Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

RfC: Hyperpartisan sources

Continued at a better venue at Hyperpartisan Sources 1

I am starting an RfC regarding recent discussions, at WP:ANI regarding User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling and at WP:RSN, about the usefulness of hyperpartisan sources, such as the progressive Media Matters for America and Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, and the conservative Media Research Center and Newsbusters. These should never be used as sources of fact in the article mainspace, due to their practice of editing out of context, spin-doctoring, selective presentation of the facts, and general partisan mendacity. They often cite reliable sources; if an editor wishes to use a fact presented in a hyperpartisan source such as MMfA, he should cite as a reference the reliable source that MMfA cited instead. They sometimes publish wire service stories from reliable sources such as the Associated Press; the editor should seek out the same wire service story as published in a reliable source such as the Washington Post, and use that instead. If editors try to use facts from hyperpartisan sources, they will need to fact-check everything very thoroughly, and they'll probably face opposition from other editors. It's best to just seek out the facts in more reliable sources, and cite those sources instead. Hyperpartisan sources can be used as opinion sources, but must be clearly identified for readers in the article mainspace as "conservative" or "progressive," i.e., "According to the conservative news analysis site Media Research Center ..." This section should be added to the WP:RS policy article, immediately after the "Questionable sources" section. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC) We already have a WP:NPOV policy which governs how we cover subjects with multiple points of view. I don't believe there is a useful distinction between a 'hyperpartisan' viewpoint, a 'partisan' viewpoint, a 'nonpartisan' viewpoint, and a simple viewpoint. But there is a useful distinction between facts and opinions. We attribute opinions to the author. If a source is getting the facts right, it doesn't matter where it supposedly lies on someone's perception of the ideological spectrum. If reliable sources disagree about the facts, we report the disagreement. Dlabtot (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC) NPOV seems to result in edit warring and multiple biased presentation from both sides of the spectrum. If all editors were to adhere to basic NPOV ideals it wouldn't be a problem, unfortunately this is not the case. Arzel (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC) I acknowledge that you disagree with our NPOV policy. Perhaps you can find a consensus to do away with it. But for now, it is our policy. Dlabtot (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC) No, I understand the policy, unfortunately most people don't follow them. Arzel (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I disagree with your assertions about Wikipedia and the NPOV policy. Dlabtot (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks Dlabtot. If a source is getting the facts right ... Well, how do we know that? A hyperpartisan source will omit inconvenient facts, selectively edit video, edit out of context, etc. to skew the entire perception of a story. Why should we have to be their fact checkers? My position is that we should identify hyperpartisan sources, and never use them as factual sources at Wikipedia. As I said, if they cite a source that's reliable, then we should use the reliable source they cited. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC) We know if they get the facts right by examining a multitude of sources with various viewpoints. For example we had a discussion not long ago on RSN about World News Daily. Multiple reliable sources showed them to be wrong about the facts in many instances. Where they lie on the ideological spectrum was irrelevant to that discussion. Even if we could actually define 'hyperpartisan' - which is doubtful - the bottom line is that we can't exclude sources because of their viewpoints - that goes directly against our NPOV policy. Dlabtot (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I agree that we can't exclude sources because of their viewpoints. But if they allow their viewpoints to distort their presentation of the facts, then we have a duty to exclude them. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Do we have any evidence that fx MMfA is distorting the facts? Unomi (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, they have presented information out of context just like all of the others. When you only present the view that promotes your opinion you invariably distort the meaning of what was being said to some degree. I am not going to discuss specifics because it serves no point in debating specific issues here. Arzel (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Unomi asked for evidence not assertions. If you are "not going to discuss specifics" in response to such a request, you might as well not respond at all. Dlabtot (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Bill O'Reilly Sylvia Restaruant incident. Arzel (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure what you are trying to say - again, you are going to have to post some specifics if you want to make a case that MMfA got its facts wrong. As in, you would have to recount what they said and why you believe it was wrong. I found some items on their website that may be what you were referring to: [1] and [2] and [3]. Which facts did MMfA get wrong? Dlabtot (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Second this Request and also move to amend the issues presented to include reliance on Fox News, as well as the others previously mentioned. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks Don. I'm not sure we can get community support for classification of Fox News as a hyperpartisan source. I suppose we could run a separate section of the RfC for each source, and determine whether there's community consensus for declaring that source to be hyperpartisan and therefore excluded as a reliable source. But that seems necessary. There will be little resistance to declaring Newsmax, for example as a hyperpartisan source. Fox News may not be so easy. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Two points. 1) This RfC really belongs at WP:RSN, not here. 2) Amending to include FoxNews is a bad idea, for reasons already discussed on various pages. RJC TalkContribs 22:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC) (1) No, it doesn't belong at RSN, it's about modifying this guideline so it belongs here. (2) Fox News is just as 'hyperpartisan' (whatever that means) as any of these sources, which illustrates why this proposal is such a bad idea. All sources have bias. Dlabtot (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Regarding the five sources I've already identified (MMfA and FAIR on the left; Newsmax, MRC and Newsbusters on the right), my opinion is that all should be treated as hyperpartisan. Adding to that list, World Net Daily is an obvious choice. I'm not sure about Fox and I'd prefer to let others decide on that one. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Ummm, World Net Daily is not a reliable source, and it has nothing to do with being 'partisan', 'hyperpartisan', or any other label. It'e because they don't meet the criteria of the already exist4ng policy. ^Dlabtot (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC) I am not sure that 'hyperpartisan' is a meaningful identifier, it all depends on where one imagines the 'center' lies. What we should be focusing on is whether they have a history of reliably reporting the facts. Unomi (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Leave off hyperpartisan, but the sites WND, MMFA, HP, FAIR, Newsbusters, MRC, and Newsmax tend to push a POV and make no bones about it. They are used in place of legitimate, more neutral mainstream publications. I don't think they should be used except when adding detail or giving a viewpoint on subjects already established as notable and weighty by other mainstream media sources, ESPECIALLY for BLPs. Too often they harp on minor incidents and blow things out of proportion, allowing partisan editors with the ability to inundate the article with ticky-tack mistakes and trivialities in an attempt to smear the subject. Soxwon (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Largely agree with everything that's been said here except by Phoenix and Winslow (sorry P&W!). I think we're not that far from consensus. If I may summarize: Reliability has little to do with whether or not a source is partisan (there can be partisan reliable sources and unreliable neutral sources) Our existing guidelines should be used to determine whether or not a source is reliable Specifically, for the 'media watchdog organizations' mentioned, how a source is treated by other known reliable sources is an indication of how reliable a source is (as noted in WP:USEBYOTHERS). However, we should keep in mind that these partisan (POV pushing) organizations are biased. If available, we should preferentially use more neutral sources. When used, their opinions should usually be attributed. Care should especially be taken with using these sources in BLPs. Additionally, because these partisan websites emphasize POV issues, coverage by these sources is not an indication an issue is not being given undue weight. Hope this captures what everyone is saying. LK (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC) We're nowhere near consensus, and even attempting to judge that in a hypothetical "whole discussion group against P&W" scenario would be extremely premature at this point, LK. An editor named LegitimateAndEvenCompelling almost received an indefinite block at WP:ANI, due to what I perceive as good-faith efforts to remove inappropriate uses of MMfA as a reference. I haven't even notified him yet. Nor have I notified anyone who participated in the ANI discussion (unless they also participated in the WP:RSN discussion). I've only notified about five people. Furthermore, this RfC has only been in effect for 16 hours and for eight of those hours, people in Europe and North America were sleeping. There are probably a lot of key people in the Wikipedia project, such as Admins and even Arbcom members, who have policy RfCs watchlisted and haven't even checked their watchlists yet. RfC rules allow discussion to go on for 30 days, and there's a good reason for that. So let's just hold off for a while on such pronouncements, all right? My position is that hyperpartisan sources (and I think that's a fair descriptive term, Soxwon) just aren't worth the trouble. It becomes a chore to responsibly check out all of the facts they present. And how does one check for other facts that they're trying to conceal? Too much work. Editing Wikipedia is supposed to be fun. We should stick to sources that we know are reliable, and do not allow a partisan political agenda to cloud their presentation of the facts. If a hyperpartisan source cites a reliable source, then we should use the reliable source. If it doesn't cite a reliable source, then the content is immediately suspect and in my opinion, radioactive. Wherever a hyperpartisan source is already in use, conscientious editors such as LAEC should be empowered to replace it with a "citation needed" tag. