Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

Page move

• I see that we have had an RFD which moved the title of this guideline back to “WP:Reliable sources” (from WP: Identifying reliable sources”)... this undid a move that took place several years ago. I don’t personally care which title is used (the guidance remains the same either way)... however, I am troubled by the fact that the RFD was filed without any preliminary discussion (or even notice) here on this talk page. The RFD had very few editors respond, so I suspect that very few editors were even aware of it.

While I do think the RFD was closed “correctly” given the input ... it was closed based on very limited input... and that was due to limited notice. I think the RFD should have been advertised more extensively. This talk page has a lot more people watching than RFD does, and I think some preliminary discussion should have taken place here before proposing it at RFD (or at a minimum, there should have been a notice to tell editors that the RFD was taking place). Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree: As a procedural matter, RFD seems to be structured so that affected pages (i.e., the target pages) are not informed. Also, that wasn't really RFD material anyway: That was a proposed page WP:MOVE, and it ought to have followed the usual page move process, which would have included discussing it here. (I don't have very strong opinions about where the page ends up.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

So...I guess the question is, do we do anything about it (and if so, what)? I see several options:

1. don’t do anything... let the move stand, and see if anyone has a strong objection (it may be that no one does).
2. now that people HAVE been made aware, request that the RFD be reopened for additional comments (and then act accordingly).
3. request that the RFD move be undone (as procedurally flawed), and open a proper RM discussion with proper notification (and then act accordingly).

Are there any other options? Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that – if anyone cared enough to have the discussion again – the bureaucratically correct approach would be to more or less ignore the RFD and open a proper RM. (We really, really, really don't want to undo all those page moves and then needing to re-do them all if the RM comes to the same conclusion.) Having glanced at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 23#This page again, I'd guess that User:SlimVirgin is the person best suited to explain the pro-longer-name POV. (I think that the name worked, in that we get fewer requests here for complete lists of all acceptable sources.)

As for "What to do?", my initial thought is that we ought to expand upon the language at WP:RFD#Closing notes about this kind of RFD being invalid ["e.g. are actually move requests"]. It seems that such RFDs ought to be closed early, but perhaps we should direct some attention to the noms to discourage them from even starting RFD when their question ought to be at RM. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding requests for complete lists, I'm not sure we had WP:RSN available in its capacity today, and certainly didn't have WP:RSPS. If that's the tradeoff, seems like a small one. --Izno (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

RSN hasn't changed much. You are correct that RSPS didn't exist; it was created in July 2018. (I'm not sure that RSPS actually should exist, since it tends to oversimplify discussions and calcify consensus, as well as promoting the idea that a source is reliable or unreliable without considering which claims it's being used to support, but that's a separate consideration.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Closing admin comment: I will admit that I used a heavy dose of IAR when closing the RFD, because as mentioned above this wasn't so much of a "redirect" discussion as it was a "move" discussion, and probably should have followed the WP:RM procedures (which, for the record, also only lasts for a week). That being said, there were sound arguments made at the RFD, and no one raised the RM issue, so my "vote" regarding the above proposal is to let it sit and see if anyone complains (option #1). If there is a large amount of dissent, however, I'm happy to roll back my changes and re-open the RFD and/or start a procedural RM to get it moved back. In other words, I too am fairly neutral, but I think unless people start complaining it's easiest to leave well enough alone. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Thanks for commenting, Primefac... as I said above, my concern was not about your closure of the RFD discussion, but about the lack of any notification that the discussion was taking place. And my concern is just a concern, not an objection. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Steel1943, while nobody seems too fussed about the outcome, would you like to comment on why you handled this page move as a redirect discussion rather a proper page move? I've been assuming that it's just because you spend so much time there that it's what you happened to think of first, but if you had a particular reason, I'd be interested in hearing it, and perhaps others would, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: ...because some options did not involve a move of the page (see the RfD discussion for reference.) In all honesty, no matter where I had posted the discussion, I would have been questioned why I did not use one discussion forum over another, as seen here. Steel1943 (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Not moving the page is a possible outcome for every proposed page move, so I don't think that is a very strong reason. RM is the most common method for moving a page back to a former name that currently redirects to it. The longer name was settled through an RFC on this page. I doubt that anyone would have complained if you'd followed either the RFC process or a proper RM.

I think that maybe we could use an addition to the RFD instructions to leave a note on the talk page of pages that an RFD might change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• That’s instruction creep, so no thanks. Anyways, if anyone wants to revert the move and start a "official" move request to move the page, be my guest. Somehow, it seems that I am now under a microscope for proposing a request that was not even carried out by me. (Whatever happened to the concept of discussing things with the closing and executing admin rather than the proposer?) Now that even after I literally spent about half an hour trying to figure out where to post that discussion, I’m now being accused of doing it wrong, as I totally expected and now there’s an admin trying to over complicate everything. Anyways, ya’ll feel free to do whatever the hell ya’ll want as my bandwidth to care about this has been indefinitely exhausted. Everyone have a nice day. Steel1943 (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I’m going to attempt to clarify this a bit since I could have added more (though I still have a bit of an exhausted "bandwidth".) As seen in the RFD discussion, all issues I saw stemmed from the state of the redirect, which is why I posted the discussion on WP:RFD. Yes, one of the options was moving this page, but it was one of a few options. One option I presented involved turning the redirect that was formerly at Wikipedia:Reliable sources into a sort of disambiguation page. But since the closing administrator decided to close the discussion in a manner that some editors have interpreted as a "wrong forum" type of close, rather than approaching the closing administrator about their close, my decision to post the discussion on RfD instead of RM, RfC, or whatever other forum anyone can think of has been scrutinized. The truth of the matter is there really is no clear way to add instructions to any forum related to the discussion that resulted in the move to constitute what WhatamIdoing is proposing without adding some sort of WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. I mean, if such instructions were added, what’s next? Requiring that all talk pages of redirects that are proposed to be overwritten by a WP:RM discussion have a notification pasted on their talk page that the redirect may be overwritten? (That’s going to be a bit of a Herculean task for new-ish editors who do not know how to overwrite talk page redirects to understand when they keep getting forwarded to the talk page redirect’s target.) Anyways, enough of this tangent...

Here’s my 2 cents for a couple of possible resolutions in addition to the close that Primefac made, givens that at least in the discussion that Primefac closed, there is consensus for the move to be performed. 1) Post the RfD discussion on WP:DRV for wider consensus that the move does or does not need to be relisted on this page, and vote to have the move reverted, but the move listed here for consensus. Or, 2) Another option would be for Primefac to skip the hypothetical aforementioned "middle-man" and revert their move, and then procedurally put the move request here that had consensus in the RFD discussion for wider (and apparently, more forum-appropriate) consensus (as they have stated above.) In fact, looking at it if I were an uninvolved third party, the aforementioned idea to post a discussion on this page would probably be how I would have closed the discussion for all who could have considered moving a page directly from consensus at a WP:RFD discussion problematic (and quite frankly, to avoid all of the obvious drama that this move has caused.) The responsibility of a discussion close, deletion, etc. is supposed to fall on the closer, so I leave it in their hands to make a decision on this to appease the community and best resolve this conflict. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

