acceptable context? At least for scientific topics, MEDRS already gives the context, namely if that content can be independently supported by reliable scholarly research. I think this is a reasonable standard for most scientific topics, and NEWSORG should be adjusted to reflect this standard. Sławomir
Biały 01:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Before you assert that "At least for scientific topics, MEDRS already gives the context", you might want to read the very first paragraph of MEDRS, which defines what MEDRS covers. Hint, It is WP:MEDRS, not WP:SCIRS. SCIRS is for scientific claims, MEDRS is for biomedical claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that guideline. Is there a reason it isn't linked more prominently in this one? Sławomir
Biały 04:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Given your silence on this point, I'm assuming you agree that WP:SCIRS should be linked somewhere from this guideline. Sławomir
Biały 11:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: I mentioned the WP:MEDRS dispute at that guideline's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sławomir Biały keeps changing Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources without consensus --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Context is important. You cannot simply lift a statement like "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles" from WP:MEDRS, where it is in a paragraph that contains phrases such as "most medical news articles", "news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care." and "they tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance, presenting a new and experimental treatment as 'the cure' for a disease or an every-day substance as 'the cause' of a disease" and plop it down in WP:RS, where it will likely be interpreted as applying to any scientific information. There is no consensus for doing that. Again, do not edit the page without first obtaining affirmative confirmation that there is a consensus for your changes. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

News items as primary sources

Per Alanscottwalker's analysis, I think the issue hinges on whether news items constitute reliable primary or secondary sources. WP:PRIMARYNEWS already indicates that news is typically a primary source. This is especially true of news concerning scientific and medical subjects (the principle is already discussed at WP:MEDRS). I think the relevant bullet point of the guideline should be clarified on this point. Something like the following:

• For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources. A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a scientific fact or figure. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example, with the |laysummary= parameter of {{cite journal}}.

Regardless of the specific form, I think it is essential that we link to WP:PRIMARYNEWS, since this is directly relevant to assessing the source. Sławomir
Biały 11:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

NOTNEWS is an essay, not a guideline or policy, and as such is merely the opinion of those who have contributed to it, not the community as a whole. And even if it wasn't, it doesn't say what you say it does, at least as not as broadly as you say it in your proposed text. Frankly, even when properly analyzed I think that many would disagree with the black-and-white way that it analyzes news sources. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I'm guessing that you also take issue with how this essay is referenced at WP:MEDRS. But anyway, is a link to WP:PSTS appropriate? As discussed above, it looks like often there is a real issue in distinguishing between whether a given news source is a primary or secondary source. It looks to me like others are saying that human interest stories are primary sources, that so-and-so said such-and-such, but are seldom reliable as secondary sources. How do you propose we incorporate that into the guideline? Sławomir
Biały 15:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The NEWSORG guideline as currently written appears to create a false dichotomy between opinion content, which is reliable as a primary source, and news items which are reliable as "factual" sources (which the reader is to infer is a "secondary" source). As discussion here shows, there is a large grey area. News sources may be primary or secondary sources, depending on the context. For example, the CNN piece can be used as a primary source for Enoch and Ringo's opinions, or as a secondary source on the policies of the Clay Mathematics Institute. Do I understand correctly? If so, a sentence should be added to the second paragraph of the newsorg guideline clarifying that news items can be primary or secondary sources, depending on context. A link to WP:PSTS should be provided, and possibly also a link to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Sławomir
Biały 12:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

An initial proposal, that at least conveys there is an error in the dichotomy currently presented: "News sources may be primary or secondary sources, depending on how they are used." To be inserted at the beginning of the second paragraph of NEWSORG. Sławomir
Biały 13:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

A refined proposal. In the paragraph on academic topics in WP:NEWSORG, replace "News reports may be acceptable depending on the context." with the much clearer "News articles are not usually written by a specialist in the subject. So while news is often reliable as a primary source in the sciences, it should be only be used as a secondary source on scientific and academic topics with caution." Sławomir
Biały 01:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Press releases

I'm a science journalist. I read original medical journal articles, and sometimes read press releases after I'm finished as a final check. All the press releases I see based on a peer-reviewed journal article are issued simultaneously by the journal and the author's institution. They're reviewed by the author, the journal and the institution's public relations office, who are all responsible for the release's accuracy or lack of it. This process itself has been the subject of many peer-reviewed journal articles, eg http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=2301146 doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2147 and I recommend you read the substantial peer-reviewed literature before discussing it.

The news media vary greatly in their reliability, quality, accuracy, and methods.

