Talk:ISO 4

Direct url

A direct url for the reference is preferred

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?ics1=01&ics2=140&ics3=40&csnumber=3569

BTW, where is any critical commentary of the standard ??? http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+%22ISO+4%22&btnG=Search --222.64.23.186 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple source issues

Please be forewarned that having only just registered today and never contributed before, it is entirely possible that my understanding of site policy is flawed or incomplete. If that is the case, I apologise in advance.

With that being said, at this time the article is currently flagged for the following three issues: Relying on a single source, referencing a self-published source, and relying on a source too closely associated with the subject.

Given the nature and subject of the article and taking into account the following consideration; that the provided source is the official website of the intergovernmental authority responsible for the international standard which is the subject of the article, are the latter two issues applicable in this context?

Guidelines for self-published sources state that "Anyone can create a personal web page [...]". Having read the rest of that guideline, I'm not sure that the official site of the ISSN International Centre merits the same categorisation as personal blogs or social media postings that the guideline seems to mean. While anyone can create their own blog or make a forum post, not everyone can establish an intergovernmental institution under United Nations authority with participation from 89 member nations (as verifiable from the web pages of the national governments in question). The websites of the Canadian and Australian governments as well as UNESCO's state that the ISSN International Centre is an official body within the UNESCO framework, and pages on websites belonging to UNESCO as well as that of the national governments of the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada all refer to issn.org as the correct address.

Taken together these seem to suggest that perhaps the improper references to self-published sources flag should not apply, even if technically true: while the source is indeed self-published, perhaps exceptions could be made if the source is the internationally-designated authority responsible for the subject of the article?

Which leads into the article's third flagged issue: excessive reliance on sources too closely associated with the subject. The association between source and subject is obviously indisputable - especially considering what was mentioned earlier - but the concerns of verifiability and neutrality don't seem to be particularly applicable in this context. For starters, the fact that the source already is the ISO Registration Authority (as mentioned earlier) should address the issue of verifiability. With regards to neutrality; the subject matter doesn't exactly leave much wiggle room for controversy or bias - it's an international standard. I could be wrong, but there aren't exactly a bunch of contested opinions or competing points-of-view here.

Once again, I've only just registered - if I'm missing something here please bear with me.

Thoughts? S2A6 (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

"ISO 4 (redirect)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect ISO 4 (redirect) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14 § ISO 4 (redirect) until a consensus is reached. Векочел (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)