...Or lack of conflict thereof. For the record, the best course of action for this may also be to do nothing additional regarding this page move and learn from this experience. Either way, procedural concerns and/or proposals in general would probably be best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion, and/or one or more of the various Wikipedia:Village pump pages to form consensus for a plan to prevent procedural confusion like this from happening again in the future. (In all honesty, I’ve always thought that the WP:RM and WP:RFD processes contain a certain amount of overlap, considering that they both loosely deal with page titles to some extent.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Most RFDs affect only the redirect. The few that affect other pages (e.g., by adding or removing content from them) should probably solicit input from the pages that will be changed. (Again: reverting the change before further discussions is IMO a bad idea. I don't know where this idea started that we have to revert contested page moves before people can talk about it, but it is a Bad Idea, especially when we're talking about reverting dozens and dozens of page moves.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, at this point regarding this specific discussion, that statement is not really applicable anymore since consensus has been formed somewhere. Please read my above clarification. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• While I was not aware of the redirect discussion, I agree with its rationale and result. In the future, it would be nice to post a note on the talk pages of all of the affected pages (including Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, etc.) so other interested editors can be adequately informed. At this point, anyone who disagrees with the page move can request a move back to its old location. — Newslinger talk 11:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment It should of been a RM not RFD, I follow this page and had no idea there was a discussion on it. While I have no personal issue with the move it had very low participation so it is hard to say it really has consensus. For anyone stumbling across this the discussion is here. Past that unless someone wants to challenge the move (which is not me btw) I think we let it go and learn from this. PackMecEng (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Since nobody cares enough to start an RM or RFC change the page name again, I think we might actually have some evidence of consensus in this discussion. The RFD discussion is weak evidence of consensus at best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Academic theses and dissertations

I was startled to learn that graduate theses and dissertations are not considered reliable sources by some. The article in its present form says about them, "Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not." In every university where I have studied or taught, theses and dissertations have to go through a vigorous process of scrutiny by a committee of professors and an oral examination. The institution does not approve one until a rigorous process is followed. This makes theses and dissertations more researched and reliable than most newspaper reports. I do admit that something written for a masters degree, especially on some topics, is less likely to be reliable than others. For example a treatise claiming to prove that the Mona Lisa was not painted by by da Vinci may be cited as evidence that some doubt whether da Vinci painted it, but should not be cited as proof that he did not.

Therefore, I am revising the article on the matter of theses and dissertations as reliable sources. I hope my revisions are seen as gentle, logical, and appropriate. Pete unseth (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that thesis and dissertations are generally reliable, especially if they come from established universities and/or have a reputable author or adviser, but I can imagine situations where a thesis would not be reliable, e.g., from an online university, or something like, a thesis on North Korean history from Kim Il-sung University. I wonder if some of the cautionary language should be kept (e.g., not all thesis/dissertations are carefully vetted, editors should mind who wrote it and where it's from). ^Leviv_ich? ! 20:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• There is more to this than just reliability. WP:UNDUE is often a factor in rejecting these sources. Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I would say it depends. I have looked (in some detail) into two phDs in "my area" on Wikipedia:

Frantzman from Hebrew Uni, (see User:Huldra/Frantzman), and

Rhode, H. (1979). Administration and Population of the Sancak of Safed in the Sixteenth Century (PhD). Columbia University.

Now, the Frantzman thesis is pure trash (I have found mistakes on virtual all pages), while the Rhode thesis looks fine (his findings have been backed up by other researchers, later).

So I would say it has to be evaluated on a case to case basis, Huldra (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

For some context on this the OP has been trying to include a Masters thesis here. This reply Talk:Doctor Who#Section on scholarly views seems to be what prompted this thread. Just to note the thesis has not been made available in its full form (which makes it unverifiable) for any kind of assessment. MarnetteD|Talk 22:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes. Generally it's not a good idea to attempt to change a guideline when in a separate dispute about that direct guideline. --Izno (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources that relates to this guideline. Please feel free to participate if you are interested. — Newslinger talk 08:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added some mockups of the proposed warning templates at WT:RSN § Template workshop. — Newslinger talk 11:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• One problem that I have with implementing these depreciation templates is that they tend to oversimplify what is a complex situation. Each depreciated source has unique exemptions and caveats to the depreciation (caveats and exemptions that are difficult to express in a template). For example: when closing the Daily Mail discussion, the closer noted that time plays a factor in determining whether to depreciate a specific report. A DM news report from the 1960s is reasonably reliable (certainly a lot more reliable than its more recent reporting). Subject matter also is a factor - A movie review from the Sun might be reliable, even if its celebrity gossip is trash. And these are but a few issues that need to be considered when depreciating a source. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

RTG I'm not sure what you meant with this edit. I know that Rotten Tomatoes is used across Wikipedia, but only the critical response, not the audience ratings, which is user-generated content. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I also disagree with the revert. We do use RT, but RT has multiple kinds of scores, and we never cite the user/audience scores. (We use Metacritic the same way for video games; the user score is never cited, nor are user reviews, which are often allowed at such websites.) --Izno (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21 and Izno:I don't read Rotten Tomatoes so I did assume that they only did one rating and that Wikipedia was accepting it. I assumed that you assumed, how'd you like that. Fair enough, apologies o/ ~ R.T.G 03:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That's why I specified "audience ratings". By default, audience ratings would still be user-generated, even if it were the only rating available. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done ~ R.T.G 04:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

In law

How should we read this RS guideline wrt law? At first sight I'd say a published law can be quoted as is. Or is a secondary source i.e., a scholar publishing about that law, required? Same for court cases (judgements): do we need a secondary source to describe a case? Cannot we quote the verdict itself? (Category:United States Supreme Court cases). -DePiep (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• The issue isn’t reliability, but WP:No original research. We can quote the exact text of laws and judgements (and reliably cite them as Primary sources to support that quotation)... However, we need secondary sources for any interpretation or analysis of the law/judgment. (To put it another way... We need secondary sources to tell us what the law or judgement means.) Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe it depends. Assuming you're talking about US law, a judgment would be a primary source document, but the memorandum that comes with a judgment, or an appellate opinion, would be primary for some things and secondary for others. What's primary and what's secondary will depend on the particular source itself, and whether it can be used or not will depend on what it's being used for. Leviv ich 21:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata sourced data

A table has been added to Gatwick Airport#Traffic and statistics to show the number of passengers per year, the source is a wikidata query. If I check to see where the data comes from all I get is a page of coding gibberish on wikidata. How do I or any reader of the article know the figures have come from a reliable source? MilborneOne (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

You don’t know. That is one of the problems with wikidata. And is why we still don’t fully accept it. Feel free to remove. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Think tank or special interest sources

There is a local street newspaper, http://www.streetroots.org which is a special interest paper distributed by transients for the transient community. The editorial policy is pro homeless leaning by a good deal. Should this be considered reliable, or on the par with "indy press" type stuff? For example, how appropriate is it to be used as a source for subjects that relate to their specialized interest such as the article homelessness in Oregon Graywalls (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Indy press. --Izno (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I figured so. Should it even be introduced in articles as reference and if so under what circumstances? Graywalls (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This particular case (which should probably have been entertained at WP:RSN) I would pull it entirely. --Izno (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Google-searches etc

Every now and then, new editors tries to use something like a google search as a source in an article. Would it be reasonable to include something in the spirit of "Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source a search-engine result such as a Google-search is not in itself a source, though it may contain useful sources."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Search results are not identical on every user end even for the same query. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Social media sourcing as primary sources.

