Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 63

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

→

Archive 70

'Third-party' --> 'independent' to conform with changes to WP:V and WP:NOR

In WP:V#Reliable sources, "reliable, third-party, published sources" was changed to "reliable, independent, published sources" by WhatamIdoing (see this discussion) and similarly by Dayirmiter from "reliable third-party sources" to "reliable independent sources" in NOR (see this discussion). I think those changes make sense. Should the same change be made here in the Overview and Medical claims sections? Humanengr (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I made those changes along with a few others to comport. Humanengr (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I only reverted the first change on the page you made the lede paragraph [1] as it doesn't make sense (it suggests this is no longer about reliable sources). I have no immediate comment on the other, those a first thinking pass sees no issue replacing "third-party" with "independent". --Masem (t) 21:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Thx, I slipped on copying from my draft — that first one should be "reliable, independent, published sources". That would make it consistent with WP:V#Reliable sources ("Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.") Humanengr (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Rethinking: Your 'reliable, published sources' is correct in the lede. To comport with that, I'll remove 'third-party' from Overview 1st sentence "reliable, third-party, published sources". Humanengr (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Masem, regarding this, this, and this, do you have an issue with "independent" being in the introduction? If so, why? With this edit, I noted that "Yes, we allow for WP:RSSELF and WP:SELFSOURCE below, but Wikipedia articles should not be based solely on those types of sources." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

my thoughts on this... I agree that the bulk of an article should be based on independent sources. However... this does not mean that dependent sources should never be cited. We may need to use dependent sources as primary sources when presenting something specific (for example: as a primary source for a quote or close paraphrase). Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen, re your cmt above as well as your edit summaries here and here: Comparing the RS lede Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources … to WP:SOURCE's Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources …, does seem to support adding 'independent' to the RS lede. But the full text of WP:RS and WP:V indicates that all content should be verifiable (aka attributable) to 'published' sources, some of which are 'reliable' and others 'are usually not reliable'. In the latter category, certain exceptions are allowed; with 'Independence' indicated explicitly for WP:SELFPUB in WP:V and its counterpart WP:RSSELF in WP:RS and implicitly for WP:ABOUTSELF (in WP:V) and its counterpart WP:SELFSOURCE (in WP:RS). On that basis, it seems to me that — for consistency — 'independent' should be removed from WP:SOURCE to indicate it is not, as Blueboar notes, required for all content. I also suggest we add a sentence to WP:RS 1st para to the effect (adopting Blueboar's words): "The bulk of an article should be based on independent sources." Similar language … the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources. appears (buried a bit?) at WP:SELFSOURCE. [Adding:] Or perhaps fold in WP:SECONDARY's Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. (~ WP:V's Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources) to yield "The bulk of an article should be based on independent secondary sources"? Humanengr (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind "independent" being in the introduction. But it seems that Masem will. And perhaps Blueboar will as well? I don't think that "independent" should be removed lower to match the introduction. The lower part of the guideline is for details. And if WP:Verifiability (a policy) is going to state "independent", then so should this guideline. By "should be based on", the text is stating that articles should be based on those types of sources; it doesn't mean or state that all of the sources need to be independent. If an article exists without any independent sources, however, that calls the article's WP:Notability into question. I am not too concerned with making sure that the exception aspect is presented in the introduction. Exceptions are outliers; they (usually) aren't the typical way Wikipedia works.

On a side note: Please don't ping me to this talk page. I'm watching it and prefer not to be pinged to talk pages I'm watching. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Humanengr, I disagree. An article must be based on reliable, independent sources. That is, the basic skeleton of the article must be from such sources. But some of the details may be filled in with sources that are described in the section Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_that_are_usually_not_reliable, but which a consensus of the editors of the articles deem to be reliable as used in the article in question. If a source is described in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_that_are_usually_not_reliable and deemed by a consensus of the editors of an article to be unreliable for the purpose it would be used in the article, then neither the source nor the claim it would have supported can appear in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I've been thinking about based on and how to fix it, because it is ambiguous as to degree (based on could mean based entirely on, or it could mean less, like foundational elements). I wish there were a concise and elegant way to say use reliable sources when "making" an article, because I think that the "almost entirely based on" sense is the one that is meant. And then I agree with Jc3s5h that the "foundational" sense is appropriate to describe the use of independent sources. The problem is that using "reliable" and "independent" together there gives a false comparison of the extent to which an article should be based on reliable sources versus based on independent sources. The exception allowing the use of questionable sources is, per WP:QUESTIONABLE very limited. Contrastingly, lots of dependent sources are regularly used appropriately in articles (e.g., court decisions, legislative documents like statutes, press releases, censuses, etc.). --Bsherr (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thx for explicating. I wonder if the issues you raise can better be approached by framing in the negative, with a lede such as “Wikipedia articles should not be based on claims from sources deemed unreliable for a particular subject.” Then one can get into the red-flags for unreliability separate from the issue of independence vs dependence and the cases where dependence is not problematic. Humanengr (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Humanengr's conclusions. To reiterate, "reliable source" is essentially the name given to the usage threshold for a source in Wikipedia. Nothing additional should be or need be added to that. Not independent, since dependent sources can nonetheless be reliable. Not even published, which is redundant, since we already state at WP:SOURCE, Unpublished materials are not considered reliable, thus, reliable already means published.

We use the term "independent source" several times in WP:RS, but we don't have a section explicitly devoted to it. There are some sections that relate to it. In the discussion of primary/secondary/tertiary sources, we do say, Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. There's also the section about bias. And the section about self-published sources. All of these things can be sources that are not independent, but are not always so. Could we have a section about independence as a factor in determining whether a source is reliable? Definitely yes. But I think we need to commit to doing that, so we're not bringing up the concept in the lede and then never actually discussing it on the page.

I'm also not suggesting Wikipedia articles should not be based mostly on independent sources. But pairing reliable and independent together causes confusion: we proscribe unreliable sources, but we do not proscribe dependent sources. --Bsherr (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I still prefer that we are clear on what type of sources Wikipedia articles should mostly or almost entirely be based on. Whatever we go with, I think that both this page and the WP:Verifiability page should be consistent. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen, given Masem's and Bsherr's remarks, if (as you returned it to now), 'independent' is dropped from the lead phrase, leaving 'reliable, published', I think for consistency we should remove it from the lead sentence of 'Overview'. The other couplings of 'reliable' and 'independent' in the body (in 'Vendor and e-commerce sources', 'Self-published sources (online and paper)', 'Medical claims') would remain (along with other scattered uses of 'independent/ce' on its own). At least some of those should be linked to WP:IS, as in WP:V and WP:NOR.

Re having a separate § on 'Independence', as Bsherr mentioned, it might work to have a brief 'Independence matters' § after 'Context matters' that summarizes the various issues raised below — maybe starting with something like "The great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." (pulling that from Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves §) and then continuing with 'Allowable exceptions and issues to be considered regarding independence are addressed in several sections below.'