At the top end, many peer-reviewed journals published by professional societies have news sections, such as the Science magazine News & Comments, or the BMJ news stories, which in my experience are as reliable (and sometimes more reliable than) the peer-reviewed journals. I believe most of Science's reporters have PhDs. For example, Science hired Gina Kolata, who has a PhD in mathematics, to cover mathematics, but she moved on to the New York Times. (Interestingly, she said it turned out to be particularly difficult to explain mathematics to non-specialists.) The reporters in Science know or can find out who the top experts are on any story, and they have editors who review their stories. Other publications, such as the New Yorker, have extensive fact-checking. http://www.statnews.com/2015/11/11/atul-gawande-health-care-journalism/

So if you're going to argue that news organizations are unreliable because they uncritically reprint inaccurate press releases and abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, you should also argue that peer-reviewed journals are unreliable because they print those inaccurate press releases and abstracts in the first place.

At the bottom end, some web sites simply scrape press releases. There are all different gradations in between. And in a given organization, there are gradations in journalists. There's a difference between the science editor and the fashion editor at the BBC.

Ivan Oransky, the former editor of Reuters Health and now editor of Medpage Today and journalism professor at NYU, famously said that for a reporter to write a story from a press release and/or abstract, without reading the original article, was "journalistic malpractice." https://www.elsevier.com/connect/how-do-you-know-if-a-research-study-is-any-good (Like a lot of journalists, Ivan Oransky also has an MD.)

I had a job in which the editor told us that we should just write news stories from the abstracts, and not bother reading the original article. We refused.

This should be distinguished from press releases based on a meeting presentation of research that hasn't yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. These releases can also be reported either verbatim by bottom-scraping web sites and patient forums or by journalists who often have been covering the subject for years and understand the context, singnificance and tentativeness of a meeting report. For that matter, they can write a story based on the abstracts in the abstract book (which is often, technically, a special section of a peer-reviewed journal and arguably a WP:MEDRS). Reuters, Medpage Today, and similar publications do have a level of fact-checking for these stories. (Here's a quick way to identify a reliable meeting article: Do they get a comment on the meeting report from an independent expert?) They also have editors in the home office, some with MDs or PhDs, who have been following these issues for years, and can identify a claim that is out of the ordinary.

So my bottom-line message is: You like high-quality peer-reviewed journals? So do I. There's lots of research in high-quality peer-reviewed journals on the process of writing science news. We should depend on published research rather than our own WP:OR observations and personal opinions of the newspapers and TV. --Nbauman (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this view. It's indeed a conundrum, that the current guideline doesn't really go far enough to distinguish between "good" science reporting, and "bad" science reporting. I had rather ham-handedly attempted such an edit. Naturally, that edit was reverted, but there's clearly a huge spectrum between "science journalism" on the one end, and churnalism on the other. Currently, the guideline only distinguishes between news content, and opinion content. Should the guideline be made more clear that there is an enormous difference between responsible scientific journalism, and the kind of churnalism detailed in the previous sections? Sławomir
Biały 17:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

In medical news, the best way I have to evaluate news sources and stories is the checklists used at HealthNewsReview.org, whose mission is to evaluate and improve medical journalism. They don't have a list per se; they just tell you how they evaluate news. It does require some judgment to apply, but it's well-designed like any other medical checklist. --Nbauman (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

For medical news, there's already WP:MEDRS, which you probably feel is too restrictive. Scientific news more broadly is covered at WP:SCIRS. That probably should at least be linked from this guideline somewhere. Sławomir
Biały 21:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A related question

How does one tell if a "news item" comes from a reliable news service? For example, the BBC interview mentioned previously is part of Newsday (radio series), not (as far as I can tell) BBC News, which is mentioned prominently as a reliable source of "news". So, I guess my question is, does NEWSORG intend news agencies, or does it cover other types of media such as the program just mentioned? If not, what part of RS does? Sławomir
Biały 11:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)⇒

Well, as an interview it is generally a primary source, but can it be considered as an RS, sure, and that it is carried by the BBC confirms that the BBC finds it reasonably reliable too - ie., it is not a mock interview. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

But it's not a news source under NEWSORG, because it's not published by BBC News or any other news agency. Do I understand correctly? I see I may be misreading the guideline. If that's the case, how does one decide what is news, if "published by a news agency" is not the correct criterion? Given the amount of churnalism masquerading as news these days, I think it's essential to get clarity on that point. Sławomir
Biały 12:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You do misunderstand: the guideline applies to news outlets. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