I think wikipedia is out of date on how to use social media sourcing correctly. I am seeing veteran editors delete social media tweets, posts saying WP:RS. Modern media techniques like the BBC, Guardian, CNN, etc, will cite a tweet or a facebook post in their article for the primary source. We need to update this page to better explain when and when not to use social media as a primary source. Along with uses in how to create the best article for wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd say in general, we can use a socialmedia whatever as a source for something uncontroversial about the subject themselves. Say age or place of birth, as long as no secondary sources bother to comment. As for opinions/statements about something other than themselves, like releasing a song, getting a role, thinking something is fakenews, socialmedia is inadequate, now we need a decent secondary source that bothered to notice. If someone wants to add the socialmedia as a cite as well, that's probably often ok. What policy-text should be updated how? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

"Modern media techniques like the BBC, Guardian, CNN, etc, will cite a tweet or a facebook post in their article for the primary source." at which point they can become open for use on Wikipedia by meeting "having been published in a reliable source". They contents they share has been scrutinized by the editorial process by the news. Wikipedia editors in general are not allowed to directly utilize primary source. Graywalls (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

"scrutinized by the editorial process" may not always be the case, but at least we're now closer to WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia editors in general are not allowed to directly utilize primary source." this is clearly false. Primary sources (e.g. press releases, tweets, etc...) are perfectly acceptable for a variety of things (see WP:SELFPUBLISH/WP:ABOUTSELF). What you can't do is establish WP:N through primary sources alone, and a variety of things need secondary or tertiary sources to ensure WP:V/WP:DUE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Partially agree. Source credibility can be an issue when you're directly scooping up social media contents from the source. When it's already been picked up by news article, screening is usually already done. I agree completely primary sourced contents can't be used to establish notability. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

My understanding of guidelines Govvy is that it's acceptable in a WP:BLP biography article to include as a reference an official tweet from the subject of the article themselves, (as per WP:SELFPUBLISH) but it's not good sourcing to include a tweet by another user who is not the subject of the BLP. For example, in the Tom Cruise article, it would be ok to include a reference to an official tweet from Cruise himself. However, it would not be good sourcing to include as a reference a tweet from another different actor discussing Cruise. Guidelines at WP:GOODREFS state: Blogs, social media, fan sites, and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable. As per guidelines at WP:SOCIALMEDIA it states: Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook. So from that, my understanding is that a social media reference can be included as per WP:SELFPUBLISH, but it's not a good reference to use tweets and social media from other users different from the actual subject of a biography. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources closed off from the EU

Certain US newspapers such as the LA Times deny access to EU readers rather than have to deal with GDPR. I did an archive search, but couldn't find where this was previously discussed.

My question is: what's our stance re: such sources. It stands to reason we would recommend editors to find better sources to avoid turning English Wikipedia into a US-focused project. I fully acknowledge that the LA Times remains a perfectly valid source despite me not being able to access it. I am NOT asking for LA Times (et al) to be blacklisted a la the Daily Mail.

My point here is if we are encouraging editors to improve sources semi-permanently closed off to such a large chunk of the constituency? That is, when both the New York Times and the LA Times cover a specific story, let's go with NYT for the simple reason it doesn't automatically exclude European readers. (When LAT is the sole source, keeping it is perfectly fine)

I would like to see an inline "Missing or problematic reference" template specifically for this purpose. "source unavailable to EU readers due to the GRDP" or somesuch. There might be lots of US editors completely unawares their shiny citation is worthless to EU editors.

Thx CapnZapp (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, no. Not worthless by policy, see, WP:SOURCEACCESS. We should not be putting added burdens on editors to source -- the major issue is sourcing takes effort, so we have to implore editors to source to begin with, and we should thank them for putting in the RS, even if it is not immediately accessible online. Others are free to add other sources, if they wish. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry that the LA Times is not accessible in the EU. But there are many other sources that are not easily accessible to large groups of editors, but we still cite those sources, anyway. For example, I often cite academic journals that are generally only accessible to those at colleges and universities, or for significant payment. The same applies to many dissertations. Though these sources are not easily accessible to all, they must still be allowed. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be left citing nothing but the most popular level materials. Pete unseth (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Whenever someone says something about geo-locked web sources or anti-adblocker implementations on web sources, I gently remind them that archiving them at Archive.org or elsewhere provides the information usually. --Izno (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I noted this at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_230#Well_that_sucks. Apart from adding a non-blocked source if available, I don't think there's anything to be done mainspace-wise. Political activism of some sort falls mainly outside WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

What was the intended meaning?

In my opinion, the following (general and absolutely crucial) rule contains glaring logical fallacies:

(...) making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.

1. "are covered" by what? By other sources?... which also should be covered? First of all, we need sources to cover views in articles, not in other sources.
2. Of course we can imagine a situation in which views have appeared in reliable sources but out of context, or even in context but not directly supported, and thus not actually covered. But this special case is described in another paragraph of the current article - see "Context matters".
3. The rule is incomplete. What about the views that have not appeared in any sources at all?

So, I replaced it with:

(...) making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in the article are covered by sources.

Where the default meaning of the word "covered" is "actually covered". There is no need to emphasize this. Being "covered by sources" is a well defined and precise condition to be met. However, my edit has been rejected as a "change in [the] intended meaning". So, what was the intended meaning? Please tell me. I will be very grateful and take my skills to the next level. Vikom ^talk 19:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The intended meaning is that all information covered by sources, not only those information that appear in the article. This is directly related to WP:NPOV. --Izno (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Your first sentence is ungrammatical. Did you mean that "all information should be covered by sources, not only those information that appear in the article."? If so, your sentence makes no sense. Vikom ^talk 00:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vikom: My understanding of the sentence is that it means "...are covered [in Wikipedia articles]", and I think the current text is reasonably clear but could be worded slightly better. This makes sense to me.

Your point 1 is addressed by interpreting the sentence in this way. On your point 2, the section is not necessarily related to the substance of your point, although I think it is logical (and possibly not worth stating in this policy page) that only the parts of a source relevant to an article should be used in that article. In answer to your point 3: if no reliable sources cover a certain point of view, it necessarily cannot be covered in an article, because the English Wikipedia fundamentally requires information to be verifiable in order to be included, which almost always means that the information has to be supported by reliable sources. Jc86035 (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

OMG, it's hard to believe. I thought that my explanation was very clear. However, it seems you all still don't understand a very simple thing, namely: Information in Wikipedia articles should be covered by sources, not vice versa. Please, read carefully what I wrote. It is not rocket science. Good luck :-).
Vikom ^talk 05:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Vikom: The intended meaning of Wikipedia articles should ... mak[e] sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered, is that wikipedia articles should be comprehensive, ie they should include all viewpoints that can be reliably sourced. (WP:DUE further clarifies that such coverge should be proportionate.) Hope that answers your question. Abecedare (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• • You explained the intended meaning using an ambiguous word "comprehensive", and so were your further explanations. But for the time being, we have a more serious problem. The original sentence says about the "views that have appeared in those sources", which is nonsense because they appear in quite another place - in a Wikipedia article. This is a huge difference. Can't you see this? Vikom ^talk 17:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• • • Not sure why you are finding that sentence difficult to parse. I'll make one more attempt: the part of the lede sentence I quoted in my previous comment enjoins wikipedia editors to cover (i.e., faithfully summarize) all viewpoints contained in reliable sources on the article's subject. If you still have questions, I would recommend taking them to WP:TEAHOUSE. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I focused on "all views", neglecting the key words inside the phrase "all majority and significant minority views". However covering all views seemed so unrealistic, that the only alternative I could find was an "illogical sentence". Now I wonder why none of you gave me a simple example like: "...otherwise we could describe Ronald Reagan only as an actor, neglecting his presidency". If I had known the reason for the rule, I would have easily understood the rule itself. Sorry about the whole thing.
Thank you all very much! Vikom ^talk 03:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The Media Bias Chart and how it rates sources

If you're interested in fact checking and evaluation of sources for accuracy and bias, check out both of these links. This happens to be the best media bias chart I know of:

"Most people don’t visit 40 sites about one story to compare bias and quality, but that’s one of the things we do here, so we hope it helps you get a better sense of the universe of reporting."