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Another obvious addition to the list of hyperpartisan sources is Andrew Breitbart's mean-spirited little family of websites (Big Government, Big Journalism and whatever other "big" stuff he's chosen to attack). His recent treatment of Shirley Sherrod says everything that needs to be said on that score. As of this post I've notified about seven more people from the WP:ANI discussion. I'll notify the rest, people such as Jimbo Wales will wake up and check their watchlists, and then let's see what happens. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC) I agree with the basic proposal. Arzel (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC) What is the 'basic proposal' are you referring to? The one that was proposed. Arzel (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Question not framed correctly, and therefore we're not going to get a usable result here. The question presumes: (1) that the four organizations listed are "hyperpartisan", which as far as I can tell is not the case, and (2) that one can equate the reliability of American conservative and liberal-leaning news sources, based on their apparent political position. In fact, each has its own range of issues and practices, and these so-called media watchdog groups are often more reliable in terms of getting their facts straight within their core subject matter than the mainstream press that they critique. As always, assessing the reliability of a source is more than looking at the group that publishes it and making a black and white characterization. As WP:RS says, you have to look at the author, the publication, the specific piece, and the article content it is supposed to be supporting. Finally, I don't know about all these groups but Media Matters is certainly not an extremist group. this and this are extremist groups. this is a news source that, while not as blatantly nuts, weighs in entirely on one side of the issues and has more or less no regard for actual facts. Setting aside the issue that partisanship is really about supporting a political faction, not being liberal or conservative, these politically charged news organizations are well within the American mainstream - probably 1/3 of all Americans are either more conservative or more liberal in their personal beliefs than the span between them. We shouldn't succumb to Americans' tendency to marginalize everything that seems off center. We're divining sourced facts here, not trying to expunge everybody with an opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Wikidemon is absolutely correct. The political vies of our sources do not define their reliability. Sources are allowed to be biased and non-neutral... what has to be neutral is how we present those views. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Well, there's a provision for that: when the hyperpartisan source cites a reliable source, we should cite the reliable source instead. If the hyperpartisan source fails to cite a reliable source, then it can still be used as an opinion. Generally, we're talking about the self-appointed "watchdog" sites. Their articles usually link to some other source that we find reliable, but they find unreliable or inaccurate (and often biased against "their side"). Why not just use the source they're critiquing? One potential problem is the provisions of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. If a consensus of editors on a particular article agrees that the hyperpartisan (HP) source has gathered enough facts, from other reliable sources, to prove a particular fact not found elsewhere (that a Washington Post story is inaccurate, for example) then for that limited purpose, the HP source should be used as a factual source. But again, it should be clearly identified in the mainspace as a conservative (or progressive) source. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC) I'm not clear - are we simply talking about sources that some would consider biased relative to the norms of their community? Or are we talking about sourcs that consistently weight in on the side of the party in power or the opposition party? Or are we talking about watchdog sites? Those are three different things. The first is not always a useful way to look at sources. Everything has a bias or, conversely, bias doesn't matter. Being middle of the road is a bias. A news source can be unflinching in its devotion to accuracy, in covering a subject that some would disagree with. The second class is more of a problem. If the site's very purpose is to advance a particular ideology, organization, political party, or other group, then it will tend not to present all the facts relative to that issue. A pro-homeopathy site, for example, is unlikely to give due weight to the majority of scientists who don't believe in homeopathy. A government-sponsored newspaper in Iran (or America, for that matter) is unlikely to give reliable coverage of female sexuality. And so on. Regarding the third group, as I hinted at earlier, media watchdog groups are often a good source of information about certain media things. If FAIR reports that a particular news correspondent worked for one paper, then joined another paper a year later, that's pretty good sourcing, and something one may not find in the mainstream press, which tends to avoid covering itself. If in the context of claiming that Fox News is biased, FAIR were to report that Obama's stimulus plan has the support of most economists, we would ask for a better source. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC) I would agree with Wikidemon, but the problem is that the watchdogs are used instead of better sourcing. A good example would be the Bill O'Reilly criticism page. I first saw the page last year and was stunned at the sourcing that was used: [4]. Soxwon (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC) You ignore precedent and I make a motion to close the RFC early What you call "hyper-partisan" most people "call watchdogs." All these sources at one time or another have sat through a RSN debate to say that the artilces/blogs/videos and found on these site to be "reliable enough" in their appropriate functions as Watchdogs as long as all statements are directly attributed in text. All sources have fundamental biases that is how is always been and always will be. Its very foolish to simply say everything thing that come out of site "Org A" is not reliable when Watchdogs have their appropriate time and their place. By this logic we should assume that Southern Poverty Law Center is too biased against the klan or ADL is too biased against Neo-nazisto be a Reliable source here. I know those two example are taking this to an extreme but that how editors WILL (not might) use any modifications along the lines you are suggesting. If we were to use only neutral sources then we would have no encyclopedia. We just have to use a range of sources and not rely on Watchdogs alone for our articles. I think this discussion is in good faith but this is silly discussion to have when when we have WP:USEBYOTHERS and WP:UNDUE to supplement the WP:RS policy Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC) It's a particular American concept that the press should be neutral. In most other countries, a particular news source is quite partisan and doesn't try to be balanced. Note that neutrality and balance can apply at the publication level; for example, choice of stories, placement, column inches, resources given to the reporter, the quality of the reporter assigned, and so on. Then a particular article can have it's own neutrality and sourcing issues, or not. Are all sides fairly represented in the article, is the presentation balanced, is there enough information for readers to make up their own minds, and so on. I believe neutrality, reliability, and independence can exist, or not exist, at the publication level, the section level, the article level, and the individual reporter levels. At least to some degree. And then it depends on other factors, as the political center moves over time, and by location and culture. As a hypothetical example, at the section level, metro news may be known as reliable and neutral, but the fashion section may include many fashion insiders and therefore has a built in COI. My own personal view is that World Net Daily is a disinformation mill and quite unreliable and non-neutral. I really don't see how we can come up with a white list and black list of sources that have any chance of being accepted with any reasonable degree of consensus, or being anything but subjective. The only ones we will be able achieve consensus on are already extreme enough to not be an decision issue for the vast majority of us. And they are already known, like the two mentioned by Wikidemon. In my view, the only process that will work is to decide on a case by case basis in each article, keeping in mind our criteria for RS. — Becksguy (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC) What is hyperpartisan? Is that a source that identifies itself as partisan? What about sources that don't identify themselves as partisan, but have been identified as partisan by other sources? Akerans (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC) I think it is quite easy to identify a hyperpartisan source. Those that consistently present a point of view from one far end of a political spectrum are clearly hyperpartisan. MMfA, FAIR, MRC, Newsbusters, plus others, clearly fall within that ideology. Most of these sites also identify themselves along ideological lines as well. Arzel (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC) I disagree that MMfA, FAIR, MRC, etc "present a point of view form one far end of a political spectrum". They may not be in the middle, but they are hardly "far end". And even if they were, being "far end" politically does not make a source unreliable. Bias does not equate to unreliability... We simply need to note any bias, while reporting on what they say. Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC) See my post above, the problems come when their bias is unaccounted for and they are used to give one side of an argument endlessly. Soxwon (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Blueboar and Becksguy, my point is that for hyperpartisan sources, they're not worth the trouble. Wikipedia already has enough trouble trying to establish itself as a reliable information source. Using hyperpartisan sources at all, under any circumstances, opens us up to charges of bias. Even if we take the time and expend the effort to check every fact thoroughly, Weaponbb7 and Wikidemon, of course no source is perfectly accurate. Even The New York Times publishes corrections, and has been disgraced by a reporter named Jayson Blair who was just making it up as he went along. But some sources are a lot worse than others, and they're a lot worse on a pretty consistent basis. Wikipedia has already defined some sources as "questionable." I think it would improve the Wikipedia project to expand that concept. There are several sources that skew the facts, and they're not worth the trouble. Partisans and inexperienced editors use them indiscriminately, and it starts edit wars. Given a choice between keeping a little good information out, and letting a little bad information in—particularly in biographies of living persons such as politicians and political groups, where such hyperpartisan sources are used with the greatest frequency—I'll choose the former over the latter, and I think a lot of people will agree. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC) The point that most other people are making is that they are worth the trouble. Some of these watchdog groups are reliable, any bias just has to be noted. LK (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC) The issue, as I see it, isn't partisanship, it's accuracy. All sources have an opinion. Not all sources have a good history of fact-checking. Some sources fact-check poorly, but put little political spin. Others fact-check well, but have a definite political opinion. So as a source for facts, it mostly matters what a source's reputation for fact-checking is like, and how they deal with corrections and retractions. The problem with any source labelled "hyperpartisan" is that it's in the eye of the beholder. So it's a poor label. Guettarda (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I have a few thoughts on the matter, but the first, most important one has to be that this discussion is already too large to digest, less than one day after it has opened. I have not read any of it, or even skimmed most of it. I will, however, note two issues that ought to be part of any discussion of these matters. Firstly, there all sources have some bias. However, all sources do not address their bias equally: some deliberately partisan sources are very plain about the fact that they are deliberately partisan sources (e.g., National Review or Mother Jones); some deliberately partisan sources maintain that they are neutral essentially as an empty rhetorical device, while being as partisan as possible within that pretense (e.g. WorldNetDaily or MoveOn.org), some sources attempt to be neutral and fail at it for various reasons (see, for instance, your local newspaper's coverage of the Associated Press - or, rather, try to find it); some sources really are about as neutral as it is possible to be, given the limits of human institutions in discussing other human institutions. Only the second category - deliberately nonneutral sources that deliberately pursue a pretext of neutrality - is really a problem. Secondly, it ought to be remembered that there is a difference between secondary and tertiary sources. We are a tertiary source, and ought to prefer secondary sources over tertiary sources. If you ignore the muddle that keeps infecting attempts to discuss this matter, it is mostly about "media analysis" sources - that is, tertiary sources. MMfA, FAIR, MRC - those are all tertiary sources. More importantly, the concerns I mentioned in the previous paragraph apply even more strongly to tertiary sources than to secondary sources - nobody really thinks that citing the Columbia Journalism Review is a problem, even though it might lean to the left a bit, but the most objectionable problem with FAIR or MRC is precisely their pretext of being extra-neutral (or "rejecting bias") when they plainly are not I would suggest that if anyone wants to conduct a productive RFC, rather than the abortive discussions that came before this one or the metastatic mess this one has already become, then the RFC ought to concentrate solely on the problem I have mentioned - partisan tertiary sources that maintain a pretext of neutrality - to the exclusion of other things that are much less of a problem. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Agree with Gavia, above. Rapier (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Well stated. Arzel (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I agree. Add "tertiary source" to the list of problems we encounter with hyperpartisan sources. They're not worth the trouble and we need to simply stop using them. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Writing an encyclopedia is hard. Dlabtot (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC) So let's try to make it a little bit easier. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Someone is going to have to come up with a very compelling argument why the watchdog or media analysis publications—such as MMfA and FAIR—are not secondary sources, when they are not tertiary in that they are clearly not encyclopedias or directories. The policy on the distinction, from WP:ORIGINAL, which says: Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their material on primary sources, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. On the other hand: Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. Media analysis publications are all secondary sources in that they analyze print or broadcast journalism and make evaluative claims. Is the NYT a tertiary source when it writes an article about Fox News, or The Washington Post (on their coverage of a story), and then flips back to a secondary source when it writes about an event or public figure? — Becksguy (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC) The phrase, "summarize secondary sources" covers it very nicely. The phrase "such as encyclopedias" offers encyclopedias as just one example of a tertiary source. Therefore encyclopedias are not the only tertiary source. A site like MRC, FAIR, MMfA or Newsbusters is a news aggregator. It gathers and analyzes stories in secondary sources such as The Washington Post, not primary sources such as scientific journals or eyewitness reports. Therefore it's a tertiary source. And yes, if a story in The New York Times publishes a quote from an interview with Nancy Pelosi that was reported in The Washington Post, when the NYT reporter didn't interview Mrs. Pelosi himself to obtain the quote, then the NYT briefly becomes a tertiary source. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry P&W, but to me that is not even close to compelling. I think there is a misunderstanding of the meanings of primary, secondary, and tertiary, which do *not* refer to the number to steps or generations away from the primary event or source. Rather they refer to the level and kind of information processing and intellectual work that is done. Secondary sources interpret, analyze, evaluate, assign value to, refute, synthesize, and come to conclusions (primary sources can't). See Princeton University's definition here, and University of Maryland's definition here. Tertiary sources, on the other hand, aggregate, collect, list, and produce summaries or synopsis, such as an encyclopedias, abstracts, chronologies, indexes, and the like. They do not analyze or interpret. That's the difference. The NYT example was meant to be rhetorical. WP:SECONDARY says: ... at least one step removed from an event. Which means it can be more one step, as in the Nancy Pelosi example, so the NYT is still a secondary source there. BTW, I like your username. — Becksguy (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Our article Tertiary source discusses some different, somewhat contradictory meanings of the term. When I used it above, I meant "Tertiary in the sense that we, Wikipedia, are a tertiary source" - this does not require the particular form of an encyclopedia. On the other hand, "they do not interpret" is nonsense applied to any human endeavor - the mere act of aggregating some material, and inherently rejecting other material, is interpretation. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I agree the WP article on Tertiary source needs work. And granted, an encyclopedia is just one form of a tertiary source among several. The two academic references (first among those found) I provided seem more appropriate. As to "they do not interpret" being nonsense; making choices regarding the inclusion of some entries over others in an aggregation is an interpretation, I suppose, of a minor kind. But hardly the kind of interpretation and analysis I mean. The kind that academic researchers and historians do when, for example, going over the mountains of mostly primary material in a presidential library or the archives of a country such as the Third Reich or Iraq after Saddam. Or interpreting the entire complex history of the US Constitution and all the related case law, economic, cultural, and political contexts in which it has grown and changed for over 200 years. Some of these research projects have taken decades. Or even something less daunting, such as the Resignation of Shirley Sherrod affair. We are talking about a difference of orders of magnitude between your meaning of the term and mine in this discussion, I believe. One could also say that one interprets the temperature as being comfortable or hot (since it's August) at the other end of the continuum from serious. :-) — Becksguy (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Motion to close This is going nowhere fast, I suggest that this be scrapped and started from scratch if at all. Honestly, from the reactions here, the issues are not going to be solved with an RFC, it's just going to be case-by-case as before. Soxwon (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I weakly disagree with closing. Progress is unlikely to advance on the actual proposal here, but the comments may prove enlightening. The proper question to be asking here could possibly be teased out from the responses given. BigK HeX (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC) That was the idea. As more people comment, inadequacies in the original proposal are exposed. This will yield Version 2.0, incorporating a few improvements. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Since this discussion appears to have run out of steam without a clear consensus one way or the other, I've created a new subpage called Hyperpartisan Sources 1. I've been learning a great deal from this discussion. During the next couple of days, I'll prepare a proposed new subsection of the WP:RS mainspace on that subpage, and notify all participants in this discussion (and a few other related discussions). I know we hate voting here, but measuring "Support" and "Oppose" is the most cost-effective way to measure consensus. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't diligently attended to this RfC and had to retrieve it from the Talk Page archives. I thought we had a minimum of 30 days to pursue RfC, and this started on July 30. I'll get on this immediately. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Transcript of a lecture hosted on a student organization's page