@Jc3s5h, Bsherr, all: What if, along with the above, we also put the "The great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." as the second sentence in the intro? Or maybe an elaborated version — "The great majority of any article must be drawn from sources that are independent from and can fairly portray the subject." — where 'can fairly portray' comes from the lead sentence of WP:IS. That is, the lead para would be

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The great majority of any article must be drawn from sources that are independent from and can fairly portray the subject. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. [italics for new]

Humanengr (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I would be worried that people would take the lack of "independent" or "third-party" in the last sentence to rush ahead to make articles highly dependent on primary sources (even though the sentence before it says not to). The "If no third-party sources can be found..." is sorta important here across the board. --Masem (t) 18:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe keep as just presented but add 'independent' to the last sentence -->

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The great majority of any article must be drawn from sources that are independent from and can fairly portray the subject. If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. [italics for new]

That will take it from zero mentions of 'independent' in the lead para before we started to two. Humanengr (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I only question whether this is the right page to set forth that message. This page concerns reliable sources. Therefore, any discussion of independence should be as a factor in determining reliability of a source. That's the problem with saying "reliable, independent" in the first place. Using them conjunctively implies that they are separate concepts, which they are, but this page is only about the former, reliability. The merits of independent sources because of their neutrality should be set forth at WP:NPOV, not here. Or at Wikipedia:Independent sources, which attempts to broadly cover the overlap between RS and NPOV as it concerns independent sources. Thoughts? --Bsherr (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thx for that framing. I note WP:IS itself contains "… If Wikipedia is, as defined by the three key content policies, an encyclopaedia which summarises viewpoints rather than a repository for viewpoints, to achieve this goal, articles must demonstrate that the topic they are covering has been mentioned in reliable sources independent of the topic itself. These sources should be independent of both the topic and of Wikipedia, and should be of the standard described in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Articles should not be built using only vested-interest sources." The boldface there also similarly couples reliable and independent. Also WP:V currently (as I said up top) has 'reliable, independent, published' in its RS §, so it's coupled there as well. Humanengr (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"reliable sources independent of the topic itself" is unacceptable. It only works for the kind of topics that are reasonably likely to be associated with a conflict of interest. Campbell Soup Company and Donald Trump are such topics. 464 BC Sparta earthquake and algebra are highly unlikely to lead to a conflict of interest, so it makes no sense to speak of being independent of these topics. Such phraseology invites troublesome editors to invent specious reasons to exclude sources or editors, such as claiming a person who teaches high school math should not edit an article about algebra.

I invite you to search the archives for previous discussions on the concept of being independent of a topic, which have occurred, but I don't recall when. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:IIS specifically discusses what makes a source independent (or more specifically, not independent) and deals with cases of "scholarly investment" which we consider independent. It's the financial or similar conflict of interest that is what turns on "independence", and if we have editors trying to claim situations of the latter case, that needs to be stopped. --Masem (t) 12:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h, following up on your concern and Masem's cmt, given that what I quoted was from WP:IS#Explanation, is there anything you would improve on that page? Humanengr (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

As it says in the box at the top of WP:IS, "this page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." The community has all it can manage to figure out which portion of the reliability and notability set of issues should be covered in the large number of policies and guidelines. WP:IS is an insufficiently vetted distraction which, in my opinion, should be deleted. It should be deleted regardless of any merit it may or may not have, just because it's a distraction. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bsherr Thx for prompting a re-think. Going back to your earlier independence as a factor in determining whether a source is reliable suggests inverting the order to "independent reliable". Would that satisfactorily address both the 'factor' and 'conjunction' issues? If so, the last sentence in the above proposal should be changed to If no independent reliable sources can be found ….

Re addressing the merits of independent sources in WP:NPOV or WP:IS, the former currently speaks only in terms of 'bias', so it might be too detailed for there; the latter is not a policy or guideline. So, maybe it does deserve a § in WP:RS as you mentioned. Humanengr (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

If editors are going as far to try to claim what Jc3s5h previously stated about "independence" (from the 12:18 24 June comment) and we don't have any definition of what independence means in a WP context and we don't like an essay being that, then yes, we need at least a line or so to summarize that independence is only meant to be in the sense of financial or business conflict, with a pointer to that essay for further evaluation. I think the bulk of editors understand what we get by "independence" but if we're getting some that insist a hard read of it or a more bureaucratic take on policies, we should be very clear on that then (and it doesn't hurt to specify that. We really out to at WP:RS explain all major "axes" of how to classify a RS - primary/secondary/tertiary, first/third party, independent/dependent, and others.) --Masem (t) 13:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The way we have split up material in our policies and guidelines that deals with sources tends to create a need to mention different aspects of non-independent sources in each of several policies and guidelines. For example

WP:NPOV

Biased sources are unlikely to present a neutral point of view, so several sources from several points of view would have to be used.

WP:NOTE

Non-independent sources are prone to exaggerate the importance of the entity the source is affiliated with, so are not suitable for establishing notability

WP:IRS

Some non-independent sources deliberately lie to either enhance the position of whatever entity they favor, or diminish the position of whatever entity they disfavor. Sources containing lies are only reliable for the purpose of proving that the lie was told.

Jc3s5h (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Humanengr, I just saw that you came back and continued this discussion. I stand by what I've stated. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

To expand, I think it would be acceptable to create a section in WP:RS that (1) offers a summary definition of an independent source with a link to WP:IS, (2) states that sources that are independent sources are more likely to be reliable sources (I am assuming this is undisputed), and (3) explains why. That would be within the scope of WP:RS. Any other discussion of the value of, or a mandate for, independent sources would be outside the scope of WP:RS, in my view. Humanengr, I think the mention of "reliable, independent, published sources" is equally problematic at WP:V, again, because it occurs under the section heading "Reliable sources". This too improperly conflates the concepts. (Again, a reliable source is necessarily published (so that is redundant); a reliable source is not necessarily independent.) --Bsherr (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Considering everybody's cmts above led me to some contextual issues:

1. The circularity of the WP:RS lede linking to the VP:V lede linking to the What counts as a reliable source § on WP:V linking at the top of that back to WP:RS via a 'Further' template, and
2. Folding 'reliability' into the WP:V lede alongside provenance.

I'm more concerned with the latter as I think a further articulation of reliability vs provenance would lay helpful groundwork for tackling the other problems above. Towards that end: The version of the WP:V lede prior to this change (resulting from this 2012 RfC) — Verifiability on Wikipedia is a reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article. — spoke only (if one ignores the links) to what I'm labeling 'provenance' — providing the reader with the "ability to check where the information comes from" (including issues such as identifying document, author, publisher and ease of access).

One consequence of that thinking is re your reliable already means published: I'm more inclined to place 'published' under the heading of 'provenance' than 'reliability'. Also, given that 'reliable' and 'published' are coupled prominently in all 3 core content policies, I'd prefer to leave that be for now. OK? Humanengr (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Page full of bad sources

Hey everyone I found this page and a lot of its sources are cited as unreliable for being blogs. Someone recently added a source on that page but it's for a YouTube video and it was placed by the user to promote another artist so I don't know if it counts as reliable either. It's my first time finding a page that has lots of sources cited unreliable and I thought they should be removed but since they are cited instead of just removed I wasn't sure if it had to be discussed at a talk page first or could those sources just be removed. If someone could either tell me what the proper step is to correcting that page or look into that page themselves I would appreciate it. FanDePopLatino (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Go for it, FanDePopLatino. Your tags should have sufficiently alerted anyone who would object to your next step. Since they haven't corrected the shortcomings of the sourcing of the article, which you weren't required to warn them about, you are empowered by Wikipedia policy to remove poorly sourced content from any wiki biography. Per WP:BLPSOURCES: Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." You have certainly challenged the material and sources. I checked a few of the sources you tagged... self-published, blogs, questionable, etc. You may find after verification that this person is not even notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, and was only using it as advertising. Normal Op (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank You @Normal Op:. I appreciate you helping me out with that. Now I also need help with this article. I had removed some content stating that the song was the official theme for the 2004 Copa America tournament and explained why that information was wrong. That information was unsourced and obviously false but another user keeps adding it back with a citation needed tag. I have explained to them several times why that content needs to be removed but they keep adding it back and insist that it needs to stay on the article with the tag. I don't want to get into an edit war with them but they won't stop adding back that false information on the song's article stating that it needs to stay there with the cn tag. Can you help me out with that please. FanDePopLatino (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:SOURCE?" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:SOURCE?. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 9#Wikipedia:SOURCE? until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – The Grid (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of PETA

Opinions are needed on the following Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Reliability of PETA. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Activist editors ignoring WP:SELFSOURCE

I am requesting clarity re WP:SELFSOURCE with regards editors using activism/advocacy websites as sources for citations on biography pages, effectively using Wikipedia to continue promotion of their activism and prolonging/perpetuating/expanding their own use of celebrity branding over many years through Wikipedia.