"Junk news (by which we mean anything falling in the hyper-partisan (-18 to +18) and beyond categories, and anything below 40 on our quality scale) mostly serves to satisfy people’s craving to be right and confirm their existing beliefs."

• The Mueller Report Headlines Across the Spectrum: Illustrating How Junk News Keeps Us In Parallel Universes
• Introduction to the Media Bias Chart

I like to regularly check the chart to ensure I only use the best sources and keep track of which are good for facts and which are good for opinions, noting that it's important to check both the left and right sides of the spectrum for how their bias is related to the facts. It's pretty fascinating. Have fun. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Is a book on French history by Temple Prime a reliable source?

This page is for discussion of how to modify or improve this guideline. For questions about individual sources, please use Reliable Sources Noticeboard — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Basically, I used this book by Temple Prime as a source for the article John, Count of Soissons and Enghien: https://books.google.com/books?id=CW0-AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA73&dq=john+soissons+1528+1557+estouville&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHt_-jkeLhAhVEMn0KHdbYAH4Q6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=john%20soissons%201528%201557%20estouville&f=false Is this book actually a reliable source? I was told by another Wikipedia user (named Kansas Bear) that it isn't, but I want to hear everyone else's thoughts on this. It looks like Prime was primarily interested in conchology but that he also had an interest in genealogy. Futurist110 (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

UGC

This guideline is confusing. Computers and robots don't write content, and therefore any information that is text-based in some way has to be physically written/typed by a human being, and therefore by definition all content is "user-generated" since a real person (a user) has to generate said content before it could be published. Perhaps this could be clarified? 98.118.32.140 (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a reference to the generally understood concept of User-generated content, a link that is also provided on the guideline itself. "User" here as in "user of the website" as opposed to "operator of the website". Someguy1221 (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC about independent sources for academic notability

An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability to decide the following question:

Current wording: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.
Proposed wording: Academics/professors meeting one or more of the following conditions, as substantiated using multiple published, reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject and each other, are notable.

Shall the wording in the section Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria be changed to the proposed wording above?

Editors are welcome to join the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 20:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

100 years is the limit

Written 100 years ago is the maximum allowable limit for WP:RS. See e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Gospel of John. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You linked to the article on the historical method, but did you read it? Yes, have you? Perhaps I should have linked to a more appropriate article, such as scientific consensus which more accurately portrays what Bdub is claiming to be wrong. You can't assume that because an editors is capable of making points that they are correct: Bdub's assertion is that the consensus of modern historians is wrong and ancient sources are right, which puts his position in many of the same categories as Creationism, Breatharianism, The flat Earth theory, Acupuncture and the belief in ancient aliens. No matter hos sophisticated their argument: Bdub has an extraordinarily high standard for evidence to clear, and absolutely no business doing so here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Your edit seems a bit pointed. The current paragraph is sufficient to indicate our preference for newer sources. --Izno (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Opposed - While newer sources should certainly be given more weight, saying older sources are not reliable is overkill. A lot depends on context. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Blueboar is correct. Ruling that studious material becomes "wrong" because it is "old" is absurd. Gibbons' "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" has not mysteriously ceased to exist even though it is now over two centuries old. Collect (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: in art history many multi-volume, usually German, "corpus" works on particular types of medieval and ancient works from roughly 1880-1920 have never been fully repeated, and are still normally included in modern bibliographies. The numbering in Adam Bartsch's catalogues of old master prints, completed in 1821, are still standard, and he is often quoted in scholarship. The Illustrated Bartsch, also a revision/replacement of the text, began in 1976 & is now continuing very slowly. When we use the OED as a ref, most of what we use dates unaltered back to the 19th century. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

pre-modern historians as sources

What is the policy of using pre-modern historians (such as the works of Herodotus or Ibn Khaldun) as sources? Especially if their works are translated and published in recent times. Intutively I think they should be used very sparingly, but I don't know of any section here that's relevant to this question. According to clasification in WP:PRIMARY, they might even classify as "Secondary sources" if they're writing about events they do not directly observe. HaEr48 (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

That's funny, I was just thinking about that myself: [1]. I have also been unable to find any written WP-guidance on this. IMO, in general really old whatevers shouldn't be used directly. Herodotus etc can be mentioned on a topic if a modern scholar mention Herodotus in connection to that topic. WP-editors shouldn't use them directly without the "filter" of modern scholarship, old texts can be read in a multitude of ways. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Pre-modern writings may have characteristics of secondary and/or tertiary sources, but one would need to establish their "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" before treating them as a reliable source. Though WP:AGE MATTERS discusses sources that are a "few years" old, some of the same consideration apply to a much greater extent to pre-modern sources, which have been obviously "superseded" in terms of historical methods. Pre-modern historical writings are often treated as primary sources by modern historians, and treating them all as such is a good conservative choice for us -- using them sparingly, with attribution, and making sure that any form of interpretation (including assessment of accuracy and significance) is based on a non-primary RS. Eperoton (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to see WP:AGE MATTERS speak more clarly on this issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I tried to amend WP:RS with no success, see #100 years is the limit. Anyway, insiders of history and Bible scholarship articles do not treat medieval and ancient sources as reliable. This happens for a long time, it is established practice, even if WP:RULES do not admit it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to come up with a single date cutoff. A 150-year-old source on biblical criticism should be treated with a lot of caution, but if we're dealing with, say, a German source from that same era chronicling some uncontroversial local history of its time, it would likely be as reliable as any other source, especially if it's harder to find those details in modern sources. It's really a question of whether or not a source has been superseded, which is a determination that's best made in a specific context by editors familiar with the sources. I would support including some language urging particular caution with pre-modern sources, though. Eperoton (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

When does "pre-modern" end in this context? Here [2] I am complaining about a source that's 500 years old. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Your example is also covered by WP:RNPOV. For a general category of pre-modern sources, we could have a statement like this: Texts written before the adoption of modern scholarly methods, standards and institutions are generally not considered reliable, except when used as primary sources. Eperoton (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It's context dependent. I usually advocate fairly recent sources (often last 20-30 years - but it depends very much on the subject matter). That being said - what you are bringing up here isn't really history - it is dress customs from a certain period - in which case a contemporary source isn't necessarily so bad. Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The majority of my contributions are to ancient history subject articles, and I've always abided by the general rule that sources from the period in question are primary sources, even though Wikipedia might consider them secondary sources. It's also been my experience that reviewers (MILHIST A-class and FAC, to be precise) take these sources the same way. They can be used, but very sparingly and without interpretation. I think that primary sources should be replaced, or at least supplemented, with secondary sources wherever possible. That said, I'm not aware of any consensus endorsed guidance on this matter. There is no hard limit for when sources become inherently unreliable, and for very good reason. Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, albeit over a century old and written in German, is still one of the best available sources for getting biographical information on obscure ancient personalities. Its age alone isn't a valid reason to dismiss it. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in art history many multi-volume, usually German, "corpus" works on particular types of medieval and ancient works from roughly 1880-1920 have never been fully repeated, and are still normally included in modern bibliographies. The numbering in Adam Bartsch's catalogues of old master prints, completed in 1821, are still standard, and he is often quoted in scholarship. The Illustrated Bartsch, also a revision/replacement of the text, began in 1976 & is now continuing very slowly. When we use the OED as a ref, most of what we use dates unaltered back to the 19th century. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources with a known bias

What is the policy about using reliable sources with a known bias, especially biased reliable sources that may contradict each other? Is this issue currently settled? Bneu2013 (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Most sources have some bias, and our NPOV policy allows the use of biased sources. If their bias is so strong that it affects their factuality, then don't use them for facts, but treat them as opinion, with attribution, or don't use them at all. If you follow the principles in the Media Bias chart, you'll be on better ground. Stick with the sources within the green and yellow boxes, and treat the ones at the extreme left and right sides of those boxes with caution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - the real issue I have is when two sources, both in the green, contradict each other. Should we include both sides? Or should we only include the majority, if, say, three liberal sources report one way, and one conservative points the other? Bneu2013 (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

We have another policy for that... See WP:Neutral point of view. Blueboar (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Is Toronto Sun a reliable source?