What does that mean? How do we determine what is "news" and what is not "news"? Do human interest stories, churnalism, and other pseudonews count as "news"? Sławomir
Biały 13:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Common sense. It's always difficult to do anything without it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but I find that what I consider news may differ from what others do. For example, at Talk:Jacob Barnett, the program BBC Breakfast was presented as "news" (in fact, as part of BBC News). But I wouldn't consider this a news source. Is it news? How do we decide? Sławomir
Biały 13:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss. Guidelines are not meant to prevent talking to other Users. If you think it needed and discussion did not do it, see, WP:DR. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. But is it clear that there is scope in the guideline for disagreement about whether "BBC Breakfast" is "news"? The current dichotomy presented could be interpreted as indicating that either it's "news" or "opinion". Can it be neither? Sławomir
Biały 14:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither? It does not really matter. It can be news or not and that won't make it 'not a reliable source', in and of itself. If any particular usage is so perplexing, that is why we have WP:RSN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It basically comes down to context: what article you want to use it in, what information wants to be included, etc. Take the piece above about the proof. I would certainly consider that a news source for Enoch if we had an article on him, but not for the hypothesis. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Haryana Chess Association (HCA)

This is not the place for edit requests. Place them on the article talk page, instead. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
visit www.IndianChess.org for details. Er. Kuldeep Sharma Secretary General Haryana Chess Association (HCA) www.IndianChess.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haryanachess (talk • contribs) 03:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Irene Santiago

This is not the place for help requests. Consider Editor Assistance instead, but I'm also going to leave some comments on your user talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedia advanced users. Need help creating a page for an actress, Irene Santiago. Thank you MargretAnnF MargaretAnnF (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)MargaretAnnF

Is an otherwise-reliable source that uses unreliable methods still reliable?

For example, if a newspaper says "95% of the respondents to our online poll are in favour of ____", it's falling foul of the self-selection bias. The results cannot be trusted in any way. Is the statement still reliable enough to include in an article? Similarly, if a newspaper says "Young children who sleep with the light on are much more likely to develop myopia in later life, therefore, sleeping with the light on causes myopia", which breaks the rule that correlation does not imply causation, is the statement still reliable enough to be included in an article? Banedon (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Banedon: can you give a specific example? Which newspaper did this? FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

China Daily - "On China's portal websites like sina, 85 percent of those polled showed support for the couple." Banedon (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that each specific is context specific: "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." I don't think it's usually a question of a source being either 100% reliable or unreliable. I think your example potentially could be included in an article, but it would need to be put into context. You would specifically need to identify that the number came from an online poll on China Daily's website, and link to the article reporting that number, not the poll itself. But I imagine this would need to be determined on a case by case basis. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

A problem with that is that many dubious statements suddenly become "reliable". For example, statements such as "I tried this diet for two months and I lost weight!" would be perfectly acceptable as long as it is stated as such, and a page could potentially contain a sentence such as "100% of the respondents to an online poll on this diet's efficacy said they lost weight within two months". Such a statement may be true, but its impact would range from meaningless (for those readers who are aware that studies with self-selected samples are pointless) to dangerous (for those who aren't). I'm hesitant about allowing it at all. Banedon (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A key step here is to make sure the chain of sourcing is explained in the article. So taking initial example, if this is reported by a normal RS, it would probably be best to say "An online poll taken by X show that most people think Y is true", instead of just saying "Y is true". We're not changing what the RS says, but we're not simply waving awy the use a questionable data gathering method. But as noted it is a case by case basis. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Again a problem with that is that it gives the online poll legitimacy. The online poll can be accurate, but it can also be completely wrong. A couple of articles on this from cursory Googling: [3] and, more sympathetic, [4]. The first source cites a great example of why online polls (and similar polls with self-selected samples) aren't reliable: it vastly overestimated the percentage of people who thought Bill Clinton should resign over his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. But from what you said, it could be used to legitimize the statement "According to an online poll, a majority of Americans think Bill Clinton should resign over his relationship with Monica Lewinsky". Like I said, I'm hesitant about allowing it at all, just like fringe Nasa-never-landed-on-the-moon theories don't show up on the moon landing page. Banedon (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's another one: [5] - "One website claimed that 70% of people responded to a poll saying the beating was deserved". I would be very surprised if the statistic is actually representative and thus reliable. Banedon (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If there is a poll, and the poll is a quality poll, and the poll is being reported in a reliable sources, and the context for the addition of this material is sound, the poll results can be used in an article, properly attributed. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Expanding E-commerce section

Resulting from a discussion at WP:RSN#Merchant sources as a source I expanded the e-commerce section

In case of comments or related suggestions, please post these at WP:RSN#Merchant sources as a source (not here). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Review articles and peer review

WP:SCHOLARSHIP rightly makes a point in bullet 1 that review articles are better than primary sources.