I have encountered a few cases of blowback when I have tried to remove non-RS content per WP:SELFSOURCE. Some editors think that if Activism X's website says blahblahblah about Person Y, then it is okay to put Activism-X's blahblahblah claim on Person-Y's Wikipedia article. Their assertion is that Act-X is talking about themselves. I assert that per WP:SELFSOURCE, Activism-X may only be used as a citation to claim what Activism-X says about activism-X, and may not ever be used as a citation to state any claim about Person-Y. I read the policy as meaning that an editor must instead provide a secondary source that verifies the claim by Activism-X about Person-Y, because Act-X's website is a self-published, non-reliable source. It's like these editors are confused about how far the phrase "about themselves" extends in WP:SELFSOURCE.

Especially in the case where Person-Y may have been hired by Activism-X to appear in an advertisement for the benefit of Activism-X using celebrity branding (whether or not Person-Y was paid money or donated their time and name). It would seem inappropriate to use Activism-X's website's claims as a citation in Person-Y's Wikipedia article. The purpose is self-promotion of Activism-X; there's never any further content on the page except for "Joe Blow supports our cause". It's just name-dropping, advertising, and link spam. There is no secondary source saying it happened. It could actually be a hoax where Activism-X is just using a celebrity's name to promote their cause. There is no editorial oversight on many of these activist websites; they just don't qualify as reliable sources.

Here is an example to illustrate the problem: an editor made a series of edits on 2012-10-14 where they inserted content about "Oscar's Law" activism into at least 5 celebrity articles. Eight years later, three of the articles they inserted this into still have the edits (1 2 3), and two have been corrected (4 5). Here are two sample diffs showing the insertions: [2] [3].

They aren't the only editor adding this particular non-RS website as a citation. There are currently 9 articles using oscarslaw.org as a "citation" on wiki BLP pages (see search result [4]), and one that mentions "Oscar's Law" with no citation at all (see search result [5]).

I attempted to remove the content and citation from Sia (musician) but was not only reverted, I was challenged/queried, had my detailed explanation on the Talk page half-ignored, and was told I was "misreading the SPS rule". Presumably this advocate meant self-published sources guidelines, rather than various guidelines I have been operating from, including the Questionable sources guidelines and:

• WP:SELFSOURCE: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves ... so long as ... It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
• WP:BLPSOURCES: Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."
• WP:CHALLENGE: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.", and "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.", and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

This isn't the only activism or activist-website that I'm having this trouble with (you oughta see this one! ), but it was a small enough example that still illustrates the problem. There seems to be a rampant problem with this and I'm just trying to correct the encyclopedia per policy. About one in every 20 corrective edits I make there is some sort of activism blowback to waste my time.

I just want to make sure that I'm reading this policy correctly. I don't think WP:SELFSOURCE is ambiguous at all. Do others see it the same as I do, or is there another viewpoint I'm missing? Perhaps the problem is the wiki phenomenon of WP:ACTIVIST and WP:ADVOCACY, and I should just tackle each one as it comes and WP:AN/EW anyone who starts an edit war over edits correcting such activism.

Requesting feedback, please.

— Normal Op (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Like noted in this thread, you are an activist editor. I couldn't care less about supporting PETA. And many on this site know that I do not tolerate editors engaging in activism editing. What I care about is your disruptive editing. Your WP:APPNOTE violation above is just more of the same. And it is a violation because it is not at all neutral. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Strike three, Flyer22 Frozen. You have spent the day casting aspersions on multiple boards and talk pages. Normal Op (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You say that despite this and the above. There is no "strike three." Go report me at WP:ANI and see what happens. Someone else might mention your WP:APPNOTE violation above. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC on reliability of headlines

There is an RfC on whether the reliable sources guideline should state that headlines are unreliable. If you are interested, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Reliability of headlines. — Newslinger talk 01:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Two RFCs on reliability re: 1) CNN and 2) MSNBC

Inspired by the recent RFC about Fox News, I have started two separate RFCs on the RS noticeboard on the reliability of these media outlets. NOT intended as a Deprecation question. Please see: RFC on CNN and RFC on MSNBC. Blueboar (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

press releases

Currently this content guideline mentions that some sources "... should not be treated differently than the underlying press release". But it never mentions how we should treat press releases. Are press releases a "deprecated source", or are they sometimes OK as a "self-published sources"? --DavidCary (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

A press release is a primary source. It is reliable for statements about the company that is making it but not for much else (but most press release do not go beyond anything beyond the company so rarely an issue). --Masem (t) 23:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Movies or Documentaries as Sources

This might be a stupid question but I am wondering if documentaries or movies can be used as secondary sources for Wikipedia references? I haven't been able to find any mention of them in the policies on sources. If they can be used, what kind of 'publication' credentials are needed? thanks Mekinna1 (talk)

Yes, many documentaries and some movies meet Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source. Wikipedia:Published briefly mentions video. Wikipedia:Citing sources has some details on how to cite videos, and Wikipedia:Video links and Wikipedia:YTCOPYRIGHT goes into more detail on how (and whether) to link to the video in a citation. --DavidCary (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you DavidCary. Mekinna1 (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC on adding a definition of "self-published source" to WP:V

At WT:Verifiability#RfC:_Definition_of_self-published_works, there is an RfC to decide whether a particular definition of "self-published source" should be added to WP:V. Comments are welcome there. Zero^talk 13:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC on defining violence in the lead of the Violence article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Violence#RfC about the first and second sentences in the lead. Discussion partly concerns what are the best sources to use in context. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding Biased sources in BLPs

Is there any policy regarding the use of sources that have a personal conflict or some type of conflict of interest that impacts their reliability and/or objectivity as a source? Particularly if that source is being used extensively in a BLP? Like is there a policy on the use of tell-all books by ex-wives, for instance, or are they just treated like other biased sources that one should balance them out with other sources and try to document any personal history or conflict between the subject of the BLP and the author of the source? Is this a policy that should be articulated on this page somehow (or maybe it's already in a different policy somewhere else?) - thanks. Mekinna1 (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this helps? From WP:BIASED, "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." Normal Op (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you be specific? Is this another attempt to disqualify Scherer, and get your preferred primary sources accepted? See, for example, Talk:Ole Nydahl/Archive 2#Proposal to delete Section 4 on "Academic Reception"; or Talk:Ole Nydahl/Archive 2#Letters. Or, even more telling, Talk:Ole Nydahl/Archive 2#Request for comments, where a number of editors explained that Scherer is perfectly fine as WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, specifically I am referring to Mary Trump's tell-all book about Donald Trump. I'm wondering how this type of source would be treated/viewed. I don't think that the quote from WP:BIASED that Normal Op mentions is sufficient to deal with these kinds of sources. I think some additional detail in the policy would be helpful for BLP pages. Mekinna1 (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources quiz

I've expanded the reliable sources quiz for new editors a little more, but it still needs a few more examples before it'll be ready to launch, and I keep having an unexpectedly hard time finding good ones. Could anyone help? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Douban

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

 – Bsherr (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

source related content dispute. RSN or NPOV/N?

In the article squatting, I'm in a disagreement about contents that I believe is to be undue using sources which I believe to be comparable to Indymedia.org (which is a source that is crossed out red on WP:RSP as well as adding these sources alongside already present reliable source. I have little doubt that these sites are disreputable. I think introducing contents from such articles into article is inappropriate. I'm not really uncertain about the reliability of the source, but the other editor do not agree on it. Is this a source related matter for RSN or is it a due weight issue for NPOV/N instead? My contention is over the presence of sources, as well as contents based on sources 1,3,4 and 5 in the example below

Example

The building which once housed Neary's Hotel on Parnell St in Dublin's north inner city, was occupied in 2015 and renamed The Barricade Inn by squatters.