• Note: Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

WikiProject FACT suggestion for reference evaluation.

Anyone think there's value in such evaluations? Comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fact and Reference_Check#Suggestion for reference evaluation. please. -- Jeandré, 2010-08-21t01:10z

The number, type and quality of sources available depends very much on the nature of the specific topic. Therefore, while I do not want to argue against such guidelines in principle, there would probably need to be such a large number of different guidelines, exceptions, modification etc., so that the whole guideline may become impractical.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG

WP:NEWSORG currently says the following: Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable.

I noticed on a talk page a request to comment these practises. I make only small comments. If there is a peer-reviewed journal article, especially from a field as precise as mathematics, then main stream news are not needed for verifying its correctness. Really, the New Your Times is not a reliable source on the level of mathematics, and it should not be required that referred articles are first described in newspapers before they can be used as citations in Wiki. In science, an article published after the normal (or harder than normal) peer-review process is considered valid according to the present knowledge, provided that it has not been refuted or there is no special reason to consider that it is false. I was kind of shocked when Gavia immer stated to somebody, not known to me, who tried to refer to my paper that before mentioning my paper it should first be verified by newspapers or approved by Clay Math (the possible opponents of the new result). However, I have followed some discussion claiming that the moderators edit away changes that are completely correct. I have an earlier small experience seemingly supporting this. Try to do better, and good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.55.128 (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What does "especially those at the high-quality end of the market" mean? Does it mean anything, or is its meaning so subjective that it might as well be removed, leaving:

Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable.?

-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That wording is not really perfect. It broadly says that editors should prefer the New York Times to the New York Post, when in doubt. However, in many cases, newspapers of the country in which a certain event took place, may report more accurately than foreign newspapers, because they have a better understanding of the issues. There are other cases in which quality is very context-specific, and this should be explained by the guideline. Also, the reference to the "market" is somewhat odd, in my view, as "high-quality newspapers" would probably say the same thing as the current wording.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but what I'm saying is that "high-quality" is so subjective that it doesn't really provide any guidance on how to make a decision. The criteria that is almost always used is (unfortunately) determining reliability by measuring how "mainstream" a source is. What determines when a news source is "high-quality"? If we mean "with a reputation for accuracy", then we should just say so -- Mainstream news sources, with a reputation for factual accuracy regarding the topic at hand, are generally considered to be reliable., etc. Otherwise, we just have a vague and meaningless term that doesn't help us determine reliability. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it can be generally agreed upon that if a news organization has national press credentials to the White House Press Room, then they can safely be considered "high-quality", whether or not you happen to think that they suck because you disagree with what they say or how they edit. We are trying to build an encyclopedia, not engage in social commentary. Rapier (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said "I think that they suck because I disagree with what they say or how they edit.", and nobody is attempting to "engage in social commentary". We are trying to improve the guidelines to be more explicit about what is considered "high-quality", because this is a very subjective term, and it doesn't provide much guidance for people in determining reliability. Please try to remain civil, and calmly discuss the topic at hand, without resorting to straw men and sarcasm. That said, your suggested criteria of having "national press credentials to the White House" is probably not adequate, because it is specifically focused on the U.S., and there are many news organizations that are not based in the U.S. For instance, is it reasonable to apply that criteria to news organizations in China or Zimbabwe? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely there are cases where YouTube is a reliable source?