Over at Talk:Muslim Association of Canada, another editor and I are having a polite discussion (see "Director Jamal Badawi") on content in the article. I have a citation from the Toronto Sun, a popular daily newspaper in Canada. I believe the newspaper is considered a broadsheet rather than a tabloid, but note that I personally do not consider it as trustworthy as, say, The Globe and Mail, Canada's newspaper of record. The citation is an op-ed, not a "regular article". I believe this is a guest editorial. I wish to use this to establish a contentious point about a living person, so WP:BLP applies. Specifically, I wish to use this citation to establish Dr. Jamal Badawi has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and/or was part of the Muslim Brotherhood's Shura Council. I believe, but could be mistaken, that the Toronto Sun would normally qualify as a WP:RS. I believe, but could be mistaken, that an op-ed in that newspaper would normally qualify as a WP:RS. Both of those things may be true but WP:BLP may mean this particular citation is insufficient for the information I'm trying to cite, about a living person. The anonymous editor is concerned that this citation is insufficient. --Yamla (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yamla, I think you will get more responses if you move this discussion to the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 21:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course! Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Toronto_Sun_a_reliable_source?. --Yamla (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of User:Rosguill/NPPRS, a list of sources for new page patrollers

There is a discussion of User:Rosguill/NPPRS, a list of sources intended to help new page patrollers evaluate an article subject's notability. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Centralizing information about sources. — Newslinger talk 04:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous/Unnamed Sources

Fairly new editor, what is the policy regarding anonymous/unnamed sources? Specifically anonymous interviews and eyewitness accounts. Wikipedia:Acceptable sources provides a good explanation, but the page is currently inactive, has the policy remained the same? 24.57.43.93 (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

So some of it depends on what the source really is. If an anonymous government official was interviewed by a journalist writing a newspaper article, the anonymous official is not the source - the article is the source, and the journalist is its author. If someone claiming to be an anonymous government official posts his personal account of some alleged event on 4chan, that post is the source and its author is anonymous. These are very very different situations. If the author of a source is not known, it becomes much more difficult to assess its reliability (reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). Sometimes you can fall back on the publisher of an anonymous account, but if the publisher has no such reputation, you are deep within unreliable territory.

Okay, so most of the time we're talking about that first type of source. And, well, we deal with those as we would with anything else. If virtually all reliable sources are treating something as a fact, Wikipedia probably will too, even if the information ultimately came from someone anonymous. If they are treating it as an accusation from anonymous parties, but it is getting significant reception, it will be mentioned on Wikipedia with attribution. And if it appeared in one newspaper article and then vanished, Wikipedia will probably ignore it.

That last point is important. If an anonymous witness statement is carried by a reputable publisher, it is still but a single source, and potentially insignificant. It runs the risk of violating WP:REDFLAG. But to satisfy REDFLAG, and to satisfy WP:UNDUE, you would need to find more sources, and better sources. And now, congratulations, you no longer need to rely on an anonymous first-hand account - you can instead rely on all the secondary coverage of it. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Someguy1221: thanks for your answers. You say that if it's only carried by one source it becomes insignificant, however if the same journalist publishes an anonymous interview to two different sources, (Ex: a journalist writing for the Washington Post as well as the Guardian) would this change anything or not?

Another question is; if a journalist from a reputable source cites an anonymous person/interview/witness claiming something about a particular event but his/her account conflicts with another media report from an equally reputable source. Do we include both, or is the anonymous one considered inaccurate? Would it make a difference if the anonymous person's account was corroborated by other weaker sources such as interviews with prominent figures like human rights lawyers or/and personal blog-posts documenting their own experiences? 24.57.43.93 (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be about Talk:Iraq War#Syria. It sounds like the fact that the journalist did not provide the complete, legal name of every person mentioned in that news article is not the main problem with the way you are presenting that source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like you're talking about a situation where it's not a matter of dueling anonymous sources, but a matter of journalists presenting contradictory stories based in part on anonymous sources. Also, I never said that a claim appearing in a single source is insignificant'. I said it could be. Ultimately, this is a question of WP:NPOV, not RS. You have sources, and they are not anonymous. You're trying to find a neutral way to present the points of view. The fact that a source asserts statements from anonymous individuals doesn't mean we throw out the source. It's not an editor's job to decide if a journalist has proved his case. The editor's job is to decide if the author or publisher has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and how to present the source's content neutrally. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Article talk page template inquiry

I wasn't sure how quite to search for this to see if it has been discussed before, so apologies if it has. Given a Wikipedia article on a potential source (e.g. The New York Times, VentureBeat, National Lampoon), it would be useful, but likely but perhaps inadvisable to place a 'reliable source' template on the talk page. I think it would be quite useful to editors, but would equally be a target for vandalism, and would break the wall between Article and Wikipedia spaces - pros and cons. Now that I think of it, maybe a hidden category would be less obtrusive, less likely to be vandalized, and not break that membrane between the spaces. The only reason why I spin this out is that I'm not aware of a comprehensive list of sources and their consensus reliability - if there is one, thanks very much for enlightening me. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ceyockey, that sounds interesting and could be useful for readers, but would also require some effort to safeguard from vandalism and spurious changes. We don't have a comprehensive list of sources, but you may find the following pages helpful:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (WP:RSP): Frequently discussed sources
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources (WP:A/S): Music-related sources
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources (WP:VG/S): Sources related to video games
• The Wikipedia SourceWatch (WP:SOURCEWATCH): Questionable sources
• User:Rosguill/NPPRS: Sources encountered by new page patrollers

​— Newslinger talk 04:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

​ I'm thinking now that the minimalist approach would be a hidden category. I'll do a bit in the space and see if it passes muster. If not, it can all be wiped away in a blink. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

So, there does in fact exist a Category:Wikipedia reliable sources which contains wikipedia articles about reliable sources, and which contains a sub-category Category:WikiProject lists of online reliable sources which contains WikiProject curated lists of reliable sources. I've created already a category and subcategory for Blacklisted sources -- but considering the finding of these categories, I'm going to rollback all of the categorizations and creations and work within the current framework. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds great. I look forward to seeing the results of this project. — Newslinger talk 06:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggested merger - Deprecated sources table --> Perennial sources table

It seems that the addition of the 'auto-reverted' status icon and the 'edit-filtered' status icon to the Perennial sources table would render the table at WP:DEPSOURCES redundant and in need of parallel updating with the "main" list. I've confirmed that every item in WP:DEPSOURCES is in the Perennial list. As a target of the WP:DEPSOURCES shortcut, could create on the Perennial page a set of compact source name lists, one being a list of deprecated sources; the main table would then be the detail table supplementing the compact lists for quick reference. Thoughts? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

​I've actually proposed this at WT:RSP § Indicators for auto-revert and edit filter, but the idea didn't gain traction. The problem is that the perennial sources table is already very long and information-dense, and it's difficult to introduce more information without making the table more cluttered (and less accessible). I then suggested using footnotes, but decided against implementing them since I didn't think there was enough interest in this data, and because I wasn't sure which column to place the footnotes in. Do you have any suggestions for how this data can be presented without negatively impacting the readability of the table? — Newslinger talk 06:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of sources