In protest, squatters in Amsterdam had occupied a former fire department the week before the law began (returning it to the owners control on 30 September) and a riot occurred on 1 October when the police blocked a protest and led a horse charge upon it. In Nijmegen (on 2 October), there was also a riot.

Graywalls (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

References

​The article from The Irish Times does not link to (or even mention) any of the questionable sources. Since these websites are all used as secondary sources, this is purely a question of reliability and would be best suited for the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 13:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Showbiz Cheat Sheet

I was looking up Clark Middleton, and saw something from Showbiz Cheat Sheet.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/the-blacklist-star-clark-middleton-on-the-condition-hes-lived-with-since-the-age-of-4.html/

Is this a reliable source? MikaelaArsenault (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Is a gravestone a reliable source?

I'm trying to find a RS for Edward G. Faile being buried at Saint Paul's Church. Surprisingly, I can't find this mentioned anywhere, but I do know he was buried there because I stood in front of his gravestone and took a photo of it. How can I cite this? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, duh, it turns out I found a RS, but I'm still curious about the basic question; can a photo of a gravestone be used as a RS? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

No. A reliable source requires a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Gravestones are typically put up by families of the deceased and are, therefore, self-published sources (not about the persons who published it, the survivors, but about a third person, the deceased). But perhaps a bigger problem than sourcing is that this is prohibited original research to assert that this Edward G. Faile is the same Edward G. Faile as Edward G. Faile. You might, for example, argue that the dates of birth and death match those established for the article's Faile by reliable sources, but that is prohibited synthesis, taking information from one source and combining it with another source to come to a conclusion stated by neither source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC) PS: Let me amend that slightly. It's not a RS for establishing that he's buried there. But the question is always, "Reliable for what?" Let's say that you had, through other RS established this to be his grave and had also established through a RS that he, himself, had designed the headstone and wrote the inscription (thus fitting into the self-published source exceptions). This headstone could, in those circumstances, be a RS for his dates of birth and death date of birth. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

He can be a reliable self published source for the date of his own death? Hyperbolick (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

<Self-trout.> Fixed, thanks. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

TransporterMan, lol, self-trout indeed! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

There are quite a few archive search results on WP:RSN regarding graves and gravestones (especially WP:RSP#Find a Grave). --Izno (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

A grave stone is a reliable PRIMARY source for saying what the text that appears carved on the stone is. As with all primary sources, I would be cautious about using it for anything else. Blueboar (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with only being reliable for showing what it says on the face. You can take a look at this and it can get pretty confusing for typical people and possibly connect it to the wrong person. https://schmidtgen.com/wordpress/2013/10/20/how-to-use-jr-sr-ii-iii-etc-with-cartoons/ Since published items often don't show people's entire name with the prefix and suffixes, it's quite plausible to link it to the wrong person in this naming situation or people who have extremely common names. Graywalls (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

To add to what others have mentioned, gravestones are primary sources that may not always agree with published sources. Dates and spellings of names may be different from the consensus view in the published record (and a headstone by itself doesn't prove a body was buried beneath it, merely that the headstone exists). Similarly, dates and spellings in census forms and marriage certificates may not always agree with published information (many people obscure their true age, and a slip of a census taker's pen can mislead). When there is a discrepancy, deciding which records are "true" is not for Wikipedians to settle in articles, but for scholars to analyze and publish elsewhere with their opinions on likelihood. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Completely unreliable....can pay to add whatever you want to a grave marker....famous example...Scott Wilson (2016). Resting Places: The Burial Sites of More Than 14,000 Famous Persons, 3d ed. McFarland. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-4766-2599-7. Crawford, Joan (Lucille LeSueur, March 23, 1904 – May 10, 1977) San Antonio born film star.... Her ashes were placed in the vault beside the coffin of her husband, with the crypt listing her birth year as 1908..--Moxy 🍁 20:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Article that blend commentary and reporting of facts

Are editors aware of any discussions how best to handle articles that blend factual reporting and commentary? I found one relevant prior discussion [[6]] but I was curious if there was a larger one. I think this was one of the big criticisms of Fox News in that it would report the same objective facts as other sources but their subjective commentary was considered questionable. Outside of the many Fox News discussions is anyone aware of a more general discussion? If not is here or RSN a better place to start one? Springee (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This is probably something that would need to be decided on a case-by-case basis. -- Calidum 14:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Book publisher reliability list

Do we have an WP:RSP equivalent? When I'm faced with print books, I'm having hard time determining if the publisher is good for fact checking (and if then for what fields) and what publishers are useless for notability establishment purposes. Graywalls (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

How are the better sort of fact checkers getting on with the Bible and the Quran?PatrickGuinness (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Official website of writers-critics

Can we cite an official website of writers-critics. I want to cite two websites: https://www.deepagahlot.com/ of Deepa Gahlot & http://bhawanasomaaya.com/ of Bhawana Somaaya. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It depends on the context. For basic facts like birthday, family, where they hail from, you can use self published source especially for within the article about the subject themselves but be sure to read the criteria at WP:ABOUTSELF. Most certainly not if it's for promotional puff. Graywalls (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: These both person are well known theatre and film critics. I want to cite the critical reviews of some plays which they have posted on their website. Can I cite them ? --Gazal world (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Well known critics can probably be cited under the “Expert exemption” clause of WP:SELF, with in-text attribution (and phrased as opinion, not presented as fact). Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls & @Blueboar: Thanks for answering my question. --Gazal world (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Additional sources needed for claim about reliability of human-interest stories

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#cite_note-7 used for the claim about human interest reporting: "[as] generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy," does not meet WP:RS guidelines. The citation is to a book review, where Laura Miller, the author of the review, is describing someone who is interviewed in the book, who is explaining that they heard that a reporter who once wrote human interest stories took "considerable license with facts." While this may be the case for that reporter, does this generalize to the genre? The review is not about the rigor of human-interest reporting in general. I'd like to open that up for discussion, and suggest finding better sources about the caliber of human-interest reporting, or modify/delete this claim from the guidelines. Shameran81 (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline apply to pages in article space only, and not to guidelines or other pages in project space. As WP:V states, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." This citation is actually not needed at all. — Newslinger talk 00:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, are the guidelines then only consensus based? Thanks for the reply User:Newslinger. Shameran81 (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

​Yes, that's completely right. Most portions of policies and guidelines do not cite reliable sources. Any source, regardless of whether it is reliable or unreliable by article space standards, can be cited in a policy or guideline when it would provide the reader with helpful context, and only when there is consensus to include the source in the page. — Newslinger talk 20:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

definition of XYZ

The first 2 section titles:

1. Definition of a source
2. Definition of published

I would like to propose a third section titled "Definition of reliable".

There someone could perhaps clearly mention explain that and how it's assessed over time?

It's strange there's no section for this word despite it being in the title here. WakandaQT (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. --Gazal world (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Podcast

Someone said a podcast is not a reliable source. Is this correct and if so, where can I read the consensus about this? I can't find anything in this guideline. Bijdenhandje (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Bijdenhandje, a podcast is merely a method of publication that is not inherently reliable or unreliable. A podcast by NPR may be reliable for the same things NPR is reliable for. A podcast by a guy with a high school diploma in his basement isn't going to be reliable except for claims about the guy in the basement. Elizium23 (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Elizium23, but I'll note that a podcast is likely to become unavailable more quickly than most printed sources. For this reason, if there is a choice, citing a printed source would be better. Zero^talk 12:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Should circular reporting be formally established under WP:RS or any other policy?