I cited a Youtube video of the fully formed adult actress Linda Regan kissing a 54 year old Man in 1970 as evidence that she wasn't 10 years old at that time,yet my edits were reversed because for some reason,it's been erroneously reported elsewhere(IMDB perhaps,certainly not a reliable source)that she was born in November 1959 and was therefore 10 years old when she played a bus conductor with big breasts who went out with a bus driver.

I think in a case like this,people should use some common sense,consider all the evidence available and decide whether the editor is right. Even if that means watching a clip on YouTube!

In my case,the person disputing my edit should've looked at the Youtube link I posted before reversing my edits and decided for him/herself whether the person with breasts who was working on a bus and kissing men in their 50s was 10 years old. If they'd done this,they would've seen she clearly wasn't 10 years old or anywhere near that age and therefore couldn't have been born in 1959 yet because the best evidence to show she wasn't born in that year came from Youtube,it was dismissed as a reliable source without being watched and Wiki are still reporting as fact that Linda Regan was born in 1959 when everyone can see via Youtube that this clearly isn't correct. Ron Stowmarket (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There are cases where YouTube might be a reliable source (e.g. in an article discussing some of the things one can find on YT), but this isn't one of them. I watched that clip and didn't see any confirmation that it was shot in 1970, or that it featured Linda Regan. To support those things you need to combine that clip with a second source, which gets us into WP:OR problems. --GenericBob (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Youtube can be acceptable. But making your own conclusion from a video is not acceptable. If it isn't in a secondary source then you need to ask yourself why. You also have to make sure that the video is a reliable source or an appropriate primary source. If anyone has any thoughts, WP:VIDEOLINK is something that you might be interested in.Cptnono (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

People should just be reasonable. Of course, if we have no better citation for the statement "Shfamous McNotable was born in Smallville" a speach clearly given at Trusted Institution, 3:32:99 in, "I, Shfamous McNotable was born in Smallville" should be more than enough to stave off any good faith challenges. It's not good for the project to have rules that Wikilawyers can use to remove statements that would convince any reasonable person in an honest debate as to whether something is true or not. "Reasonable Doubt" is the only measure of a good faith challange. Chrisrus (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You would also need to show that the youtube video in question was uploaded by the copyright holder; otherwise, we have no way of judging the authenticity of the video. This is almost never true in Wikipedia, even for things like news broadcasts. This is analogous the fact that we shouldn't site a blog re-posting a newspaper article, and need to site the original article. In other words, it's not that we're doubting the YouTube video, it's that we're doubting the person re-posting that video onto Youtube. As a side note, this can actually fall both under the issue of reliable sources as well as the potential problem of contributory copyright violations.Qwyrxian (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the last thing I'll write on the matter. It is clear for everyone to see that the video on Youtube is an episode of the sit-com "On The Buses" and the name of the episode is "Christmas Duty" here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYqcDqXx3OU and as it says here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_On_the_Buses_episodes#Series_Four_.281970-1971.29 here - http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/on_the_buses/episodes/4/5/ and here - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0665431/ that particular episode was filmed in 1970.

So there can be no doubt whatsoever that the video on Youtube really is from 1970 and there can be no doubt that Linda Regan was not 10 or 11 years old at that time. In fact she was about 10 years older than that.

It is up to Wikipedia if they want to have what is clearly incorrect information on their site but it does their reputation as a reliable website no good because anyone looking up Linda Regan will know she is nowhere near that age and they may not rely on Wiki for other information if they know the site makes such big mistakes as claiming a 10 or 11 year old girl played an adult Woman who had big breasts,worked on a bus and had a sexual relationship with a 54 year old man on prime time TV back in 1970. Ron Stowmarket (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What is our source for the fact that the woman in that clip is Linda Regan? I still don't see anything in the clip that names her. --GenericBob (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It says in the IMDB link above that Linda played "Edna" in that episode. At 1:42 in the Youtube clip,the Man says "I saw Joyce and Edna go in there" As the two Ladies come out,we see one of them has short dark hair,a quick look on Google shows that this is clearly "Joyce"/Ursula Mohan. The other Lady has long blonde hair and again,a quick look on Google shows that this is clearly "Edna"/Linda Regan and that she clearly isn't 10 or 11 years old! Ron Stowmarket (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It also says on IMDB that she was born in 1959. Having watched the clip, I agree that Edna is very unlikely to be 11, and that at least one of the three relevant data on IMDB is incorrect (date of birth, date of filming, or the fact that Edna = Linda Regan). But it's not clear which of them. (Maybe it was some other actress who looked a lot like Linda Regan, and the attribution is a matter of mistaken identity?) When we get to the point of trying to reconcile a YouTube clip, an IMDB entry, and a Google image search, we're getting well into the realm of synthesis, which is considered original research.

Don't get me wrong; I think your arguments are sensible and if we were discussing this in some other forum, I'd accept them. Actresses' ages are notoriously unreliable, and there might also have been confusion with Linda Blair, born in 1959 and best known for playing a character named Regan. The problem is that WP needs to have consistent rules about what edits are acceptable, and "common sense" doesn't work because the people who lack sense don't realise they lack it and won't be told.

Fortunately, I think there is a simpler way to handle this. You're invoking YouTube in order to prove that Linda Regan was born earlier than 1959, but you don't actually need to do that. The burden of proof is on the other side - if a claim is challenged, people need to provide a reliable source to back it up, and IMDB is not considered a reliable source - especially for bio information, as noted in Wikipedia_talk:Citing_IMDb#Biographies. Googling on "linda regan 1959", while there are a lot of sources that repeat the 1959 date, I can't immediately find one that I would consider reliable; I'd guess most of them have taken it from IMDB or perhaps Wikipedia. --GenericBob (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Some science articles have YouTube versions Count Iblis (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We have several issues here.