Twice today I have come across edits where a citation has been removed and replaced with {{citation needed}}.[3][4]. In my view a citation should not be deleted unless the content that relies on it has been deleted. A poor source is better than no source, and poor sources should be tagged with {{Unreliable source?}}, {{Better source}} or similar. Do other editors agree with me. Is there a Wikipedia guideline that covers this? Verbcatcher (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

First of these removed sources is the Daily Mail, see WP:DAILYMAIL regarding that. Not sure about the other one. — Mike Novikoff 21:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

My issue is not about whether the Daily Mail is a reliable source, but whether unreliable sources should be deleted on sight or tagged as unreliable. A claim sourced to the Daily Mail is preferable to an unsourced claim. If a claim is too poorly sourced to be allowed in the encyclopedia then the claim itself should be deleted, not just the dubious source. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

In general unreliable sources should be removed; if they're unreliable, then they're useless for Wikipedia's purposes, and leaving them in gives a false sense of "security" around the information they support. It's possible that the information, however, may seem plausible and useful, which is why leaving it in, with the hope for an reliable source, is helpful to the reader. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The process of removing an unreliable source and replacing it with {{cn}} came about as a compromise to answer those who wanted to remove content because it had an unreliable source. It's an established interpretation of policy, developed though multiple rounds of intense — some would say bone-crushing — discussion on this talk page, that it is an acceptable (though not best) practice to simply remove unsourced material, rather than to {{cn}} tag it or search for sources for it. Some editors took that one step further and said that if material was sourced only with unreliable sources that it ought to be equally acceptable to simply remove both the source and the material in one go. I don't recall whether that was ever settled, but a best practice was asserted to either remove the source and {{cn}} tag or leave it and {{tl}} tag it and in either case wait for awhile and then come back and delete the material if no better source was forthcoming; the length of "awhile" depended on how often the article was edited, but a week was minimum and a month about right. Even that best practice didn't ever get absolute consensus, but it was asserted as a way to avoid just deleting the source and the material in one whack. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• There is no “right” answer to this... because A LOT depends on the the nature of specific material in question. We have to examine each case on its individual merits. Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• I usually follow these steps when I encounter a claim that references an unreliable source:
  1. If there is more than one citation, would the claim be fully supported by at least one reliable source after removing the citation to the unreliable source?
     • Yes: Remove the citation to the unreliable source.
     • No: Continue below.
  2. Search for other sources that support the claim. Is the claim fully supported by at least one reliable source?
     • Yes: Replace the unreliable source with the reliable source(s).
     • No: Continue below.
       • Alternatively, if the claim is partially supported by at least one reliable source, edit the claim to be fully supported by the reliable source(s), and then replace the unreliable source with the reliable source(s).
  3. Would the article no longer make sense after removing the claim?
     • Yes: Remove the claim and the attached citations. Then, copyedit the affected section to fix any discrepancies.
       • Alternatively, add a "missing or problematic reference" template (e.g. {{Unreliable source?}}, {{Self-published inline}}, {{Unreliable medical source}}, etc.) after the citation to the unreliable source.
       • Alternatively, if the site is blacklisted (and not whitelisted), replace the citation to the unreliable source with {{Citation needed}}.
     • No: Remove the claim and the attached citations.

       — Newslinger talk 00:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

PBS content streaming via Amazon

I have been enjoying a program that previously aired via PBS. I am accessing the content through Amazon with a subscription. I've got producers' names, titles and such...but no air date. I would love some opinions on how this can be referenced. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 17:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

wallmine

wallmine Can anyone give me advise on the wallmine . I have been going thru their articles and they seem to be pretty intent in reporting in a responsible nature ~ they republish reuter articles ~ which I'm sure that the pay a fee for that, but it looks like they have a pretty good grasp of information that you can access and you don't have to register with wallmine in order to access that information i.e. if you insert AVY in the ticker search box you will get information on Avery Dennison Corp. ~ but then if you scroll down to the executive section, and say lets choose the first independent director on the list 'Julia Stewart'. You get a lot of current biographical material ~ the question is here ~ Can wallmine be a reliable source to use on Wiki? ~ thanks for your input Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just an adder ~ (I just tried to do more searches) ~ you get three searches per month then you have to sign~up, but at least you don't have to give your whole mysterious life history to a stranger ~ H ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Prabook

I have just encountered the above-named site used as a ref by a newbie when removing citation needed. Any thoughts on this Prabook homepage? Very vague about us section. A WP search returns a few very recent uses in the last few days only. I'm thinking this is a recent US-based development, likely a crowd-sourced wiki needing login? The content accessed by the newbie ref I believe to be copy-paste plagiarism from WP. I've flagged it up at Inge Stoll and Talk.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: You're more likely to get useful discussion of the reliability of specific sources at the reliable sources noticeboard - suggest moving this over there. (If you move it, feel free to remove this comment). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria - I'll get on it, inexperienced on this aspect (and 90% of the others!).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Find a Grave

Why is a link to a photo of a tombstone on "Find a Grave" considered bad, where as a link to a photo on Wikimedia Commons is good? Both are "user-generated content"!!! I can't link to "Find a Grave", but I could go to a cemetery, take a photo, upload it to Wikimedia Commons, then MAGICALLY it's ok now! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• The difference is that pictures from Wikimedia Commons are used for illustration, and not for factual information. Citing a Commons picture as a reference for factual information would be equally bad. — Newslinger talk 01:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• If an illustration isn't considered factual, then why should it be allowed? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • MOS:IMAGES states "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic." and the reasoning is that they serve as "an important illustrative aid to understanding". Readers should still rely on the article text for facts. — Newslinger talk 01:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The same could be said of a photo on "Find a Grave", because a tombstone is "an important illustrative aid to understanding". If a statement already has a reference link to an obituary, then an additional link to photo of a tombstone on "Find a Grave" illustrates it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
      • WP:ELP § Find a Grave explains that external links to Find a Grave are acceptable in rare cases, and also lists 6 concerns that editors have with the site. Citations are for factual information, and a citation to Find a Grave (RSP entry) is generally unacceptable. The reliable sources guideline covers sources used in citations to support claims made in the article text, but not sources linked in external links, which are covered by WP:EL. — Newslinger talk 02:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• By providing a link, did you also want the photo displayed in the article? There may be a copyright issue in doing so. The original photographer still owns the copyright. By posting it on Find A Grave the photographer grants Find A Grave and its Group Companies a perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, sublicensable, royalty-free, world-wide license to host, store, copy, publish, distribute, provide access to and otherwise use such material. In general, thats not a license for anyone else to do as they please with it. -- Work permit (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Definition of analysis

In response to a question about Fox News and specifically Hannity, this statement was created: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

There's a discussion at RSN that might benefit from a definition of "analysis". It obviously doesn't include a meta-analysis, which is described as a "preferred" source type elsewhere on this page. It probably doesn't include "analysis" in the sense of analysis being a key characteristic of a secondary source (see WP:SECONDARY). But what is it meant to encompass? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Convenience link to discussion: WP:RSN § "News Analysis" Pieces and WP:RS. — Newslinger talk 03:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that the policy should encompass "news analysis" pieces like this: [5]. I think it would be helpful to explicitly make reference to this class of article in the policy, to make it clear that academic analysis pieces and meta-analysis are not meant to be included. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Is randomstory.org an unreliable source?