Hello everyone, One thing I've sometimes seen on Wikipedia and which illicitly gives the false perception that something is more widely covered that it actually is, is Circular reporting, which that page defines as: "Circular reporting, false confirmation, or citogenesis is a situation in source criticism where a piece of information appears to come from multiple independent sources, but in reality comes from only one source."

I know there is a very particular Wikipedia policy for sources citing Wikipedia (see WP:CIRCULAR) that warns against using Wikipedia articles as sources. What I would like to discuss is including the more general sense of circular reporting, as defined above. In the most extreme case, there can be a Wikipedia article with one source that claims something, and all other sources on the claim citing that one single original source and not providing any new information. However, it can give the false impression that all kinds of different sources are independent source covering (even if only by trivial mention) a claim or topic. A Wikipedia article was recently deleted in part due to this issue. What do you think about this become a formal guideline? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Saucysalsa30, I think the explanatory supplement on independent sources would be the best place to address these kinds of sources. Currently, we have WP:SYNDICATED, which considers articles syndicated via print or web to be non-independent with respect to the original publication's article, but does not comment on articles that summarize other articles. When a publication's article is summarized by a second publication, this adds to the original article's due weight. However, I don't think the second publication's summary article is necessarily less reliable; rather, it partially inherits the reliability (positive or negative) of the original publication's article. — Newslinger talk 06:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Newslinger. The weight part is a good point, especially given the original source gives undue weight to a barely-substantiated negative claim. Would you know which guideline or policy would best correspond to the situation where the original source in this case barely mentions the claim being made? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The "News organizations" section contains mostly wrong information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For example it says "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact ...". This hasn't been the case for a long time. It's well known to the public that "well-established news organizations" are heavily partisan and report everything from one point of view. One recent example is CNN/MSNBC/CBS/etc asserting that there has been no evidence of fraud in the 2020 US elections, while there are hundreds of affidavits exist alleging elections fraud, and affidavits are legally considered to be evidence. This is one of many cases of blatant lying by "well-established news organizations". This contradicts the statement that they are "generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". They can't be considered reliable when they are lying so often. I suggest this paragraph should be changed to state the opposite: "News reporting from mass-media news outlets can not be considered reliable for statements of fact ..." Yurivict (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

So, what is your radical alternative to what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources? To qualify every statement made? What can be used for verification? How would you get consensus for all of this? And how could this change happen to over 6 million articles? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. In the absence of academic publications, reliable news sources are the best available sources for most topics on Wikipedia. Such a change would severely restrict Wikipedia's coverage. Additionally, the rationale for the proposal is a conspiracy theory, and Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories (WP:PROFRINGE) states: "Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to promote their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable: Wikipedia is not an advertising venue." Affidavits are self-published sources. — Newslinger talk 09:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Headlines

The RfC at WP:VPP § RfC: Reliability of headlines has been closed with consensus to include a new subsection to state that headlines are unreliable. In the workshop, Awilley's suggestion garnered the most support:

News headlines are not a reliable source if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source. Headlines are written to quickly and briefly grab readers' attention, and may be overstated or lack context. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles.

Thryduulf suggested "explicitly noting that headlines are a reliable source for themselves when they are the subject", which would allow headlines to be used along the lines of WP:ABOUTSELF. Skdb Sdkb recommended using the phrase "generally reliable" instead of the word "reliable" to afford some flexibility.

What are your thoughts on these suggestions, and do you have any other proposals for the final text? — Newslinger talk 17:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend unsplitting that split infinitive in this specific version (without supporting/opposing the suggested text). I keep reading "to" as "too" (which makes sense until you hit the word "grab" which is why I'm tripping). --Izno (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

If we do qualify with Skdb's "generally", should we also note special care is required in particular contexts (BLP, medical claims) where sensitivity and accuracy is deemed paramount? 03:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Humanengr (talk)

I do not really see a need for the qualification. What is the use case? PackMecEng (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Per the close "there is broad consensus here that we should avoid citing information in a headline that is not supported by the body of the article. … There was also some concern that the proposal is over-broad and does not allow for editorial discretion in edge cases. Sdkb suggested the wording generally unreliable instead of simply unreliable, which I don't think anyone directly objected to. Inclusion of 'general' might satisfy 'some' but shouldn't be included without qualification. Did you want particular justification for the med and bio cases I offered as compromise? Humanengr (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, what are some examples in BLP & Med claims where you would cite a headline that is not supported by the body of the source? PackMecEng (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Re med claims, WP:NOABSTRACT says that even re abstracts … when it comes to actually writing a Wikipedia article, it is misleading to give a full citation for a source after reading only its abstract; the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says, and may not represent the article's actual conclusions. … From the article cited there: Even in large-circulation general medical journals, data in abstracts were commonly inconsistency[sic] with full reports. Those confirm — for this high consequence area — both the RfC's view of headlines and WP:NEWSORG's even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors.. Re bios, I note WP:BLPSOURCE's caution re Contentious material … that is … poorly sourced; and WP:PUBLICFIGURE: If an allegation or incident is … well-documented … Humanengr (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Those appear to be reasons not to use headlines. I agree with that which is why above I was saying that the qualification "generally" is not needed. If you have generally in there it means sometimes there are cases where a headline would be useable. PackMecEng (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Ohhh … I mistook your "qualification" to refer to my qualification of Sdbk's 'generally' (as your comment was indented under mine). I agree, 'generally' is not needed. Humanengr (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Same team! PackMecEng (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The headline seems undoubtedly reliable for a sentence like, 'X [journalist/author/critic], wrote [headline].' or 'The Chicago Tribune published an article, [headline]. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

That would fall under the aboutself situation that Thryduulf described wouldn't it? PackMecEng (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Newslinger: Given the discussion above, I would be bold and install your proposed text plus Thryduulf's suggestion, leaving out Skdb's suggestion for now. Mz7 (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oops, I'm just coming across this now (the ping above failed; I'm Sdkb, not Skdb). The reason I'd prefer "generally" is largely per our fifth pillar norm that we don't make hard rules except when absolutely necessary, but also that the main argument for headlines not being reliable, that they're generally not written by the same author and generally don't receive the same level of scrutiny, is not something that applies universally. It's not hard to come up with a hypothetical: next week, the RSP Greenlit Times announces that they're adopting a new policy in which all writers write their own headlines and all headlines are put through three rounds of fact checking before publication. That may sound a little far-fetched, but the idea of The New Yorker putting out a "how we write our headlines" insider story that makes it clear every headline goes through TNY's famous fact-checking process is not. If we haven't built flexibility into our rule, we won't be able to handle something like that. As I said in the main discussion, we don't want to deprecate New Yorker headlines more strongly than National Enquirer body text, which is what we'd be doing, since even National Enquirer has "generally". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Addition of ‘generally’ here would not be in isolation; it would be in the context of rankings at WP:RSP and would allow a ‘generally reliable’ ranking at RSP to generally (!) trump consensus re headlines — as in But here we’re talking about a generally reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Humanengr (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed the misspelling, sorry about that. My comment used {{np}} to avoid pinging anyone, since I did not want to invite only those who were mentioned in the comment. I did publish a short notification of this discussion at WP:VPP § Continuation of workshop. — Newslinger talk 16:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don’t see a need to hedge things with a “generally”. All we need to say is: “Headlines are not considered reliable except in WP:ABOUTSELF situations”. That makes it clear and unambiguous. The ONLY situation in which it is appropriate to cite ANY headline is in an ABOUTSELF situation. Period, end of statement. Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  Doesn't this present a problem for ordinary citation construction? We must always cite the title of the article. If the title itself is not considered reliable, why should it be included prominently in the citation, where it will be seen in the footnotes, and the wikitext being edited? Should article titles come tagged with a little disclaimer: "warning: not actually reliable in and of itself."? Elizium23 (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok... (sigh) I suppose I should not have used the word “cite” to explain why I prefer blunt and unambiguous language (I forgot that “cite” can get confused with “citation”).