However, what it fails to do is indicate clearly that review articles should be subject to proper editorial control. This has lately become an issue in an conflict I have had where a review article is being cited as the sole source for empirical claims, but the article itself was commissioned by an advocacy group rather than, for example, published in a journal.

Could we make it clear that peer review is the gold standard for review articles?

jps (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it should be the gold standard for all kinds of scholarly evidence where it is normal.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Usually in the situation you describe the article is not a reliable source on its face, without referring to this guideline. The first bullet point of SCHOLARSHIP doesn't mean that review articles which are not reliable sources are preferred over primary sources which are reliable sources, as is illuminated by the second bullet point of SCHOLARSHIP. Remember that at the end of the day the verifiability policy is the source of everything in this guideline and nothing here takes away from the V requirements. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This was my understanding too. Nevertheless, people seem confused and argue that they can accept the first bullet point and ignore the rest. The problem comes in when people have favorite sources (often written by nominally scholarly individuals) who may nevertheless be writing position papers that advocate for a certain perspective which would not normally see the light of day in the peer-reviewed journals. These white papers/position papers/etc. are then the preferred sources for users hoping to get a particular take on a subject highlighted in the article and when those of us who are skeptical of this approach point out that the sources are not reliable since they lack peer-review, the claim is simply, "reliable sources don't have to be peer reviewed". jps (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no automatic way to determine reliability. As you say, peer-reviewed articles are generally the gold standard (though one can find peer-reviewed trash as well). Regarding the rest of your point, on sufficiently important/political topics, one can generally find even famous/well-regarded scholars to advance any position. One must look at a broad range to see if the opinions or typical or outliers. The venue, citations, criticism etc. can all help in this. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

No issue with what you say there. Indeed, peer review is not a silver bullet in spite of it being a gold standard. What I'm amazed by is ongoing insistence that papers that are not peer-reviewed and have not been corroborated by peer reviewed work in the relevant area are still considered by many editors to be reliable because of bullet point number one not explicitly mentioning peer review. Would it be possible to slip in peer review into that bullet point? jps (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is needed, per TransporterMan. Such a source could be rejected as not reliable (or at least needs a justfication to be reliable) simply per WP:V and WP:RS. Point 1 of WP:SCHOLARSHIP comes way afterwards. Also, it is not a sufficient condition and does not pretend to be. Of course people misuse any guidelines, even when baldly stated. Many people even link to pages but never read what the page actually says. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems a bit complicated to me. Using WP:V as a fallback causes problems because it is easy to verify when a source says something. What's hard to do is identify why it is not a good source, if you see what I'm saying. WP:SCHOLARSHIP is meant to be a discriminator between good and bad sources and right now it doesn't explicitly identify secondary sources as needing to be peer reviewed. Simply adding a simple phrase to the first bullet point would suffice, wouldn't it? jps (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the OP - peer review should be considered as the gold standard for review articles.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps just switch around bullet point 1 and 2? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It does not seem complicated to me. I said WP:V and WP:RS. The statements needs to traced back to a source, and the source must be reliable. A review article put out by an advocacy organization is not reliable (by default - of course one can argue for its reliability using other criteria). I don't really see what fuss is all about. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: (aka jps). The V policy does not just say that stuff must be verifiable through any source, the SOURCES subsection and following subsections of V are the primary definition of reliable sources in Wikipedia. This guideline is intended to help people understand that policy. Whatever is said here, including SCHOLARSHIP, is trumped by V. For that reason, I almost never refer to this guideline in doing dispute resolution (which is the main thing I do here at Wikipedia): I refer back to the real source, which is V. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

mathematical evidence

I want to have mathematical evidence (in the sense of being evident) added as a reliable source. Read the prescriptions carefully, then understand why it poses problems in mathematics sometimes. If in an article about prime numbers I add an example likes this.

91 is not a prime number because it is 7*13 , so it is divisible by 7.

This is not likely to be challenged. But unlike the Paris example, it is unlikely that one finds a "reliable source" for this, anywhere. So on that ground this example would be forbidden. It could be construed as "original research", because I have used my desk calculator to verify it.

In a mathematical article one has to be slighly creative in order to make it comprehensible for non-expert mathematicians, including mathematicians in other fields. E.g. I would add to a game theory article:

"Games won for the Next player are far more common then those won for the Previous player. For example in the NIM game with heaps of 7, only 1 out of 128 games is an P-position. "

Of course I can prove that, but that would be original research. To a mathematician even moderately familiar with the subject, this is evident. Mathematical text are full of such trivial stements. Note that it serves a very important purpose. A reader of wikipedia wants to have insight in the subject matter, not overwhelmed by rigorous proofs. This example is tailored to give a feel of what N-positions and P-positions are about. 80.100.243.19 (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• RE: "91 is not a prime number, because it is divisible by 7 and 13" ... That is the sort of routine calculation that is explicitly exempted from WP:NOR (see WP:CALC). You are correct that it is unlikely to be challenged - so I think it also passes WP:V. That said... if someone does challenge it, I would suggest not arguing the point. My advice in such situations is to "Let the Wookie win". You can spend hours arguing that a source is not actually needed... or... you can spend five minutes finding a different example (one that is explicitly verifiable - Any elementary mathematics text book will have examples of prime and non-prime numbers that can be used as a cited example here)... by substituting a cited example, you make the annoying challenger go away much quicker than you would if you tried to argue with him/her.

