To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

Archives

WP:MOS subguideline, anyone?

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

Wikipedia as a source

It seems to be accepted that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Here's one example: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Using other Wikipedia aritcles as a source. However, I can't find this rule stated anywhere. Shouldn't this rule be stated on the project page somewhere?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What you are looking for is Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper), which is linked from Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources. Vassyana (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but if I may suggest it be more explicit. I'm seeing it used more frequently these days, and this is something that most editors might not realize. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The flat statement in an official English Wikipedia policy that (quoting) "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources" seems pretty explicit to me. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I was looking at the previous line "wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." But the line that you pointed out probably suffices for "explicitness". :-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to comment about this. One of Wikipedia's aims is to obtain information from other versions of Wikipedia. In my case, I've been translating articles from the Dutch Wikipedia. This is sorely needed, because the wealth of information found there is often quite absent from English Wikipeda articles. Similarly, articles written by English speakers are inherently chauvinist and tend to ignore or downplay non-English-speaking aspects of human affairs. These Dutch articles provide specific information that belongs on Wikipedia (of any stripe). Also, sometimes the information is so obscure to English-speakers that it is simply worth having, regardless of lack of footnoting.

The problem is that the Dutch articles are often unreferenced. I don't know why footnotes are so lacking on the Dutch site. Dutch academics are very active and at the forefront in their fields, but perhaps they still look on Wikipedia more as a "people's encyclopedia". There simply is not a lot of footnoting on the Dutch Wikipedia. Wikipedia is enormously popular amongst Dutch people, but people accept it for what it is. I suppose it's not seen as the ultimate source of academically verifiable, footnoted knowledge. It helps that the Dutch media don't terrorise Wikipedia.

So this puts me in a bind: does Wikipedia want this information or not? Do I translate this unfootnoted information or not? If I do, I can only reference it as coming from articles on the Dutch Wikipedia.

Sometimes it's not a question of translating, but one of gathering the Dutch-related information that's already there, scattered around the English Wikipedia, and then adding it to the article so that the Dutch aspect is properly reflected. This "scattering" tends to happen I think because Dutch speakers want the information to be presented on the English Wikipedia, but they are reluctant to do it in a major way. Their English is not always perfect and they don't want to draw attention to what they're adding. They sneak it in in small articles (perhaps) and paragraphs here and there. Here too this information is mostly unfootnoted.

In a nutshell, this blanket policy of "no Wikipedia references" doesn't deal adequately with the enormous amount of work that is still needed to make sure that the information on the various Wikipedias properly infiltrates to other Wikipedias and articles. (Unless it's felt that such unfootnoted information should simply remain localised and isolated and not be spread around at all? I certainly don't agree with this because I would enjoy hearing what's written about specific cultures and in other languages, unreferenced or not. There's a wealth of information out there, not just the information that is of interest to English-speaking academics. Preferably it would be referenced, but if it's not - well I still want to be able to read it.Schildewaert (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem ... "facts" in all articles need references whether they have been garnered from another language WP or not. There is a big danger in allowing unreferenced info from, say, the Dutch WP into the English WP (or indeed vice versa) because the very existence of a cross-reference citation tag would effectively say "It's Ok you can trust this because our Dutch colleages say it is so" which, of course, would be blatant nonsense (imho). Abtract (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There should be some attempt at internationalisation and consistency between the various versions of Wikipedia. If a Dutch enthusiast writes a detailed but unfootnoted article on, say, Terschelling, is this not of interest to someone who wants to know more about the island? You're basically saying that footnoting is more important than internationalisation.

All I'm suggesting is that there be some understanding of unreferenced articles in this situations, or some way to reference other-language Wikipedia articles (esp. from other Wikipedia versions), or else you'll hinder this internationalisation process.

Isn't the whole idea behind Wikipedia that someone creates an article and then it improves through the dialectic of public review? How will that happen if we get restrictive at the start? One way to improve the breadth (if not the depth) of the various Wikipedias and to help them grow is for information to infiltrate from one version to the next. If some of that is unfootnoted or referenced to other Wikipedia's, is that a major problem?

You say that "facts need references", but with great respect that's not true at all. Without wanting to upset the faithful, this is primarily an academic point of view. This emphasis on "trusting" Wikipedia in the way you're suggesting is cultural I think. For many people throughout the world that's not what Wikipedia is all about. Perhaps in other cultures Wikipedia gets a more favourable press, people are more practical about Wikipedia, and perhaps accept it for what it is. It seems to be mainly Americans who are affected by bad press about Wikipedia.