So let me amend, using slightly different wording... I think we should say: “The text of a news Headline is not considered reliable for verifying information, except in WP:ABOUTSELF situations”.

I say this because we want to make it unambiguously clear that we can not reliably verify information by pointing to the text of a headline - the ONLY thing that a headline verifies is the text of the headline itself.

This is distinct from using the headline as a “title” when formulating a citation. Obviously, we need to do that. Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This is still inadequately rigid. It does nothing to address the RSP Greenlit Times issue I posed above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, if a periodical announced a new policy in which all writers write their own headlines and all headlines are put through three rounds of fact checking before publication, start an RFC carving out a headline exception for that agency. Schazjmd (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd, due to WP:CONLEVEL, it wouldn't be possible to carve out an exception unless the discussion was at least as broad as the very broad VPP discussion that's brought us here. The point is that we should build flexibility into the rule now, while we're creating it, so that we do not later have to amend it to address flaws as they reveal themselves. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb... even in your RSP Greenlit Times scenario, a headline would not sufficiently verify non-aboutself information. We need to point readers to the full text of the news article so they can see the context in which the information is presented. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

References

• It has been a while since new input. I have implemented the suggested wording by Newslinger here. PackMecEng (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, I do not consider my concerns from above to have been adequately addressed, and given the close of the Village pump discussion and the fact that this is a more limited forum, I don't think there's sufficient consensus that no caveat is needed to implement that wording. I'm therefore reverting for now. Perhaps we can issue invitations to some relevant pages to garner additional input here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

  From what I can tell you are the only one disagreeing. Whereas myself, Newslinger, Blueboar, Elizium23, Izno, Schazjmd, and Humanengr seem to be going in the same direction. It is of course open to tweaks, but no need to revert. PackMecEng (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

  I'd count myself as going in the same direction as well, just with the tweak of adding generally. You are putting words in the mouth of several of the users you list, as e.g. Izno did not weigh in on whether or not to use that word, and Elizium23 weighed in only with a skeptical query to Blueboar that seems to indicate if anything more a leaning toward my view. But this is a discussion, not a vote, so the pertinent question is arguments, not numbers. My argument about generally was sufficiently strong that Mz7 mentioned it in their close, and in this follow-up discussion here, I do not see anyone convincingly addressing the RSP Greenlit Times point I raised above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

  Sdkb, I did mention your suggestion in the close as a way to potentially get the ball rolling on implementation, but it should not be considered an endorsement. It seems clear from reading this discussion that there isn't consensus in support of generally, so to implement the RfC result after more than a month of delay, I think we should go with PackMecEng's edit. For what it's worth, I do not think this is a big deal; if the hypothetical situation you pose ever does occur, then we can revisit this issue then. At the end of the day, this is merely a guideline and WP:IAR is policy. Mz7 (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  Mz7, fair enough. I don't want to clog the gears of the inevitable so I'll stand aside if no one else here is concerned by the stronger wording. I tend to find that IAR is embraced far more in name than in practice, but should we ever come across a situation like the one I laid out above, it will at least help to have a reference to IAR on record in the discussion that led to the guideline. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  I support PackMecEng's edit implementing Newslinger's suggested wording. Multiple editors agree that it reflects the findings of WP:VPP § RfC: Reliability of headlines, and this discussion has been lingering for six weeks. Schazjmd (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

  I support PackMecEng's edit implementing Newslinger's suggested wording; and agree that it reflects the the result of WP:VPP § RfC: Reliability of headlines. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

  The proposed guidance has already been the standard practice on the reliable sources noticeboard for some time, as shown in the past noticeboard discussions listed in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 160 § Discussion (Headlines). The text above received the strongest support in the village pump RfC, and I agree that it is time to add it into the guideline. If any issues arise, this text can always be amended later. — Newslinger talk 00:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  I would like to reiterate my non-opposition request for reordering the second sentence so that I don't trip over the words. That's all I have to say. --Izno (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  Izno, I support that suggestion for clarity. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

   Done [7]. I've gone ahead and readded the text with Izno's suggestion to unsplit that infinitive. Mz7 (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  Does this reordering work:

  Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly, and may be overstated or lack context.

  ? Humanengr (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  Humanengr, super late response, but yeah I think this reordering is better—makes it clear that "quickly and briefly" modifies "to grab" and not "written".  Done. Mz7 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thesis/dissertation paragraph in "Scholarship" section needs a lot of work

The thesis/dissertation paragraph in the "Scholarship" section needs a lot of work as it greatly confuses reliability with due weight. In brief, nearly all theses and dissertations that are produced at reputable (in the U.S., I'd say "accredited") institutions with typical processes of review by a committee or supervisor are reliable. Most of what the current paragraph is addressing is whether the document is sufficiently noteworthy to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article. It's good advice but misplaced in this policy as it's not about reliability. ElKevbo (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The advisory committee even for good accredited PhD is likely not going to be challenging the science to the same level that a Nature peer-review will be, but instead challenging the scientific method and thought process of the candidate. Obviously they will catch "bad science" but they will not easily recognize something of a novel construct or hypothesis that seems okay and inline that is otherwise easily shown wrong when peers within the larger field will see it. These works may be recognized as reliable by other sources if they are deemed correct and important, but we should not be using them as reliable sources to start. --Masem (t) 18:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, have you ever reviewed anything for a journal? I have and I think you're placing way too much faith in processes that are very heterogenous. Many theses and dissertations receive as much or more review, feedback, and corrections as articles published in very reputable, peer-reviewed venues. After all, most articles are not subject to (a) review prior to being written, (b) ongoing reviews as they're being written, or (c) a public defense after they have been written. Your example of an article published in Nature is a particularly bad one because (a) it's bad faith to select an extreme example and (b) you're wrong that a thesis or dissertation committee won't challenge "the science" but only focuses on "scientific method and thought processes." There is some small merit to what you're saying in that it would be unusual that a committee would challenge the fundamental basis of a thesis or dissertation during the final public defense but that's primarily because the defense is the last stage in a multi-step review process where earlier steps, particularly the formal proposal defense, is where those challenges occur. And quite frankly a good committee, especially a good chair, won't let a candidate attempt that defense if the proposed work is that unsound.

Further, there's a lot in your argument that doesn't address reliability as it's operationalized in this (odd and very Wikipedia-specific) context. I encourage you to review WP:RS (seriously - I'm not being a jerk and pointing you to this as a novice reader but it's a very odd and specific construct that needs to be periodically reviewed by all of us).

Can you please be more specific in your objections to the general reliability of theses and dissertations? They're subject to a review process that is rigorous or more rigorous than most other publications we consider reliable. Many revisions are made to the documents during the review and publication process. And in appropriate cases there are processes for completely rescinding erroneous or falsified documents. What else do you believe is required for something to be considered reliable?

(Please note that (a) I am assuming that we're talking about reputable institutions with reputable review processes and procedures that are followed and (b) I am not arguing that we should be basing articles on theses or dissertations as most of them would not qualify for use as any use would be undue weight.) ElKevbo (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Having gone through this process at a reputable institution I think it's best if we don't generally cite someone's thesis. I can say when I was writing any journal article it was always preferable to cite journal articles first, then conference papers and only after that a thesis. Of course when writing a paper/thesis etc we generally are not interested in WEIGHT so we are only looking at these sources in terms of scrutiny and reliability. The problem with a thesis is the work is, generally, reviewed only internal to the institution. I do agree the review is often more rigorous as good advisors/committee members will really scrutinize the work. However, those don't the review are often involved with the work in some capacity. I can assure you I was not involved with any of the conference or journal papers I reviewed and had no vested interest in allowing or disallowing their content. However, there is another and I think better reason not to cite a thesis. In general the content of a thesis will be drawn from journal and conference papers. If I did come across something in a thesis I wanted to cite I would then search for papers by the same author. Ideally that would lead to information in a journal paper. Sometimes it meant I cited a conference paper. Either way I was citing something that went through a review that was external to the institution. With Wikipedia we have to add in the notion of WEIGHT. The external review process associated with journal papers helps establish weight in a way an internal review doesn't. Springee (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The question is not whether we should cite these documents but whether they are reliable as that is the topic of this guideline. I agree with the general line of thinking that these documents should not be cited. However, WP:DUE and WP:RS are separate policies/guidelines and should remain separate in discussions, particularly because both are required but they are not contingent on one another. I hope that we can all agree that a document can be reliable but not meet due weight (e.g., most theses and dissertations) and vice versa (e.g., counterfactual materials that are widely discussed outside Wikipedia but clearly not reliable).