RE: the game theory calculation ... that is not the sort of routine calculation that is covered by WP:CALC, and so it does have to be explicitly verifiable. It would clearly be Original Research to state it without citing a source that directly supports it. Note that WP:NOR is not about "proving" that a statement you make in an article is accurate... it is about showing that what you say isn't based on your own original thinking... it's about showing that "someone else said this first". Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Tabloids as reliable sources?

There is an issue on the use of Tabloid Journals as a source for material on BLP articles. The policy says that tabloid journalism is not allowed, but per prior discussions here Tabloid journals are allowed for factual matters. This really needs sorted so we could have some RS expert eyes on this discussion ----Snowded ^TALK 13:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources - Shit, more spamming of this unnecessary issue - the BLP policy is already perfect as it is - simple facts only and attribution is absolutely important also. You can't label any of those tabloid sources as reliable , so discuss and get consensus , attempts by opinionated users to attempt to push into articles weak dubious factoids that are not widely supported should be avoided and the perpetrator should be expelled from the project for a failure to comply with wp:npov and wp:blp Govindaharihari (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Digital Dream Door deletion

Hello,

I've deleted Digital Dream Door everywhere I could find it because it's not a reliable source. It's an amateur website using subjective and vague methods for building up their lists and gathering their information.88.182.48.88 (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Academic consensus

There are several issues with the academic consensus section (WP:RS/AC). First, it is not clear from the section when WP editors should use general statements that are referenced but not attributed in the article text (e.g., "Most scientists support hypothesis XX") versus identifying particular, named sources. The academic consensus section states "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." It is not clear what "Otherwise" refers to. What is the criteria for using a general statement versus identifying particular, named sources? I think the guideline should make it clear what the decision criteria are for this matter. Second, the academic consensus guideline does not make a distinction between statements made by reliable sources that consist of a single sentence ("Most academics believe that global warming is an unproved theory") and statements made by reliable sources that summarize the results from a large, systematic review ("Smith et al reviewed 5,000 peer reviewed journal articles on global warming and climate change from 1990 to 2015 and found that 95% of the articles supported the global warming hypothesis."). Third, the academic consensus section does not give guidance on how to deal with competing claims about academic consensus. What if Jones states that "most scientists do not support the global warming hypothesis" (which refers to all scientists from all scientific fields, including scientific fields in which scientists do not have expertise in climate change science) and Smith states "most scientists in fields pertaining to climate change support the global warming hypothesis." Fourth, what if there is a divergence between the academic consensus in academic discipline A and academic discipline B? (e.g., "Almost all religious scholars support hypothesis X regarding the Bible. However, most mainstream historians do not support hypothesis X.") Fifth, do we give more or less weight to competing consensus claims depending on the reliability of the author and publisher? (e.g., Smith claims that there is a consensus for hypothesis X on climate change in a book published by a general publisher that publishes a range of commercial trade books versus Jones who claims that there is a consensus for hypothesis Y on climate change in an Oxford University Press book). OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 15:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Also note that "consensus" (especially in social sciences, but actually for all academic uses of "consensus") often changes rapidly - thus what is "consensus" in 2010 may well be not the consensus in 2020. And, in general, scientists do not "vote" on truth - they simply agree or disagree that a particular theory is more apt to be correct or less apt to be correct in forecasting the results of future empirical observations. One splendid example is the "number of hurricanes forecast in the coming year" which, over a period of two decades, was less accurate than forecasting the exact same value each year over the two decades <g>. For historians, the record is even worse, "revisionism" is rampant in broad swaths of historical commentary. Einstein's proposals concerning energy and gravity is an example where we only now have empirical observations appearing to conform with his position. Collect (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

We report the current consensus regardless of how we think it may or may not change. Returning to OBZ's example of climate change there are multiple sources of extraordinarily high quality that explicitly state what the "consensus" view is. (Granted, not everyone accepts that the pointy-headed intellectuals at the world's national science academies just might be more credible than Ted Cruz.<g>) But not every case is so clear cut, so we have to be very careful. As an aside, the hurricane forcasting example is inapt given that there is no consensus within the relevant scientific community regarding how best to forecast hurricanes. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2016

128.118.134.7 (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC) http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/paterno_praised_for_acting_app.html

Reliable source: Pulitzer Prize author who broke the story.