• Going off Ron's comment that one "clearly" can see this actress is not the age specified in an episode of a TV show, that's bordering on synthesis to prove a point. It would be better instead to use someone that commented on that episode to make that observation, instead of WP making the original leap of logic.
• If there was clearly obvious evidence in the episode to show the point, we would not use a copyright-infringing YouTube clip to prove it, but simple use a citation template for TV episodes or videos and reference the original work. If perhaps the copyright owner had their own online video site for users to see the works in this way, then that would be fine as a URL to the episode/video cite template, but its improper to point directly to the video as the source, as that's really not it.
• All that said: Yes, it is possible there are reliable YouTube videos but it requires good affirmation that the user that uploaded them is the copyright owner, is the person/expert in question, and doesn't otherwise replicate information from another source. 99% of the videos on YouTube fail that to start, but that still leaves 1% for possible sourcing. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the 1% might be a bit misleading here since it is still a big number and were don't really care about arbitrary youtube uploads anyhow, but only those which can be considered reliable and then you have essentially 2 scenarios:

• a) the upload is copyright violation (but is a copy of some reliable/reputable broadcast). In that case use the content of the youtube video, but in the reference you just specify the briadcast without the youtube link
• b) an increasing number of (reputable/reliable) news media outlets do publish much of their material themselves. Check whether that is case, then there is no copyright issue and in addition to referencing the broadcast you should provide the youtube link as well. (see for instance : http://www.youtube.com/user/aljazeeraenglish, http://www.youtube.com/user/cnninternational, or http://www.youtube.com/user/bbcworldwide )

--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the issues with youtube, as shown here, is the limited size of the videos they host. So while there are three "clips" from the episode in question on youtube, none of them actually show the actress in dispute. Go get the full episode and you will see the young girl. Simply buy the DVD set http://www.amazon.ca/Buses-Ultimate-Collection-Reg-Varney/dp/B000FOQ04Q/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1254168699&sr=1-2 watch the episode and then you can use that DVD set as your reference. No youtube needed or useful. Hcobb (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well this was meant as a general comment on the use of youtube as a source not really regarding this particular kissing scene. Material that media outlets or universities/academic institutes offer on youtube ranges from 1 minute clips to one hour long features. The big advantage of providing legal youtube links when available is that the material can be easily used by auther editors for verifications and expansion of of the article content.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Virgin Atlantic records and other media sources now publish material on YouTube. For example, there are several interviews with Straight No Chaser members telling their story on YouTube. These releases would be reliable but primary sources.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Private Correspondence

I can't find an existing Wiki topic that covers this precise concern.

A published, peer-reviewed scholarly article (American Journal of Human Genetics) contains a factual error in a data table. The authors of the paper confirm, in a private email, the error but the journal has never (as of four years later) issued a correction or retraction. The error is specifically repeated in a Wiki article.

I don't want to merely delete the mistaken repetition, since it could be easily and innocently reverted, but that's the only solution that doesn't violate the policies on verifiability and/or reliable sources.

Help? Vineviz (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't the authors have any kind of blog or university website where they can post a correction? Or can't they persuade the journal to post a correction? That's really the only solution. Is it too minor for them to bother? Rd232 ^talk 18:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This group of authors is blog-averse, it seems, but maybe they can be prompted to make some sort of public statement. The mistake is minor to the thesis of the original paper, but it is significant enough that Wikipedia is propagating the error. Thanks for the comment. Vineviz (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That implies greater significance of the data in question outside the original thesis. How can there be no other source for such data? PL290 (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The original paper was a study of the Y-DNA makeup of India. The mistake affected a small number (eleven) samples from an East Asian "control" sample and did not impact the "core" Indian samples. The error is in a data table, represents about 1% of the total samples, and was not mentioned explicitly in the text of the original paper. The data has been republished by the same authors in other papers, with the erroneous data silently omitted but not explicitly addressed. Vineviz (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Then can you not cite both the original and later published papers, identify the omitted data, and state that the authors have not published a reason for the omission? PL290 (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That is possibly an elegant solution, but it might bump up against the policy on Synthesis since that approach would effectively be combining two sources to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by either source. Vineviz (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Only if you choose to word it so. If you present plain facts, and refrain from combining them in any way by editorializing and synthesis, you imply no conclusion. PL290 (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even with private corespondence, there really isn't much that can be done. WP:OR and WP:V would apply. Even if we knew for certainity that the author was contacting us directly, it would still be unlikely to result in a change due to the author being a primary source! If it was published, even with incorrect info, the assumption would be that the peer-reviewed scholarly article was properly vetted, whereas the author making a claim that it contains incorrect info wouldn't wiegh as much. (At most, it might get a footnote that the author later said the original source made a mistake.) Until there is something that says, "no this is wrong" from a reliable source, then it is unlikely to change much. One of the refrains you will often here at WP is Verifiability, not Truth.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to say that the vetting process increases the reliability of what a certain author says at some point in time. (We also can include non-vetted information from recognized experts in a specific field.) From this point of view, the increased reliability would be conferred on what the author says, and it would of course depend on the author maintaining his or her statement. If that's not the case, the inclusion of the statement, if maintained by the publisher only, would be based on the publishers reliability only, and should not be attributed to the author (likely requiring some lengthy explanation of its status), while the author's correction, if reliably sources (not necessarily scholarly published), would have to be treated as an expert's opinion, if applicable. In any case, a reliably sourced statement from the author would be needed, and this requires that, in principle, anyone must be able to verify the statement. A private communication, whether with an editor, or with Wikipedia as an institution, does not, in my view, meet that condition.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Private correspondence does not pass RS unless it is subsequently published. HOWEVER! I would say that any evidence that comes to us by any means can be used to exclude information, provided that there is consensus amongst editors that the information should be excluded. Material does not need to pass RS for it to be taken into account in talkpage discussions. If it turns out that other editors wish to ignore the email, then I am not sure there is much you can do, though. Why not start a talkpage discussion presenting the contents of your email and see where it goes? --FormerIP (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but if a 62 Year old medical journal is standing behind an article, then if somebody wants to use it, then there would have to be some A) pretty strong evidence that the private correspondence is from whom it claims to be B) some pretty convincing evidence that all of the authors on the original article agree that an error exists. Even then, when faced with a reliable scholarly source that stands behind the article, it would be almost impossible to over come that source without something from another RS... especially if the information has become accepted by other sources and other users want to include it. Private correspondence just doesn't, rise to that level.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Fully agree with FormerIP, although with the caveat that you can into issues if you're dealing with a key piece of information which should be discussed in the article. Per WP:SPS, if the author ever makes a public statement about his own work in a way that we can trust its coming from the actual author, we can accept that. II | (t - c) 01:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Therein lies a crucial difference... there is a world of difference with a public statement about the authors work and private correspondence.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Vineviz, I do have to ask you a critical question, is there a discussion this ongoing someplace? If so, then it would be considered bad form not to inform that discussion that you've opened a similar one here.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):In general Wikipedia frowns upon subjects of article editing their own articles in mainspace. However there are cases where the subject of an article has submitted information to OTRS in order to have material either added or removed. The ironic part of that is OTRS is considered 'need to know' and is private, so if information suddenly appears or disappears the general public can not question where it came from/where it went. On the other hand there are past discussions about subjects close to an article (or the subject) of an article have edited information and been supported for it - here is an (extreme but relevant) example: Mikegodwin editing this page. One editor surmized I see no difference in a person editing details of his own life and a person editing details of an entry in which they have any other form of interest. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no similar discussion going on elsewhere regarding Wikipedia policy as it relates to this issue. I did follow the suggestion of FormerIP and make a note on the Talk page of the article outlining the edit and the reasons for it. Although that note did draw comment so far the edit has not been challenged. Vineviz (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I wanted to make sure that there wasn't some discussion going on that we were unaware of. You posed the question above as somewhat a curiosity/hypothetical, and I wanted to make sure that is what we were dealing with. Ultimately, IMO, if people on the page accept the edit, then no problem. If they challenge it, then the RS will general win out over the private correspondence.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Using statements of opinion for statements of fact