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

 – GermanJoe (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Is a link from randomstory.com bad? JaneciaTaylor (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

YouTube

Hello. What is the status of YouTube as a source? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: YouTube is a publishing platform; videos uploaded there can range from very unreliable to very reliable, depending on the specific source in question. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Nikkimaria: I'm querying the return of these two YouTube citations to Clement Attlee. Do you think they meet the criteria? No Great Shaker (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

IMO both are reliable, although I would question the significance of the second. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :IMO it's a vehicle and should not have a status, the items that it carries should. Could be a post from someone's personal blog to a high grade documentary with editors and the other trappings of a wp:rs. North8000 (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, both. It seems to follow the guidelines for online sources generally. That's very useful. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

What if a reliable source is demonstrable faulty?

How should I deal with a so-called reliable source that has many factual errors in it....? The regulars on the page insist in using it, even after I pointed out that it contained factual errors..... KFvdL (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

How do you know the RS has many factual errors? Do other RS contradict it? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

yup. Also, the book does not contain any references.... KFvdL (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Not all reliable sources are equal. A book without references would typically be lower on the RS scale than a similar book with references. The publisher is important too; university press, mass market, etc. If multiple or higher quality reliable sources contradict another source, then the more reliable sources should be used. That said, sources aren't expected to be perfect, and one error doesn't disqualify a source from being used. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I will compile a list of errors and better resources and see what they do with that. KFvdL (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Quick question, a NASA Technical Memorandum (112195) would be a reliable source? KFvdL (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Based on the name, it looks likely to be a primary source, but I'd need to know more about it to judge. Also, it depends on what it is intended to be a source for; it would likely not be a reliable source on English literature, for example. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Good point. We need to remember that reliability is context driven. We really can’t answer the question “is source X reliable?” without knowing the specific statement that source X is supporting. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A useful point to remember is that we obviously do not have to use any source for everything it says. That is an editorial decision. As we look over several sources we should normally find that they have strong and weak points. Actually we are not supposed to be copy-pasting but putting together a well-judged and balanced account which has never been made before. It is quite common to find errors in good sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

But I would say that the way to tell that an otherwise reliable source contains an error is to provide other sources (ideally more than one) that conflict with it, and then make an argument as to why the other sources are right and it's wrong. You should never be correcting an otherwise reliable source just by appealing to your own expertise or opinion. Isn't that right? Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me as if WP:DUE comes into play here: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, per WP:OR, "[Original research] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

But what about a really simple case: you have four news reports from reputable organizations saying that an event occurred on August 9, and one news report saying that it occurred on August 8. Would you guys report both dates? Seems like it could be reasonable to just report August 9 in such a case. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Where

1. reliable sources disagree on something like a date, and
2. the preponderance of sources use one date, and
3. I don't know for sure what the actual date is (i.e. it is not a firmly established date such as July 4, 1776 for the adoption of the United States Declaration of Independence), then

I usually give the most common date in the article, and note the different opinions in a footnote. A typical example would be footnote 18 in Congregation Beth Israel (Scottsdale, Arizona). Jayjg ^(talk) 12:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

In answer to the question addressed to me yes we need to try to avoid making editing judgments which involve "original research" or synthesis beyond what is obvious. In practice this can and should often indeed mean citing sources and giving rationales in a talk page discussion. But sometimes for better or worse it comes down to a vote. Personally I think it is best practice to try to register a rationale and some sources, not just a vote, because this can help avoid later editors thinking something incorrect has happened. I see no reason to create a rule about WP needing to say whatever the highest number of sources say, because one source might be stronger.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Any source can have errors. The New York Times, for example, is generally considered a WP:RS of high caliber, but they make mistakes every day. For example, if I stated in Individual and political action on climate change that, According to a poll by Public Opinion Strategies, younger Republicans consider climate change to be their most important issue and cited this NY Times article as the source, I'd probably be pretty confident. At least until I read the correction they printed yesterday. Everything is subject to future verification. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let me see if I understand WP:DUE correctly. We have several books (one without references, the other I have no access to) both written by cancer specialists, and some (7+ year old) reviews that conclude that a alternative medicine modality does not work, and the book without references says it is dangerous for infants. At the same time, we have a series of articles, including some reviews that are newer and say no adverse effects. Some of those articles are in journals that the editors consider not reliable, but one review is in a RS journal and several of the articles are in RS journals. Yet, the later review is rejected by the other editors. KFvdL (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing for medical claims is covered by WP:MEDRS, particularly WP:MEDSCI and WP:MEDASSESS. Is the review a systematic review in a respected, high-impact, peer-reviewed medical journal? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

not high impact. Thank you. KFvdL (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• As was already mentioned to the OP last time, use of this noticeboard really needs the context, wording and source to be posted in queries here as is laid out in the instructions at the top of the page. For those who are curious, what's underlying this is an attempt to use some NASA data from the 1970s to show that all accepted medicine is wrong and that craniosacral therapy isn't the quackery that RS holds it to be, because somehow or other the bones of a human skull can "move" in response to a practitioner's magic fingers (and the OP is a practitioner). As has been said repeatedly, a WP:REDFLAG is flying for claims that would overturn accepted knowledge. Alexbrn (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC); amended 14:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  Huh, that was not what I was talking about. I was asking about the systematic review in Medicine (Baltimore) that concluded that CST has a clear positive effect on new born/premature infants regarding the time the have to spend on the hospital and that there were no negative effects reported. What you are referring to is a different discussion revolving around the claim that cranial bones cannot move perse. Not whether CST therapist can move them, just the claim that they are not movable as claimed in several RS regarding CST, and contradicted by WP own article on suture as well as about 2 dozen papers:

  1. Retzlaff EW, Upledger JE, Mitchell FL Jr, Walsh J. Aging of cranial sutures in humans. Anat Rec 1979;193:663 (abst).
  2. Retzlaff EW, Mitchell FL Jr, Upledger JE, et al. Neurovascular mechanisms in cranial sutures. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1980; 80:218-219 (abst).
  3. Retzlaff EW, Jones L, Mitchell FL Jr, et al. Possible autonomic innervation of cranial sutures of primates and other animals. Brain Res 1973;58:470-477 (abst).
  4. Michael DK, Retzlaff EW. A preliminary study of cranial bone movement in the squirrel monkey. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1975;74:866-869.
  5. Heisey SR, Adams T. Role of cranial bone mobility in cranial compliance. Neurosurgery. 1993;33(5):869-876.
  6. Heisey SR, Adams T. A two compartment model for cranial compliance. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1995;95:547.
  7. Adams T, Heisey RS, Smith MC, Briner BJ. Parietal bone mobility in the anesthetized cat. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1992;92(5):599-622.
  8. Jaslow CR. Mechanical properties of cranial sutures. J Biomechanics. 1990;23(4):313-321.
  9. Frymann VM. A study of the rhythmic motions of the living cranium. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1971;70:1-18.
  10. Heiãtz MD, Weiss M. Detection of skull expansion with increased intracranial pressure. J Neurosurg. 1981;55:811-812.
  11. Oleski SL, Smith GH, Crow WT. Radiographic evidence of cranial bone mobility. J Craniomandib Pract. 2002;20(1):34-38.
  12. Moskalenko YE, Cooper H, Crow H, Walter WG. Variation in blood volume and oxygen availability in the human brain. Nature. 1964;202(4926):59-161.
  13. Moskalenko YE, Weinstein GB, Demchenko IT, et al. Biophysical aspects of cerebral circulation. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1980.
  14. Moskalenko YE, Kravchenko TI, Gaidar BV, et al. Periodic mobility of cranial bones in humans. Human Physiology. 1999;25(1):51-58.
  15. Moskalenko YE, Frymann VM, Weinstein GB, et al. Slow rhythmic oscillations within the human cranium: phenomenology, origin, and informational signiãcance. Human Physiology. 2001;27(2):171-178.
  16. Moskalenko YE, Frymann VM, Kravchenko T. A modern conceptualization of the functioning of the primary respiratory mechanism. In King HH. (Ed) Proceedings of international research conference: Osteopathy in Pediatrics at the Osteopathic Center for Children in San Diego, CA 2002. American Academy of Osteopathy, Indianapolis, IN, 2005;12-31.
  17. Hargens AR. Noninvasive intracranial pressure (ICP) measurement. 1999 Space Physiology Laboratory. http://spacephysiology.arc.nasa.gov/projects/icp.html
  18. Ballard RE, Wilson M, Hargens AR, et al. Noninvasive measurement of intracranial volume and pressure using ultrasound. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Life Sciences and Space Medicine Conference. Book of Abstracts, pp. 76-77, Houston, TX, 3-6 March 1996.
  19. Ueno T, Ballard RE, Cantrell JH, et al. Noninvasive estimation of pulsatile intracranial pressure using ultrasound. NASA Technical Memorandum 112195. 1996.
  20. Ueno T, Ballard RE, Shuer LM, Yost WT, Cantrell, Hargens AR. Noninvasive measurement of pulsatile intracranial pressure using ultrasound. Acta Neurochir. 1998;[Suppl]71:66-69.
  21. Ueno T, Ballard RE, Macias BR, et al. Cranial diameter pulsation measured by non-invasive ultrasound decrease with tilt. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine. 2003;74(8):882-885.
  22. Nelson KE, Sergueff N, Lipinski CL, Chapman A, Glonek T. The cranial rhythmic impulse related to the Traube-Hering-Meyer oscillation: Comparing laser-Doppler äowmetry and palpation. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2001;101(3):163-173.36.
  23. Sergueef N, Nelson KE, Glonek T. Changes in the Traube-Hering-Meyer wave following cranial manipulation. Amer Acad Osteop J. 2001;11:17.
  24. Nelson KE, Sergueff N, Glonek T. The effect of an alternative medical procedure upon low-frequency oscillation in cutaneous blood äow velocity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006;29:626-636.
  25. Nelson KE, Sergueff N, Glonek T. Recording the rate of the cranial rhythmic impulse. J AM Osteopath Assoc. 2006;106(6):337-341.

I refereed to the NASA articles as I would suspect that NASA would be a reliable source as they studied it to deal with Space related Intercranial Hypertension. KFvdL (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

This sort of thing is the reason that sources have to be considered in context, and only used in the same context that they were written. It would be original synthesis to challenge reliable secondary sources on the (in)effectiveness of a medical intervention with primary sources on the measurement of cranial bone movements. As I mentioned on the relevant talk page, this should be a nonissue anyway, as the source cited for the statement that cranial bones don't move doesn't actually say that. But again, although other sources do actually say that, A) you don't get to challenge a reliable secondary source with technical data from a primary source; and B) in context it is obvious that those sources are responding to specific claims of cranial motion, and not saying that cranial bones are magically able to ignore the laws of physics. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@KFvdL: If this is about craniosacral therapy, then including any source that doesn't specifically mention "craniosacral therapy" is original research. Also, since this appears to be about a medical procedure, most/all of the sources you've listed fail WP:MEDDATE. I'm not sure any are left. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Looks like I will need to write the review on this myself.... (I'm a researcher) KFvdL (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Only the ones which have used the correct epistemic system towards fact checking, should be considered reliable sources

Wikipedia is not a forum; repeatedly posting essays about the same imaginary problem on multiple Wikipedia talk pages is inappropriate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If a correct epistemic system is not used, the results of the study may be flawed. If a correct epistemic system is used, then be it a self published website, a blog or whatever source, then the source is 100% correct. Thus such sources must be considered reliable. Epistemic systems have fixed steps. If the source has used correct epistemic system towards fact checking, and if it is a correct one, then how does it matter whether the source is a self published website, a blog or whatever source? All that wikipedians need to do is, cross check if the source has stuck to a correct epistemic system. If there are no visible deviations from the correct epistemic system, the source must be considered reliable at wikipedia. A publishing house may get considered reliable due to propaganda, due to muscle power, due to money power etc., even though it uses a wrong epistemic system towards fact checking. Do wikipedians consider the use of a correct epistemic system towards deciding a source reliable or they consider the popularity, age, etc to consider a source reliable? ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Newsweek > modified quotation & change of meaning

Newsweek has modified the meaning of a quotation (or badly translated it), and the mistake has caused the information to stay on the article The Great Replacement for months. See the discussion page. I had another issue with The Independent who allegedly modified a quotation too (see history of edits on this article, but I cannot say if it's the newspaper or the editor who changed the quote (it was a reference from 1991 without a link to the website). Both mistakes were significant and totally changed the original meaning: the first one claimed Renaud Camus had dismissed his own conspiracy theory as "nazism" while he was talking about the so-called "replacist elites". The second one claimed Alain de Benoist was in favor of the USSR while he was saying the contrary. Both sources are considered "reliable" here, but this needs to be pointed out Azerty82 (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about the specific quote, but I will say that Newsweek has really weakened as a quality source in the last few years. They seem to cover a much wider range of popular topics and less on politics. That has affected the rigor of their reporting. Are they no longer and RS? Not really but I would seek out a better story for the same story if I could. --Masem (t) 04:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if the way to deal with this is to suggest people use NYT and WSJ instead? Newsweek could be used for some general reporting, but for the busiest topics, best to stick to the more respectable papers? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I would seriously question using Newsweek as a reliable source unless the material in question is reported by other sources. Which, of course, obviates the need to use Newsweek. Wikipedia's entry on Newsweek documents several factual errors. I can think of others. For example, they issued a full retraction of a story they ran on Marilou Danley, girlfriend of the Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock. There was a discussion a month ago in which the majority still felt it was reliable, but a vocal minority thought otherwise. ---- Work permit (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I try to use academic sources every time I can, and avoid newspapers. The latter need to sell copies or views, often have political agendas, and the redactors have for the most part no degree in the subject they're writing about. The first ones are (ideally) paid to search the truth with no political agenda. They can be leftist, liberal or conservative, but at least they try to put their political biases apart from their work. EDIT: I've reported the Newsweek error to Snopes so that it can be added on their article. Azerty82 (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Newsmagazines make mistakes. So do newspapers, books, and practically every other source. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: mistakes, the way I deal with that is getting as big of a portfolio as possible so if one source makes a mistake, the others will compensate for that or refute it. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This is why it is a mistake to ask “Is X is reliable”. We always need to ask: “Is X reliable for verifying Y” (where Y is the actual or potential text of a Wikipedia article). Context matters. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

You cannot compare a peer-review work (academic paper, book based on previous papers) and commercial works (newspapers). There should be a hierarchy of the nature of sources before a hierarchy in subject reliability. Azerty82 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

As Blueboar points out, sources are reliable within a context. An academic paper on quantum mechanics will likely be a less reliable source on American Hustle than a newspaper movie review. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

You should have compared the academic paper on quantum mechanics with an academic paper from a scholar in history of art/cinema/aesthetics. But I can see Blueboar's point and yours. Azerty82 (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The point of the comparison was that even though it is just a newspaper, and not an academic paper, in that specific context it is still a more reliable source than the academic paper. It was exactly the kind of comparison I should have made, and did. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I've already said that I could see your point. Azerty82 (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:UGC IMDb

IMDb Is Credible I believe IMDb should not be included in somewhat unreliable sources due to it being "User Generated". As all publications to the site go through a vicarious screening by IMDb researchers and staff to insure credibility and truth/Facts. Abbycarroll (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)