This page is a guideline about how to identify a reliable source. It is not a list of reliable sources. So the source you mention has no place on this page. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Archive or availability requirement for text sources

In the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources# Citing a blast email three has been disagreement as to how available a text source must be for it to be considered reliably published. WP:RS#Definition of published says that:

However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist.

Moreover Wikipedia:Published says:

All reliable sources are, by definition, both published and accessible to at least some people. Sources that are not published (e.g., something someone said to you personally) or not accessible (e.g., the only remaining copy of the book is locked in a vault, with no one allowed to read it) are never acceptable as sources on Wikipedia.

However, Wikipedia:Published is an essay, not a guideline or policy.

In the WT:CITE thread, some editors asserted that an out-of-print book not held by any library or offered for sale by any used bookstore could nonetheless be a reliable source if a single editor asserted possession of a copy, even if no other editor was in a position to verify this. I disagree.

I would like to add wording to WP:RS, perhaps in WP:RS#Definition of published to make a requirement equivalent to the "archive" requirement for broadcast media, to say that a source is not considered published unless at least one library holds a copy, or it is available for sale, or there is some other method whereby a reader could, even if with some effort or expense, obtain a copy to verify the citation. DES ^(talk) 17:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Four comments. (1) The idea that a book must be held by a library or an archive or currently available somewhere for purchase goes against the common sense notion of the word "published". So I would suggest rather than trying to re-define the word "published" in a counter-intuitive way it would be better to just add as a requirement for what counts as a "reliable source" this extra condition. So, for example, it would be better to change the first sentence of the "Overview" section to say "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published, currently available sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Then there could be a little section on what counts as "currently available" which specifies the one library, one archive, one copy for sale idea.

(2) Changing the wording on this page is fine, but this is just a guideline. Unless there is also a change on the page WP:SOURCE, which is a policy page, making a change here won't really settle the matter. The policy page still will not say anything about the current availability of text being a requirement for counting as a reliable source, and so since policy pages trump guidelines making a change here won't change policy. I would recommend seeking a change in the policy page for this change to have real force.

(3) The suggested change is unlikely to make a real practical difference. We have all, I am sure, encountered editors who are quite insistent about edits they are sure are correct, so imagine just how more determined an editor would be if they actually are holding in their hands a copy of a book that was published that supports the information they want to add to an article. If other editors object to adding the information and explain the "one library, one archive, one copy for sale" condition it would be quite simple for the owner of that copy of the book to put it up for sale online with an asking price of $1m, thus satisfying the "currently available" criterion. A condition that easy to satisfy is really no condition at all.

(4) It is important not to confuse worries that an editor is mistaken about a source or the reliability of a source with worries that an editor is just making stuff up (and that no such book even does exist). In the former case, because text can be quoted verbatim and information about the publication history of the book can settle whether the book is likely to have the facts right and whether the editor has made a mistake in reading the source, requiring copies be available for others to check is not really that important. Honest editors of good faith don't need any change in guidelines or policy. However in a case where some editors believe that another editor is fabricating a source that does not even exist or is attributing words to a source that it does not even contain them the issue isn't reliability of the source at all. Requiring an editor to prove that a book exists is different from requiring the editor to use a source that is reliable. Insofar as there might be concerns about falsification of sources, changing the criteria for reliability is not the way to go about it. 99.192.48.16 (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue here isn't reliability... It's Verifiability... Any document is reliable for a quote or close descriptive statement as to the content of the document ... But if a reader (or someone else, acting on the reader's behalf) can not gain access to the document, then the document is not Verifiable. and Verifiability is a policy. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello again, 99.192. You are quite probably right that if such a change is made it should be to impose a "currently available" condition on reliability, rather than making it part of the definition of "published". It should still have the effect that I desire. In regard to your point 4, I am not so much concerned with the editor who completely fabricates a source as with the editor who quotes a source out of context or otherwise misrepresents a source, quite probably doing so in good faith. Without the ability to inspect not only a specific quite but the surrounding text, it is often impossible to see if a source really does support the statements for which it is cited. Editors, particularly unconsciously biased editors, all to often cherry-pick source quotes, and it may take a fuller inspection of the source to see that the quote does not actually support what it is cited for. Also, inspection of a source, particularly a historical source, may well reveal facts about it that cast doubt on its reliability. (For example it may make frequent errors of fact in other matters, it may cite as reliable sources known to be unreliable, it may display clear bias, etc) If it is an obscure source, these may not be evident without such extended perusal of the source. In short, we need the ability for some other editor to verify the source for it to be considered truly reliable. DES ^(talk) 18:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