Can statements of opinion be used for statements of fact if the fact is attributed to the author of the opinion? Policy seems to state this, but it is a little unclear and I know that many editors don't agree with this sentiment. The applicable policy:

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author."

The main point of contention seems to rest in whether "without attribution" refers to attribution by other (non-opinion) reliable sources, or simply to attribution by the opinion author. The use of "attribute the material in the text to the author" in the next sentence seems to point to the interpretation that the attribution is to the opinion author rather than to other reliable sources. Drrll (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it just means that when using sources of the type identified, we should use attribution regardless of whether the author purports to be presenting an opinion or a fact. It could probably be expressed more simply. PL290 (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The policy is disinguishing between two types of statement in the original source: "their author's opinion" on the one hand and "statements of fact without attribution" on the other hand. So, for example, and Op-ed columni might be a reliable source about the opinion of the author of the Op-ed column, it would not be a reliable source for any statement of facts that the Op-ed author presents. The policy is confusingly written, but the second sentence means that if you are using the Op-ed as a source then you should attribute it to the author in the text of Wikipedia (e.g. "Bill Smith said that the rock fell") rather than as simple statement of fact (e.g. "the rock fell"). Vineviz (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't every single source need attribution? What we need is a policy to help determine when sources are independent of each other, in the face of hostile action to obscure this. Hcobb (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, attribution is not always appropriate. For example, if the New York Times says the rock fell, and so do all the other WP:RSs, the article may state that the rock fell (and provide an inline citation if appropriate). However, in the case of the type of source under discussion, the article must not only provide an inline citation but also attribute the statement, i.e., state that "according to Smith, the rock fell". PL290 (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is a non-editorial RS which says "the rock fell" then that source should be cited, and not the hypothetical NYT editorial article. Attribution is appropriate in all cases where the article is written with an editorial slant of any kind at all. Collect (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And your brief edit summary, "nope", refers to what exactly? We don't seem to disagree here. PL290 (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Using An Existing Photo From Wikimedia Commons As A Source

I wonder if a photo, already exists in subject's Wikimedia Commons, could be used as a source. Fusion is the future (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Short answer is: Yes a photo can be a source. The long answer is: Appropriately using a photograph as a source is very very difficult. Whether the photo is a reliable source or not depends on what you are trying to use the photo for. In general, a photo can be used as a source for a purely descriptive statement about the photo itself, and not much more. Recognize that photos and other images can be easily misused. Extreme care must be taken not to use the photo in ways that constitute Original Research.

Photographs and other images are best when seen as being illustrations, not as sources. Support the content with a written source, then illustrate the content with images. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Slightly different opinion take than Blueboar, the photograph itself cannot be used as a source, but rather you can use the photograph to show/illustrate what was being said---the source, really goes back to where the photograph came from. E.G. if I upload a picture of the White House, that photo can be used without problem in an article on Wikipedia of the White House. However, if I wanted to use that same photo to make a point about the White House being designed with various conspiracy theories, then said photo would not be reliable sources---even if the photo captured the image described in the conspiracy theory. You would need another source to support that and then use the photo to illustrate what the source described. Similarly, suppose that there is a photo on Wikipedia showing a specific crime being committed. You recognize that he person who is committing the crime is the latest hip hop star "Ima Starr". You may be right and you may be the first person to realize this, but you can't use the photo as proof that Ima Starr committed a crime. First, you would need another source to say that. Second, even it was crystal clear what was going on, you wouldn't be using the photo, but rather the source of the photo as the source. EG a photo in the NY Times carries more weight than the same photo taken by Balloonman. This is because the photo is illustrative and photos can be easily manipulated.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is essentially what I was trying to say. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Blueboar and Baloonman, you made my day.:-) Fusion is the future (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Blueboar and Baloonman. As you realize, I am a newcomer. I need your help and further guidance, if you will, about the same issue. How can I then create this photo link as an additional reference to the matter itself? (In biography section.) The Internet site of the event with a specific information was already used as a source. This very photo (as a second-supporting reference) will further prove that the event (mentioned) took place. All artists, appearing in that photo, are also in Wikipedia English. The photo of the event is in the artist's Wikimedia Commons. Thanks. Fusion is the future (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little reluctant to answer this without more info, what image? what article? what website?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Another way to put is, that any photo (at best) represents a primary source, however the content of WP articles usually has to be taken from secondary sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This very photo will further prove that the event took place, actually, no, it won't... photographs depict things... but they don't prove anything. Simply looking at the photo, the reader has no way of knowing what event the photo was taken at. To tie a photo to an event, we need a reliable source that tells us the photo depicts the event.

Also, our job as Wikipedia editors is not to "prove" anything... our job is to compile and neutrally report what reliable sources say about a given topic. Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That is correct but a bit misleading here imho, since the term "prove" comes in very different flavours and (colloquial) meanings. Of course photos "prove" something when they are used as "evidence", which in WP context is primary source "proving" or "verying" that your WP content or description of something is "correct". The problem here however is that articles are not supposed to be based on primary sources since their interpretation by a WP author would constitute WP:OR.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again everybody. I do appreciate your input to the matter. I am in the making as a new user, in terms of creating valuable articles for Wikipedia. I'm afraid I'll have to repeat my words, originally used to seek an answer for a specific issue.