I agree with the policy; I'm just trying to point out that we shouldn't let it become the be-all and end-all.

Another point: English speakers are not the only ones using the English Wikipedia. English is a second language for the rest of the world and they also rely on the English Wikipedia. They don't do it to find out just what English-speaking academics have to say.

Anyway, it seems to me that this guideline on not referencing Wikipedia is a minor point. Somewhat of a throw-in. Schildewaert (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

To stay in Wikipedia, content needs to be reference-able (WP:V verifiable), not already referenced at all times. There's nothing at all wrong with translating content from another language, already referenced or not, and putting it here; this works to reduce systematic bias and neutralize. The templates in [[Category:Interwiki translation templates]], like Template:Dutch are there for this purpose. As Francis notes below, part of the dialectic of public review can include fact tags and removal of unsourced content.John Z (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Re. "dialectic of public review", this works this way: find suitable references. If not, remove what might seem dingy in the remotest way. This works the same for everyone here at en:Wikipedia, that's the only type of dialectics that works for a tertiary source. It's not as if we're going to find a new kind of truth by a dialectic without sources. What other wikis do is their case, insofar as not running counter foundation principles (that is: for the Wikimedia wikis).

No, not using ourselves as a reference is quite fundamental, for avoidance of systemic bias. I wrote an essay about it some time ago, User:Francis Schonken/Don't use internal sources for verification. You can translate an article from another Wikipedia. For copyright/GFDL reasons you would need to indicate where you got it, in the edit summary and/or on the talk page. Then, if there are no references (or you didn't bring them over while translating), don't be surprised if somebody adds a {{fact}} tag.

I don't live in an English-speaking country, English is not my native tongue, nor do I speak English all that often lately. For me that's OK, I mean these methods I described as being de rigeur at en:Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

first and second hand sources

I'm not sure this would be a necessary addition, but it might be useful to add a passage something like the following, for clarification:

First and second hand sources - writings on or about a topic by central figures in the discussion of that topic - are allowable for descriptions of the topic or explanations of its core concepts, so long as they are purely descriptive and not used to comment on the worth or value of the topic

I thought of this while I was editing Orgone, where I ran across an article by one of the original students of Reich that described the genesis of the concept and some of its characteristics. I wouldn't normally have considered the article a reliable source, but the author had first-hand knowledge of the topic which ought to be admissible for descriptive purposes. comments?

added it, and rewrote a bit. --Ludwigs2 03:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Offthetelly

Is http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/index.htm considered a reliable source? Thanks Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarity please...

In my opinion, the WP:RS and WP:VER articles don't clearly express what constitutes a reliable source. I would have preferred *one* detailed "and/or" list of specific conditions that must be met for a source to be considered reliable. --Phenylalanine (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate sources

We can read here that:

Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.