DES, all you say makes sense, but how is a used bookstore down the street from me having the only copy in the world available for sale going to help editors check for context? Or, as in my example, an editor offering to sell the book for a price no other editor would want to pay? Satisfying the availability criterion is no way to ensure the source can be read by others. But also, if we are assuming that the editor who has the only copy of the book is editing in good faith, there are lots of way to make it possible for others to check. The editor who owns the book can scan a few pages and send them to others to read. It's probably a lot easier to do that than to travel to New York City to see the only copy of a book located there in a public archive. So I don't see the proposal ultimately being much help. 99.192.48.16 (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Two things, Blueboar. (1) The policy I linked to (WP:SOURCE) is a subsection of Wikipedia:Verifiability, and that policy is the one that does not include an availability requirement, so you are wrong about what "verifiability" means. (2) You are misusing the term "verifiability". For Wikipedia "verifiability" is a description of claims made in an article, not of the sources used to support claims. So if an article says that John Smith was born with six fingers, that claim is verifiable if there is a reliable source that says he was born with six fingers. To say that a source is not verifiable does not make sense with how the policy uses the words "verifiabile" and "verifiability. 99.192.48.16 (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Does the section " Vendor and e-commerce sources" still reflect the consensus?

WP:RS#Vendor and e-commerce sources says: Although the content guidelines for External links prohibits linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available.

Bgwhite (talk · contribs), an editor whose work I have seen and respect, has been removing supporting references to Amazon that provide reference support for information such as book titles and publication dates. Examples from my watchlist are:

• Magic Tree House (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); and
• Laura Schwendinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

The references were already present in the Magic Tree House article; I didn't add them. I did add the reference to the Schwendinger article; the material it supports was already there, but unreferenced, and on a quick Google search, I could find no better reference.

I've pointed out this guideline, and that sources should be replaced; but can still be used until replaced.

BGwhite's approach is to simply delete the references, with comments such as "Amazon IS NOT a valid source. Period." I disagree; I think it is acceptable edit behavior to either replace the Amazon cite with a better cite, or add {{better source}} to flag it for another editor, but not to delete the cite and leave it unreferenced.

On his talk page, BGwhite says "It says when a better source is available, use it instead of the commercial site." I'm good with that, but these edits are not substituting a better source; they are not using a better source. They are simply removing the existing source.

I realize for the Magic Tree House article, I could probably google-search and come up with something (and indeed, for the book series, one thing I'd like to do when I have the time is to add an ISBN-based footnote for each book); but I'm thinking of the bigger picture here, and the pattern of deleting sources and leaving material unsourced as a result.

All this basically calls into question this guideline. Should Amazon cites be deleted without replacing with a better site? Should this guideline be updated? TJRC (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• TJRC, I can say from many many encounters with Amazon's data over a period of years when I was working on entering bibliographic data and verifying other people's entries at the ISFDB that Amazon was notoriously inaccurate in reporting exact publication dates. It was usually accurate as to the year, but is simply not to be trusted beyond that. It was also notoriously inaccurate on page counts, often rounding to the nearest power of 2, or simply filling in apparently random figures when a publisher had not supplied a page count. It was also commonly inaccurate on subtitles, presenting series names (often series designations of its own devising, never used by the author or any other source) as sub-titles. Amazon also has a habit of citing current ISBNs on entries about out-of-print editions of books. These issues do not apply to other commercial book-selling sites (such as Barnes and Noble, or most publisher's sites), they are quite specific to Amazon. Therefore I think Amazon should not be considered a reliable source, not because it is commercial, but because it in particular has a demonstrated lack of accuracy. DES ^(talk) 16:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, DESiegel. Can you give your input on the questions Should Amazon cites be deleted without replacing with a better site? Should this guideline be updated? TJRC (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

My view, TJRC, is that there is no need to change the guideline on these matters, but we might want to have a discussion, perhaps at WP:RSN, on the reliability of Amazon in particular. This might lead to a consensus to limit the use of Amazon in particular, much like the consensus that exists not to rely on the IMDB except in very limited ways. i think that the best practice would be to replace a cite to Amazon with a cite to another source, even another bookseller. But if no other source can be found, that may be a further indication that the Amazon content is not reliable (when it is reliable, Amazon content can usually be confirmed at other sources) and so should be removed. That, however, is a fact-bound and circumstance-specific decision, to be made on individual article talk pages, or perhaps at AN or ANI if an editor is routinely or massively removing Amazon cites and not replacing them with easily available (i.e googleable ) alternate cites, after discussion. That is my view. DES ^(talk) 19:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Protocol question

Hi. I am coordinating the latest database for The Wikipedia Library (Alexander Street Press). Where is the best place to announce this latest resource so editors in need can benefit from using it to acquire references for articles they are improving or proposing? Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

sources which make clear "guilt by association" arguments

On Talk:Vladimir_Putin a claim is made that if a "reliable source" presents a "guilt by association" argument, that Wikipedia is allowed to stated that argument as fact.

