Wikipedia talk:Acceptable sources

Great start. Can quickly be converted into a guideline if others make no objections. I have however one comment and a question. If the reader in a letter to the editor make an important statement of fact (not an opinion) then this may be suitable for inclusion. Another question is, I have a reputable book that cites a person interviewed anonymously about a public figure. Does this mean that this the testimony cannot be cited? Andries 23:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Two answer your questions--no, and maybe. Letters to the editor shouldn't ever be cited for factual claims. If the letter contains a fact which is indeed true, better references no doubt exist for it. If not, than the claim fails WP:V. (If it's a manifest truth like "the sky is blue", no citation is needed for that in the first place). I'm assuming that the letter-writer is an average Joe; not an authority on the subject--even then, the fact should be published in a better forum then the letters to the editor. Regarding the second question--depends on the claim being made, and on the person. Is the person an anonymous witness to an event--a primary source, in other words, and one who has legitimate reasons for maintaining anonymity? Or is the person just giving an opinion or repeating what he has heard elsewhere. If the former, then maybe--proceed with caution, and carefully describe--in prose--the nature of the source. Discuss on the talk page. Otherwise, I'd say no. Journalism generally frowns on anonymous sources; and we--as a community who mostly aren't trained journalists--should take a position which is even more conservative than that. But that's my $0.02. --EngineerScotty 00:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The person is anonymous witness to an event and has at least some good reason to remain anonymous. Andries 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A related but different remark is that victims of certain crimes (e.g. sexual abuse) are nearly always anonymously cited by reputable sources, at least in the country where I live. Andries 00:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If the named publisher/author (the named entity) is reliable, I'd go ahead. After all, we're trusting the named reporter/researcher to be truthful. I would describe your edit on the talk page, and phrase it like this: "According to author, the event was witnessed by an anonymous individual, who described it as description<ref>{{cite book|details}}</ref>." (Using whatever citation format is appropriate; I prefer cite.php myself). --EngineerScotty 00:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Question

EngineerScotty, I am interested in your proposal for several reasons.

Regarding Criteria 1: Publication: it appears this would include public court records (which can be purchased for a fee, but are public record nonetheless) that have not been published by secondary sources. If scans to actual court records are provided for verificatory purposes, but these same court records have not been published by secondary sources, can they still be cited according to your proposed Criterion 1? Would this criterion also apply to transcripts (from audio tape) to public speeches that have not been published by secondary sources? Do you see a potential problem with this criterion and WP:RS? SSS108 ^talk-email 03:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer your questions. First off, this (and a few other proposals) are being advocated as part of an effort to reform WP:RS, which has issues. (Not all of us are in agreement what the issues are and what the result should be, but a good summary is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws. Obviously, this proposal is not policy, so I'm only going to answer according to my interpretation of this as it stands.

Court records published by the court (including for a fee) qualify. They are made publicly available; authorship is plain; court documents obtained from the court (or from a different source such as Westlaw or Nexus) are not of dubious authenticity; and insofar as the subject of discussion is the law itself, the precedents handed down by a court, or the details of a specific ruling--they are doubtless relevant. This proposal makes no distinction between "primary" and "secondary" sources; that comes into play later. A published primary source is certainly acceptable. An unpublished secondary source (such as an analysis of a theory) made available by a transient medium such as IRC, is not.

Regarding transcripts of speeches: If the transcript isn't published anywhere, then no. If it is only published on a source of dubious authenticity, no. A lot depends on the nature of the claims involved. If someone were to post a "transcript" of a George Bush speech on a website, wherein Bush is alleged to make obviously racist statements--that would be unacceptable. If the New York Times, OTOH, published such a transcript...

--EngineerScotty 05:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution

A proposal to combine V and NOR, and to ditch RS. All views welcome. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If well done, that would enormously simplify matters. At first glance it is going in the right direction.

In particular "reliable source" ends up simply meaning that a source is held to be reliable on the subject that the Wikipedia article cites it for. That makes it logical and straightforward. Harald88 19:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Biased sources

Why are foxnews.com,heritage foundation, cato, american enterprise and other sources funded by special interests allowed? These sources should be banned from wikipedia. These outlets are paid to find/report whatever the donors tell them to find and report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.66.28 (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources available only by subscription

You mentioned that it is not required that a source be available at no cost. However you also said it must be available without any restrictions or disclosures. What about online sources only viewable by subscription? Texaseliz (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)