The fact that as a rule only reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals should be used as sources for statements about scientific theories should be spelled out explicitely. More easily accessible sources in addition to peer reviewed journals or textbooks can also be given, of course. But what we should avoid at all costs are statements in wiki articles about some novel scientific claims made in some newspaper when there are no peer reviewed journals to back up such claims. Count Iblis (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested recently (on WT:V I think) that a line should actually go into WP:UNDUE that the reporting of claims in a newspaper does nothing to establish the significance of a viewpoint, and so does not justify presenting it alongside more reputably published viewpoints. There should also be a line, probably in WP:V, that a report that a claim has been made is not verification of the claim itself, I think I'll request that right now...Striking that as I see it's covered by NOR Someguy1221 (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting that newspapers are "reliable sources" when noting "notability"? Or just certain ones? Or what? - jc37 07:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that a newspaper report does not establish the significance of a scientific viewpoint, and probably other academic viewpoints as well. And this is purely because news sources undoubtedly give coverage of insignificant scientific theories in gross disproportion to their support in the scientific community. But of course, they establish the notability of their subjects. You could say the difference between notability and significance is the difference between having an article on Intelligent design and giving it even a sentence in Evolution. And this is in spite of the fact that the former has received quite incredible coverage in the press. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Though I am guessing that (using the above example) a "mainstream" science-based newspaper/journal might still qualify? - jc37 08:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would not support adopting that language. Newspapers may well be reliable sources regarding scientific subjects, and a bright line rule excluding them would be a bad idea. You simply have to be careful in evaluating them. If a theory is challenged as being a fringe theory and its only backing is that it was reported in some newspapers, then it makes sense to scrutinize those sources. However, if a respected scientist or journalist soberly reports, in a prestigious paper, that a researcher has announced something, then there is no reason to exclude it for not (yet) being published in a peer reviewed journal if it otherwise meets the criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia is more than a journal abstract service. Wikidemo (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly say that the vast majority of time, The New York Times "Science Times" section by contributors including two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner John Noble Wilford, for instance, is certainly reputable and reliable. Wikipedia already has policies in place regarding fringe theories. That would seem offhand to cover undue-weight issues for material from newspapers. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a certain tension in many scientific and technical subjects between sources that are closest to the actual research and sources comprehensible by a lay audience. Sometimes the most reliable sources from the point of view of the community of experts are completely incomprehensible to outsiders and result in an incomprehensible article, while sources that are possible for a lay person to understand, written by more popular writers, may risk having errors or imprecisions. I don't believe there's any single one-size-fits-all way to address these issues. I believe the editors of each subject will have to determine the right mix of expert and popular sources that results in an article that is, to the extent possible, both accurate and comprehensible. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is ok. to cite a New York Times article, but then one should also cite the original scientific articles on which that New York Times article is based on. So, this rule will ensure that you cannot write about theories, views etc. that can only be found in newspapers. Of course, very rarely do we see a major scientic announcement in a newspaper, or on CNN (e.g. Clinton and Blair reporting about the Human Genome project). But thse are exceptional circumstances. What happens a bit more often is that such news reports only happen when an article in, say, Nature has appeared. Or some preprint has already appeared.

The fact that we may have to deviating from the general rule in exceptional circumstances is not really a problem. I'm more concerned about POV editors gaming the rules to subvert articles, such as the article on global warming. How do we deal with fringe journals like Energy & Environment that was set up specifically to give Global Warming sceptics a voice? Of course, aarticles published in such a journal are nonsensical garbage, because they don't meet rigorous scientific standards. However, strictly speaking, the editor who is objecting to not allowing the E&E article may be correct when he says that it is a reliable source according to wiki policies.

So, the best thing to do is to simply "legalize" what has been the consensus on almost all wiki science articles: Only allow those sources that would be allowed in the leading peer reviewed sources themselves. Count Iblis (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Exceptions to sources

User:Yahel Guhan here has claimed that there is an exception to the policy of using reliable sources, when "people are barely notable". In other words, when writing about non-notable topics, we can use, Yahel says, non-reliable sources?

Is this true?Bless sins (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Almost completely false. There is something called parity of sources which allows us to use sources less reliable than normal in an article on a subject that is not adequately covered by sources in its own topic area. In case that didn't make any sense, parity allows us to use non-expert sources to write about a subject that is not accepted as plausible by relevant experts anyway. So this is based on the fringiness of a subject, and not its notability. If it's truly non-notable, then there shouldn't be an article. And even when arguing parity, the sources still have to be in some realm of reliability. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCEITORDROPIT. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold on there. The article content says "Bill Warner writes that The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, is an 'historic work.'" etc. To back up the inclusion of that statement of fact, he provided the link to the page where Bill Warner writes that. That's a valid cite. WP:RS#News organizations says precisely so. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 05:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonscholarly books?

We're having a little dispute over whether or not a Naomi Klein book is a reliable source on the topic of economic theory or economic history, or whether it instead represents a "fringe" or "conspiracy theory" opinion, which is what it is generally considered by academic economists. Klein is a journalist and even her most "scholarly" positive reviewer said in his review that she is "not a scholar and should not be judged as one". Is reliability context-dependent or is a journalist's take as good as an economist's or economic historian's? Bkalafut (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

They have to be handled on a case by case basis, but no one should be under the false impression that a reliable source for anything is a reliable source for everything. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is this discussion? Incidentally, often a better source can be made for the same assertions. II | (t - c) 04:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Album Leaks

Can information on an album leak be added to an article if there are no reliable sources (other than an actual download link (which i know can't be used)) reply on my talk page - -The Spooky One | ^{t c r} 22:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Government as a Reliable Source

When I look at some articles, it seems that the government is the source of all information. Is this reliable?