• In the article, the event mentioned is already linked to a (secondary) source supporting a specific claim about the subject, meaning, that very source (Internet site) was used as reference.
• Now comes the photo in to the picture...:-) Photo shooting is from a concert. It illustrates the subject, along with the other artists, at the stage. Behind them, there's a huge poster (I mean huge) hanging on the wall. (Showing the name of the event itself.)

These artists were also mentioned in the article as they were mentioned in the secondary source. (Internet site.) Now.:-) What was said originally is:

• "The Internet site of the event with a specific information was already used as a source. This very photo (as a second-supporting reference) will further prove that the event (mentioned) took place. All artists, appearing in that photo, are also in Wikipedia English."

As Blueboar said it: "Support the content with a written source, then illustrate the content with images"

This is exactly what I intend to do.

My original question was:

• How can I then create this photo link as an "additional reference" (an illustration) to the matter itself?

This very photo exists in artist's Wikimedia Commons. Sincerely best. Fusion is the future 10:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fusion is the future (talk • contribs)

What photo, what statement in what article is this about. There are no general overriding rules, all such queries should be accompanied by specifics. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably this for Atilla Engin? The first issue is not proving whether the event took place; the "OTRS pending" means someone is investigating whether the photo violates anyone's copyright restrictions. Wait on the OTRS team before adding it the article to prevent breaking any copyright laws, thanks. Second, the inline source says only that Atilla and Okay appeared together at Tal Vadya Utsav, so the issue seems to be whether the additional people depicted in the photo are appropriate to name in the inline text. To be on the safe side, I'd leave only Mr. Okay in the inline text, after the OTRS clears; there is no source demonstrating who the other artists are besides the uploader, and those faces are pretty tiny. When you can answer "How do you know who they are?" with a secondary source, then you can list them. JJB 17:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC) JJB 17:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on picture and article. The photo isn't a source for anything. It just depicts some musicians on stage. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for all input. In line source is only from New Delhi's Siri Fort Auditorium which lists a small part of the roosters of a 125 artist Festival. Tal Vadya Utsav 1985 Siri Fort Auditorium New Delhi In line source from New Delhi also mentions Babatunde Olatunji, I guess you didn't notice. It further mentions "Family of Percussion" which formed by Peter Giger. They both, Peter Giger and Babatunde Olatunji are in that very photo so are Zakir Hussain, Okay Temiz and Trilok Gurtu. Anyone involved with Jazz/Fusion, African, Indian and World music would recognize them from two hundred meters away.:-)

This Festival was three weeks long and three major cities did host all of these concert events. Bombay, New Delhi and Bangalore. This photo you just saw is from final concert in Bombay. It is actually a Jam Session.

I couldn't get the info (source) from Bombay and Bangalore concerts. It is twenty five years ago. It may never be on the Internet neither. Only that photo which clearly illustrates TAL VADYA UTSAV and the inline mentioned artists.

No one will ever dispute whether these people-mentioned are in this photo or not.:-) Well I hope not.:-) If someone does, they could ask Peter Giger, Zakir Hussain, Okay Temiz and Trilok Gurtu if its them in the photo who participated this last concert in Bombay in 1985. Great artist Babatunde Olatunji died some years ago.

TAL VADYA UTSAV

From left to right: Trilok Gurtu, Atilla Engin (front left,) Zakir Hussain (sitting-middle,) Okay Temiz (standing-more to right before Peter Giger,) Peter Giger (sitting,) Babatunde Olatunji (behind Peter Giger-standing) TAL VADYA UTSAV International Drums&Percussion Festival India 1985

• When you can answer "How do you know who they are?" with a secondary source, then you can list them

A question: Could Okay Temiz himself be a secondary source? Or Peter Giger? Or others in this photo?

THEY ALL are in Wikipedia English too. If so, please guide me about what kind of document (testimony) is necessary.

• Other thing is the OTRS pending. I was not aware of that. I was told that a permission was granted by the artist already a month ago. I will go ahead and investigate this matter.

Thanks for reminding me. And thanks everybody for enlightening me. Fusion is the future (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jezzhotwells, I didn't see your comment until now. You said:

• The photo isn't a source for anything. It just depicts some musicians on stage. Jezhotwells (talk) 6:13 pm, Yesterday (UTC−3)

With all respect, I differ. They are not some musicians on stage. They all are well-respected, cross-cultural World artists you see on this photo, including Atilla Engin and Okay Temiz, who make a difference in people's lives. And they are not there to prove something, rather share and help build awareness around the globe. Their music surely reiterates the long forgotten dreams we all once have had. Each and every time they perform, wherever they are, their contributions reach deeper inside people's senses and refresh true, unpolluted feelings of humanity which are being suppressed dramatically in today's world.

So, as "Wikipedia guide lines" suggest, I assume good faith, when considered, why this photo is, so are the names of these world artists in this photo are, there.

Still, if you all disagree with me, I will not use this photo together with the existing secondary source.

I, as a new comer, am here to make Wikipedia even more rich, accurate and valuable with my input, like you all do. Thanks again for your thoughtful and insightful replies. I'm learning.:-) Fusion is the future (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

While you may know who the musicians are... please remember that others may not (I certainly don't). So, to use the photo in the way you are talking about, what we need is a reliable source that mentions the photo and tells the reader who they are. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedylook

A few articles use Speedylook as a source; it's listed as a mirror, but it actually appears to be a machine translation of the French-language version of Wikipedia rather than a direct mirror of en.wikipedia. Several French-interest articles - including biographies of living people - use it as a source, sometimes as the only source, and I'm tempted to strip these out, but I can't find an explicit statement in the policies that forbids the use of non-English Wikipedias as a source. It seems instinctively wrong but I would like something authoritative to point at when the inevitable disputes arise. The machine translation is a separate issue although again it seems a bad idea; the translation might be incorrect, and might introduce factual errors into the article. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's correct, then just use the sources in the articles instead. For unsourced statements, simply show the article and translation to demonstrate that Speedylook is a quaternary source and that its source, fr.wikipedia, has its own policy about not being used as a source for (any) WP. N'est ce pas? JJB 17:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Speedylook process doesn't seem to retain the sources - e.g. this page on Christine Delphy, which ends with (literally) some "random links", or this page about Rosalía Arteaga. Is there a page somewhere here on ye goode olde en.wikipedia that explicitly states in English that non-English versions of Wikipedia cannot be used as sources for the English-language Wikipedia? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:PSTS under tertiary, but it doesn't say "non-English Wikipedia", just "Wikipedia", as appropriate for those among your audience who may be followers of logic. JJB 17:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

RIKI LEGAIR

Riki legair is mainly noted as being the bass player in the band " Blood donor" but he was also a good friend of mine . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.58.86.196 (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)