I do not understand the assertion that "the content of a thesis will be drawn from journal and conference papers." That is certainly true of some theses and dissertations, particularly at the Master's level and in some applied PhD programs, but it's definitely not the case in most PhD theses and dissertations where the explicit requirement is for original research that contributes something new to the literature. (I wonder if there is an assumption that a thesis is a Master's-level document and a dissertation is a doctoral-level document? Some people make that assumption - I used to - but it's not accurate, particularly in an international context.)

I again ask: What is it about these documents and their publication processes that fails to meet our considerations for reliability? Simply having reviewers who are invested in the work cannot be a disqualifying factors; we do not require that the editors of newspaper articles and books be independently commissioned by the publisher and have no vested interest in the material. Nor do we disqualify academic material that has undergone a single-blind or public review process. ElKevbo (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I've used the terms interchangeably but I probably shouldn't. My work wasn't for a Masters degree. My original research was in the journal articles. Those articles were tied together in the dissertation. I understand the argument that these documents are carefully reviewed but if we treat them as generally lesser within academia I would want to do the same here. This is especially true since editors often treat academic opinion as stronger than that of books (from non academic publishers) and news media (not always true and we are often inconsistent if we dislike what the academic is saying). Springee (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources to verify secondary sources?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

No changes to Wikipedia:RSPRIMARY are needed. On its understanding, primary sources are not required to confirm a secondary source. If reliable, primary sources can be used where interpretation is not required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand that WP:RSPRIMARY states that secondary sources that present the same material [as primary sources] are preferred, but is it necessary to include a primary source (e.g., an Instagram post that verifies a child's birth) in addition to an existing secondary source (e.g., a magazine article that verifies said birth by directly referencing said Instagram post)? A user said to me that it is a basic journalistic and biographical-research tenet that you go to the original source and that we don't have to take [the secondary source's] word for it when we can see the source for ourselves, which I believed contradicted RSPRIMARY, so I'd like clarity on the matter. KyleJoan^talk 04:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• • • Note: As the user in question, I need to state that my words are taken out of context. Go to Talk:Tenebrae#AmandaKloots to see what I actually said, which comes down to the primary source adding to the secondary source, as the guideline states, and not replacing the primary source.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• In cases when the primary and secondary sources agree, there is no need to cite both... the secondary sources are preferred.

However, in cases where the primary sources contradict a specific secondary source, I would favor the primary ones. At a minimum we should discuss what the primary say on the article talk page... because they might justify challenge the reliability of that secondary source (and make us look for alternative secondary sources that agree with the primary). Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

No, primary sources are not usually good sources for this encyclopedia and should not usually be in addition, for living people see also, WP:BLPPRIMARY. Wikipedia is not for doing journalism nor original research. There maybe reasons why the primary documents and the secondary sources don't actually disagree, even if it appears facially to Wikipedians, but there may need to be discussions about how in depth an WP:RS is. The preference is for secondary sources. There is also the analysis of whether any particular alleged disagreement matters to the article, but there have been occasions when what has been published about a person is disputed by that person, in that type of case see also WP:ABOUTSELF, and these issues should be discussed on the talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a case by case basis. And the WP:FORUMSHOPPING original poster here has an RfC that's going against her at Talk:Amanda Kloots, where this properly is being debated. WP:PRIMARY says: "...primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia.... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. 'A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. (emphasis added).

That is the case at Amanda Kloots. There an Instagram post by the subject herself, a post that requires no interpretation but simply presents "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" (in this case via the supplied link) satisfies these conditions.

Incidentally, User talk:KyleJoan said on my talk page that per two responses on this page that Wikipedia WP:PRIMARY has now changed: "We now have a consensus not to include a primary source when a secondary source is already present." No. Changing this WP:PRIMARY to be different than what I quote above requires at the very least an RfC there. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree "basic journalistic and biographical-research tenet that you go to the original source". When preparing to edit an article, the editor may find several reputable secondary sources that summarize a primary source in different ways, so the editor, if possible, would view the primary source. Then the editor would choose the secondary source that best represented the primary source, and if the difference among the secondary sources was significant, cite both the primary and secondary sources. On rare occasions, the primary source may be more reputable than the secondary sources, and all the secondary sources got it wrong, so it would be best to cite only the primary source.

I have had occasions where editors who were not especially well informed about calendars challenged dates for events that occurred where the Julian calendar was in effect, and sometimes the beginning of the year was observed on March 25 instead of January 1, and who challenged a date from a secondary source. The challenge might occur on the English Wikipedia, or it might occur on Wikidata, where a bot had imported the date from the English Wikipedia (and probably screwed it up in the process). In these cases it is helpful to cite a birth or death role made by civil or church authorities close to the time the event occurred, so the calendar conversion policy of the secondary source can be determined. For example,

• Philadelphia Monthly Meeting, Record of Births, Deaths, and Burials, 1688–1826. (2014) Images of manuscript. U.S., Quaker Meeting Records, 1681–1935 [database on-line]. Ancestry.com, Provo, UT.

which is cited in John Penn ("the American"). Jc3s5h (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

But is there a need to cite a primary source at all in a situation where a plethora of secondary sources summarizes said primary source in the exact same way? KyleJoan^talk 16:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

For a BLP, especially one citing a fact about a child, having two cites — a primary by the parents themselves solidifying the secondary cite — is completely warranted. I find it astonishing that an editor is actually arguing for fewer WP:RS citations on a BLP point. But this editor has strongly argued against the inclusion of this point at all, so an end-run to chop off the cites one-by-one seems a possible modus operandi by an editor who has filed false and quickly dismissed 3RR and sockpuppet claims against at least two editors over this. That does not strike me as the actions of a reasonable or rationale person.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

RS for images?

Do images require RS? File:Columbia University Tunnels.png is a self-drawn map of the tunnels under Columbia University. The legend states, "Information gathered over the course of many expeditions by many people", so clearly WP:OR. It's used to illustrate Columbia University tunnels, which itself is a poster child for OR. The question is, where does the requirement to have WP:RS apply? Does the image itself need RS, or just when it's used to illustrate an article? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Schiraldi: on the off chance he's still around. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Images do not require reliable sources, but should be useful. For example if someone takes a photo of a subject, do we need a reliable source to prove it is the subject? Normally not. This could be in question for a photo of a living organism, if it was classified wrongly for example. For a company logo, or picture of a fictional entity, we don't want fan art, but better to have a source back to the company that created the image. In this case (:Columbia University Tunnels) there would be elements of the image that are inappropriate such as rumoured, and mysterious items. So I think it would be an improvement to draw without these elements! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

LODLIBs

Millions of article pre-prints, white papers, and datasets (e.g., for COVID research) are available in university institutional and open science repositories, and these artifacts are used as credible academic sources all the time, typically in the hard sciences.