I'll give a hypothetical example that reoccurs often. Major news organization, reports that major government says, some someone did something. Wikipedia then cites major news organization, when the true source of the information is major government. I believe this is misleading. It leads the reader to believe that major news organization did some research, when they are just telling you what major government said. On top of this, ninety percent of an articles sources can be written this way. So, a reader will believe major news organization, major tv station, famous investigative reporter, and weekly magazine all did some independent research, when in fact all sources are quoting or citing major government.

So, does Wikipedia have guidance or policy on the originality of a source? Does Wikipedia have guidance or policy on using a government as a reliable source for an article? If not, would someone like to work with me in drafting such guidance or policy? —Slipgrid (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If that were the case, it would be a reasonable basis for discussion. However, it appears you're talking about 9/11, about which it is not the case that the major news media reports only government sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm talking in general, not particular. I think this would be a good policy for the site. I'm amazed that these often cited policy pages fail to mention the government as a source. OK, I'm not that amazed, but I'm going to do something about it. So, I plan on finding agreement on a way to mark a citation if it is from a government source. Perhaps a tag for the whole article if an overwhelming percentage of the citations are government sources. I imagine an image of Uncle Sam putting a stamp of approval on it.

If you agree, then please help. If not, you can help anyway by providing feedback:) Regardless, I plan on moving forward with this, so please speak now. I think if we work hard, we could have some good policy in place within the month.

Also, I don't believe that because one specific article doesn't have this specific problem, or because a good example of a bad article is not referenced, we should stop discussion on this. I believe this is a very important idea. I'll be working on a draft in the next few days, which I will post here. If there's still no useful decent or feedback, I'll make the change to policy alone and defend it. I hope it doesn't happen that way. I hope others see the importance of having guidelines and policy like this in place. Cheers! —Slipgrid (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, I would expect government agencies to be reliable sources as to what that agency has decided. I'm not at all sure if a government agency should be considered reliable as a matter of course.

"Reliable" (as in WP:RS) does not necessarily mean that we (or a rational person) would believe it to be accurate. I'd like to see more discussion on this issue, as well. There are a couple of articles in which NIH reports are clearly WP:FRINGE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree when you say that a government agency can be a source as to what a government agency says, but that governments should not be relied on for facts, as they do rightfully have an agenda. —Slipgrid (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, stating clearly that reliable does not mean reasonable or rational people believe it to accurate might be a good idea. For instance, the NYTimes seems to qualify as a reliable source, though many reasonable people say they have a liberal bias, while some NYTimes journalist have admitted that other NYTimes journalist have worked for the CIA in Operation Mockingbird. Perhaps this is a buyer beware statement that should be added. It's a little harder to word this one correctly, but I think buyer beware is correct, and I do believe the policy should state reliable does not always mean truthful. It's hard to state correctly, because it goes against my conventional wisdom, though I believe it should be clear. —Slipgrid (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As a further aside, in my opinion, if RS A (say, the New York Times) quotes RS B (say, hypothetically, Salk, if he were still alive), we should attribute it to B, rather than to A. If RS A quotes non-RS B, we should only use it toward notability of the statement, not toward the accuracy of the statement. This requires more effort than we normally put toward verifying sources, but it seems necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. So, I believe we are saying, in the reference section of an article, when it links to RS A, it should be labeled as RS B. In many cases, this seems to be what happens. I just believe a transparent or clear policy would be useful. Also, if RS A links to non-RS B, it should also be labeled as non-RS B. Furthermore, non-RS B should not be used as a matter of fact. I think these two suggestions are great, and perhaps should be stated as a policy. —Slipgrid (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We cite the source we read so we cite the news organizations if that is what we read about what the government is saying. If we read a government document, then we cite the government document. Right now I'm reading a book which is mostly the content of two other books; if I cite it, it will be as the book which I'm reading. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is true, but we are saying that a source may not be reliable if the original source is the government. That is, RS-A quotes GOV-A as saying "they completed all requirements." We cite RS-A, but in this case RS-A really is non-RS-A for knowing if the requirements were completed. That is, they are a RS for reporting the GOV-A said "they completed all requirements." They are non-RS-A for reporting GOV-A completed all requirements. Source A is a source to what the GOV-A said, but not to what GOV-A did. So, we do cite them, be we are talking about if they are reliable in the first place. It depends on how they are used. They are reliable to what the GOV-A said, but not what GOV-A did. So, if we cite source A, it should be clear that they are reporting on what GOV-A said, and not what GOV-A did. That can be done inline, or at the reference at the end, but it should be clear, or it is not an RS, and shouldn't be cited in the first place. —Slipgrid (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to ignore the RS status of the source, we can no longer consider any source RS. We have to judge whether the government, organization, corporation, victim, anonymous witness, or politician which is the source is reliable. -- SEWilco (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Say, it's 2003. NYTimes quotes the government as saying Iraq has WMD. NYTimes has no information about Iraq having WMD, besides a government quote. The NYTimes is not a RS for Iraq having WMD. NYTimes would be a RS for saying that the US government says Iraq has WMD, but nothing more.