The post:

But we ARE NOT "iterating claims of guilt by association as fact". We are simply reporting what reliable sources say. That's it. If a source says "papers leave a trail leading back to Putin" then that's what we write. What we cannot write is "Putin stashed away millions" - and it would be only in that case that we would violate BLP. But that's not what we are doing here.

The edit made by that poster:

In April 2016, 11 million documents belonging to a Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca were leaked to the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and the Washington-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. According to the Guardian, the name of Vladimir Putin "does not appear in any of the records", but it and other Western media published lengthy reports about three of Putin's alleged friends on the list.[356] According to the Panama Papers leak, close trustees of Putin own offshore companies worth two billion US-Dollar in total.[357] The newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung regards the possibility of Putin's family profiting from this money as plausible.[358][359] According to the paper, the US$2 billion had been "secretly shuffled through banks and shadow companies linked to Putin's associates", and Bank Rossiya, previously identified by the U.S. State Department as being treated by Putin as his personal bank account, had been central in facilitating this.[360][361] A significant proportion of the money trail leads to Putin's best friend Sergei Roldugin. Although a minor musician, and in his own words not a businessman, it appears he has accumulated assets valued at $100m, and possibly more. It is been presumed he was picked for the role because of his low profile.[362]

Where the source cited specifies that Putin's name was not in any of the 11 million documents, cited people as being "alleged friends", profiting as "plausible", and the classic comment about a person about whom no charges exist "It is been presumed he was picked for the role because of his low profile". Is this use in a BLP about Putin as a living person an example of guilt by association, and use of rumours? I comment disinterested editors to examine the sources and claims made for such sources, but that is not the question I raise here.

Should WP:RS state openly that

Claims of "guilt by association" are deemed to be "matters of opinion" and not allowed to be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice

Or is this going to far, or is it insufficient to prevent misuse of opinion sources making allegations of criminal acts? Collect (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion to rewrite "nothing . . . that is not citable"

May I change a double negative to a more direct statement?

• Change from: Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that is not citable with something else.
• Change to: Because Wikipedia forbids original research, everything reliable in Wikipedia can be cited from another source.

I will change the sentence if two editors say yes (and no one says no). Scenography (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I would expand this to " Because Wikipedia forbids original research, everything reliable in Wikipedia can be cited from another source, and it is better to cite such a source than to cite Wikipedia directly". DES ^(talk) 23:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

strange major addition

News organizations may report content that is unflattering to a subject, or that a subject may wish to remain hidden, such as the results of investigative journalism. When a news organization targets a subject in a report, it does not in and of itself establish that the news organization is biased with regard to the subject, for purposes such as establishing bias sufficient to exclude the source or otherwise limit content drawn from the source, nor does it establish that the news organization is partisan, for purposes of excluding or limiting appropriate direct quotation or other relevant content drawn from the source.

Appears to me to be discordant with other parts of this guideline, and, I fear, appears worded as though it were designed to be used in an argumentative manner. Collect (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Should the EL guideline and this guideline be reviewed to change to common language where appropriate?

I was recently working on improving some references—mainly cases where an editor included a bare link, and I was converting it to a proper reference. In one case I noticed that the person linked a Google search as opposed to a specific entry. That didn’t seem right but I didn’t see any prohibition in this guideline (did I miss it?).

While working on something else, I happen to review the external links guideline, specifically, links to be avoided. There, in item 8, it specifically suggests avoiding “links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds”. While this is in the external links guideline, I think it equally applies to references.

This leads to two questions, one specific, one general:

1. Specific: should this guideline be amended to suggest that references to individual website searches should not be generally viewed as an acceptable reference?
2. General: should this entire list, or possibly both guidelines be reviewed so that the two guidelines are coherent—in other words, while there may be some cases where advice applies to an external link or to a reference, but not both, in many cases the advice will be identical and we would be better served if we use the exact same language in both cases. As an additional example I note item 17 suggest avoiding referral links. This advice would also seem to apply to references but I do not see it in that guideline.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that links to "obvious search engines or sites" should not be used as "external links" as a matter of reasonable policy. Collect (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)