I've recently proposed and pioneered a new form of academic/scholarly communication and digital space/property that I call a LODLIB--a Linked Open Data Living Informational Book, essentially an iterative digital codex, or a science book treated as evolving software. It works just like the academic literature and artifacts above, allowing an author or research team to revise, update, and supplement it as needed.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3971881

I kindly ask that the Wikipedia community of editors give consideration to this new proposed mode of scholarly communication, one that resonates deeply with the core values of Wikipedia: transparency, open science, free knowledge, ease of correction, and global open peer review. Peer-review already takes many forms in the print-based knowledge sharing ecosystem: prior to publication, during the editorial process leading to publication, and after publication. An iterative Linked Open Data and Open Science mode of publishing findings does not bypass peer-review. Quite the opposite, it opens it up radically and instantly to global scholarly audiences.

The crucial question really is, can scientific discoveries and scientific knowledge be evaluated and shared freely and independently of publisher monopolies? Do academic publishers alone get to define what is real and reliable, or is legitimate scientific truth self-evident? It will be fascinating to see how the Wikipedia hive mind sorts out that question.

Thank you for your consideration! Vocesanticae (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Editorial or peer review is very desirable for proof that sources are reliable. For notability it is good to see that some selection has taken place. For pre-prints I suppose we can link to them as an open source if they are similar to a published document. Otherwise we can consider them as reliable as self-published items, or conference proceedings. As they may be unchecked with mistakes, or could also be completely bogus or faked, if there are no checks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Turtles

Do we have any explanation yet of how we avoid the turtles all the way down problem when using reliable source A to establish source B is reliable source B?

It seems like we would need some independent means of evaluation as a starting point to first establish a starting reference point of sources which we could then use to justify other ones. WakandaQT (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The consensus of Wikipedia editors is ultimately what determines whether a source is considered reliable. Source evaluations from other reliable sources, such as the International Fact-Checking Network (RSP entry), are regularly used as data points, but there is no need to outsource editors' decisions to third parties. — Newslinger talk 10:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the acceptability of a source

I've started an RfC on the acceptability of a source and would greatly appreciate if a few editors who are deeply familiar with sourcing on the English Wikipedia might pop over to the particular RfC and offer perspective. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Are there any rules or guidelines around the reliability of sources that produce hate speech

Hi all

Are there any rules or guidelines around the reliability of sources that produce hate speech? Would sources by definition be unreliable sources because they publish hate speech?

As an example The American Conservative is used as a reference 32 times on English Wikipedia and has published several articles that would to me clearly fit within the UK (where I live) legal definition of a hate crime. I'm including this as a definition of hate speech rather than to bring in legality of sources in different places.

Some example articles from their website:

• The Insanity Of Transgenderism
• When They Come For Your Kid
• Not Just A Tattoo: Transgenderism Attacks Our Fundamental Humanity
• Trans Totalitarianism & Your Children
• A Pro-Trans, Anti-Parent Conspiracy
• The Transgender Craze Is Creating Thousands Of Young Victims
• Leaving The Trans Cult

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Several policies and guidelines are applicable here... WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view are the first you should familiarize yourself with. The source is definitely biased towards a political viewpoint, but that is not a complete bar to citing it. It would, however, limit what we cite it FOR (supporting a statement of attributed opinion vs supporting a statement of fact in WP’s voice). Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware of an existing rule of this sort. Indeed, I don't think English Wikipedia yet has an agreed-upon definition of unacceptable hate speech (the laws in the UK are, of course, not a substitute). Presumably something can be derived from the now-accepted Universal Code of Conduct (which applies to contributor conduct, sure), to propose such guidelines regarding sources.

It seems to me they would still need to be specifically disqualifying particular items rather than whole media outlets, or we may find whole countries left without a single reliable source to cover local topics, because they also casually publish pieces which would violate those guidelines. Ijon (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Ijon:, thanks very much, its interesting to include the Universal Code of Conduct in this discussion. John Cummings (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note: I've begun an RFC here to discuss whether The American Conservative should be depreciated as a source. John Cummings (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Offensive material is a related guideline. Some of the concepts in Wikipedia:Fringe theories might be applicable, especially as Holocaust denial is one of the discussed examples. Fences&Windows 13:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Respected publishing houses

WP:SOURCETYPES emphasises scholarship and academic sources but does not mention works published by respected publishing houses, although this type of source is mentioned explicitly in WP:SOURCES: Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: *University-level textbooks *Books published by respected publishing houses [...]. I suggest adding a very small bit of text to this page as follows: Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications and respected publishing houses. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.--JBchrch (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch, I think that SOURCETYPES is aiming at a particular kind of article. Think about what SOURCETYPES says, and now imagine how you would apply that to an article about whatever new song is topping the charts this week, or this summer's big film. No scholarly sources exist for those subjects, right? The whole paragraph is predicated on that tiny little caveat: "When available..."

We want to have a sort of hierarchy, in which scholarly sources (if any exist) outrank non-scholarly sources on the same subject, secondary sources outrank primary sources, independent sources outrank non-independent sources, recent sources outrank older (and therefore potentially outdated) sources, etc. In that hierarchy, a scholarly book outranks a non-scholarly book. This doesn't mean, however, that the "outranked" source is unreliable or unusable. We could write that scholars say X but popular culture says X+Y, or that the independent news report accuses the CEO of fraud but the accused denies it all, etc. SOURCETYPES could probably use some clarification, but it doesn't need to repeat every type of reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Foreign language sources

I did a quick search of this guideline for the words "foreign" and "language", didn't find anything. I believe we are allowed to use foreign language sources. Should we perhaps add a sentence to this guideline explicitly stating this? Also, are foreign language sources addressed in another guideline somewhere? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, you are looking for WP:NONENG, which is part of WP:V. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, there it is. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

What happens if a reliable source makes a false claim

As an example, I've found several reliable sources which claim that Japan's birth rate in 2019 was its lowest in history. However, this claim is completely false, Japan's birth rate has actually increased since 2005.

Should there be any dicussion as to whether this source is still as reliable, given that it has promoted false claims? Prins van Oranje 18:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You would state that there are contrary claims and cite both of them. Vikram Vincent 18:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This is sometimes the right answer, but I would be cautious about doing so with statistics unless there's a source specifically stating they contradict or the contradiction is extremely, extremely obvious. Statistics are complex and it's entirely possible for sources to differ due to eg. methodology or other details; outright framing a source as contradicted by another has to be done carefully. --Aquillion (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The provided World Bank website shows that the "Birth rate, crude (per 1,000 people)" in Japan has been steadily declining: between 1960 and 2018, the birth rate was at its lowest in 2018. How exactly does this show that the sources are making false claims? — Newslinger talk 07:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• There are several options. First, check to see if the source has issued a retraction or correction. Second, weigh the reputations of competing sources, as well as the date of publication and whether there are sources directly stating that another source is mistaken (I would be far more cautious about playing up a contradiction merely spotted by an editor; sometimes, especially with statistics, there are valid reasons why two sources could legitimately reach results that seem to differ.) Regardless, try to assemble the most recent highest-quality sources, and based around what the bulk of them says, decide if you're going to cover both, how you'll do so if you do, or if eg. there's just a single source out of line that can be dismissed as a simple error. In any case, generally speaking one error isn't enough to throw a source as a whole into doubt, especially if it's relatively minor and not part of a pattern. --Aquillion (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Clarification or amendment to WP:HEADLINES

Far too often, I've come across text that's only supported by the subheading of the article--and not by the main body. It is my understanding that subheadings are often written for click bait purposes and by the same copy editors who write the headlines. WP:HEADLINES should encompass sub-headings too. Any thoughts or objections on this? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not. If the headline or subheading isn't quite supported by the text body then it fits the spirit of WP:HEADLINES. Chillabit (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hrm. Part of the rationale for HEADLINES is that They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles - is that also true for subheadings? --Aquillion (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That's what I always assumed. And that's what it says according to The Copyeditor's Handbook. Here's a PDF. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)