This is how things should already work. Just because NYTimes has 1.9 Billion dollars in market capital, it doesn't mean they are RS. This should be clear in the policy. No source should have blanket RS status, regardless of how large they are. Every source should be used in context.

At the same time, it makes it harder for someone to run a bot to update the reference section, but misusing a source can lead to major bias. —Slipgrid (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't mean that no source is RS. You can read Newsweek for example, and in their articles, they will say something like, "Newsweek has learned" in a special typeface. In that case, Newsweek is a RS. They can be cited as reporting something. In other cases, Newsweek will interview some government political appointee. It's not fair to attribute to Newsweek the words of that political appointee. Yes, Newsweek is publishing those words, but they are not saying its fact. In the first case, when they say, "Newsweek has learned" in a special typeface, they are reporting something as fact, and that should be a RS. But, we should not use media companies to magically turn government releases into fact. —Slipgrid (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Assume it's 2008. NYTimes quotes Ford as saying they have a new pickup truck which will be available in the fall. NYTimes has no information about Ford having a pickup truck, besides a Ford press release. The NYTimes is not a RS for Ford having a pickup truck. So we don't cite NYTimes even though that's where we read the information? Actually, if you want to cite a government report or a corporate press release then go find the original, read it, and cite it. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary Proposals

We, or I, are, or am, proposing additions to this policy related to using the government as a secondary source. I realize these proposals could be huge, and I don't plan on acting on them for more than a month. I will update this list of proposals. Please add to it as you see fit. Please read the above discussion, as there seems to be some early agreement. Please add your feedback to the above discussion. In some days or weeks I will add a draft of the proposed changes. These are just the topics we are currently discussing.

• Government agencies and government sources are reliable sources as to what that agency has decided or said.
• Government agencies and government sources rightfully have an agenda, and for that reason they may or may not be reliable sources for matters of fact.
  • More guide is needed for when they are and are not reliable for matters of fact.
  • In general governments sources should not be used for matters of fact.
• A reliable source does not require reasonable or rational people to believe them to accurate.
• A government source or secondary source may be or is reliable for the "notability of the statement," though it may not be reliable fact.
• We cite what we read, though if that source if quoting the a government official or agency, it is only reliable for the notability of statement. We should not imply a primary source reporting information, when they are just quoting a government official.
  • We should note the secondary source is a government, in the reference section, or inline.
  • We should not suggest that the primary source reported something more than notability of the statement, when they are quoting a government official or agency.
• No source, company, publisher, etc., should be given blanket RS status. —Slipgrid (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That is, just because a source decides to publish a government report, it doesn't mean that source is standing behind the government report, or is validating that government report. —Slipgrid (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • One way of saying this is with the water into wine metaphor. A government report doesn't get the credit of investigative journalism, just because it's published in a newspaper. A newspaper doesn't automatically turn water into wine. —Slipgrid (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • At the same time, a newspaper can stand behind a government report. —Slipgrid (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • If a newspaper reports government findings as fact, then the newspaper is a RS, and the fact that the original source is the government does not need to be noted. Though, though the newspaper in this fashion may be a be a bad example of a RS, it would still be a RS. —Slipgrid (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposals added by Slipgrid. All may add to them. Please sign your additions, and discuss above, below, or inline as you see fit. —Slipgrid (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to ignore the RS status of the source, we can no longer consider any source RS. We have to judge whether the government, organization, corporation, victim, anonymous witness, or politician which is the source is reliable. -- SEWilco (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe no source should be given blanket RS status. Or, better yet, no source has to the power to convert government releases into something more reliable. That is, we can't mask a government release as Seymour Hersh's or NYTimes investigative journalism. —Slipgrid (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Although RS guidelines can be useful, given the wide variety of governments and government agencies that exist around the world and their many different degrees of perceived credibility, attempting a one-size-fits-all approach to their reliability may be problematic. Even the definition of a "government" source could be problematic. For example, a state university is often legally an arm of the government, but in most Western countries they generally behave fairly independently. Because government is an actor and source of opinion as well as simply a source of information, what governments and government officials have to say on a subject is often relevant whether or not people believe what they say is true. For these reasons, general statements about when government statements should or should not be considered reliable are likely to be problematic. It might be better to deal with things on a case by case basis. If there is a specific problem you've encountered, it might be useful to discuss the problem. Perhaps a narrower solution can be crafted that doesn't bind people who are trying to work in a very wide variety of contexts. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like guidance and policy on the very narrow case of a news source quoting a government source as stating something, and then the governments statements being attributed to the news source. Because the Times says the government says statement X, it doesn't mean that the Times endorses statement X or came to conclusion X. We should have policy that states a news source reporting on a government statement doesn't magically mean the news source is reporting that statement. —Slipgrid (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand the above. In my experience government sources are usually reliable. But I agree wtih Shirahadasha that government is many things. I hope for example that we would not have any problem with the UK National Health Service as a source. The BBC is also in a sense a UK government source. Many governments have public information pages that we cite, for example the French government provides a vast amount of information about how to rent or buy property in France, the rights of the householder, etc. To be sure of having the correct details of the education system in a country I would probably look at a government website. The list goes on and on. It is only in a very small number of cases that government information is contradicted by other sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

With my proposal, all those sources are fine. We should make sure that something the National Health Service says isn't attributed to the Times of London, unless it's clear that the Times of London is reporting the facts, and not just the statement of the National Health Service. —Slipgrid (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need these "rules" for what's reliable and what's not. The only truly reliable sources are those which have been peer-reviewed, and these are unavailable for most facts (e.g. ford releasing a new truck) and sometimes wrong themselves. Here's my suggestion:

• Mark each fact needing a reference with a source, stating clearly what that source is
• If a fact may be controversial, make it clear what part of it is a fact. e.g. "Ford plan to release a new truck in December" rather than "Ford will release"
• If two sources contradict one another, but both may be reliable, make sure both points of view are noted in the article

So long as people can see where the information has come from, they can make their own minds up whether to believe it or not. If one source is wrong, there'll almost certainly be another one somewhere contradicting it! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 06:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem that happens. The US government says they will up armor their trucks in December, and the New York Times, and ten other sources, cover that statement. Then there is a cite in Wikipedia that says the New York Times, and ten other sources, report the government will up armor their trucks in December, when in fact it was only that one government source. Do you see the problem with that? One government source says something, and then it gets listed as if ten different sources independently verified the fact, when the ten different sources are just echoing the government.

You need some policy that says, don't imply the Times is reporting something, when they are really echoing something. —Slipgrid (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The question is: what exactly did the Times and other newspapers report? Did they report that "the US Government will up aromor their trucks in December", or did they report something like "Accoding to a US Government spokesman, the US Government will up aromor their trucks in December"? In other words, did the media attribute the statement? If they attributed it, then that should be reflected in what we write.

I don't think this is a case of whether the sources are RS or not RS... I think it is a question of how we write about the events. Defining how we write about things isn't really the purpose of this guideline. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If there's no reliable source suggesting that the US won't be armouring their trucks in December, then isn't it reasonable to assume that they will? And if there is such a source, then both views should be given appropriate coverage as per WP:POV. e.g. "Despite initial reports that the trucks would be armored in December (Ref: New York Times), they won't in fact be armored until March (Ref: U.S. Government report on truck armouring)"

Any reader who wants to check out exactly what the source says is free to do so! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it is reasonable to assume that they will... we are talking about a future event here, and all sorts of things could happen between now and when the event is supposed to take place... things that could change the forecasted outcome. What is reasonable would be to say that, as of the date of the Times report, the US Government expected to have the trucks armored. To say they will do so would be using a Crystal Ball. But again, if you adhear to what the sources say, and repeat any attribution, then there is no RS issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

When you say, "did the media attribute the statement? If they attributed it, then that should be reflected in what we write," I agree 100%. The policy I propose is, if it is not written this way, then the source is not RS. The policy would ensure editors write in this way. —Slipgrid (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

But in the senario you present, the reliability of the source is not the issue... The problem is with how Wikipedia discusses what the source says, not the source itself. The solution to that problem is to edit the Wikipedia article to more accurately reflect what the source says, not to declare the source itself unreliable. If there is a policy issue here, it relates more to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV than to WP:RS. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a need for this proposal? Or is this one of those "solution looking for a problem" situations.-Wafulz (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)