Wikipedia talk:Interviews

Please edit

I have tried to make this stick as closely as possible to policy and to common practice, but I'm not perfect. This essay could do with checking over by other experienced editors to make sure that it accurately reflects community practices. This is especially the case in the notability section, as I think there is a grey area there with respect to the notability guidelines. If you see any errors, or any better ways to word things, then please edit it! Of course, you are welcome to expand it too. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you started this, but I think you're over-emphasizing the primary–secondary issue. We actually gave three major factors to consider for source classification:

• primary vs not
• self-published vs not
• independent vs not

The problem is the range of interviews (especially on radio). Is the interview "So, Joe Film, would you tell me about your wedding plans?" or is it "So, Professor Paul, what can you tell me about the history of this holiday?"

Joe Film is an expert on his own person life, but what he's saying is primary and non-independent. Professor Paul is an expert on history, but what he's saying is secondary and independent. Both of these are (expert) interviews.

I think it might be most useful for you to read WP:USESPS and then looking over the structure you've developed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

One thing I would highlight a bit more... the need for in-text attribution. When we use an interview as a source for information, we should present the information as being a statement of opinion, and not as unattributed fact. The article text should read something like: In an interview in the New York Times, Joe Person stated that <quote or close paraphrase of interview>... or... according to Joe Person <quote or close paraphrase of interview>. In-text attribution ensures that the citation is supporting the accuracy of the quote or paraphrase (ie the fact that Joe Person said what we say he said)... and not necessarily supporting the accuracy of the information itself (ie that what Joe Person said is accurate). Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

True but there is one case where that would not make sense. For example, the article for video game Ōkami cites an interview with the localization team to support the assertion in the article that the team used shorter versions of Japanese names for the English language release. In that case since they were talking about a decision that they themselves made it clearly should not be treated as an opinion.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• You might want to mention that there's actually a citation template for interview references. I've gotten the feeling that interview information is actually looked down upon in many BLPs, but, if the subject is stating things that only they would know truly for themselves, then I don't know what the problem would be about. Also, a lot of information that can be gleaned from an interview might not be notable information (information that meets the notability criteria for article inclusion on Wikipedia), but it may just be simple, non-controversial information that might help to better fill-out a Wikipedia article. Guy1890 (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Primary v. secondary

I think the basic premiss of this section, "the golden rule is that any statements made by the interviewee are primary-source material" is often wrong. Some interviews are like that; David Frost interviewed Richard Nixon mainly to get Richard Nixon's position on the record; most of those interviews would be primary sources. But in interviews to gather information about some story, where the story is not about the interviewee, we can expect a capable journalist or publication to have a substantial number of sources they could interview, and only interview the most knowledgeable or well-positioned sources. After the interviews, we can expect the reliable publication to only include the most useful and plausible sources. So if the reliable source is a secondary source, the points made in it come from a secondary source, whether the point is made in the words of the author, or in the words of an interviewee. But any segments that are qualified, such as "this video was supplied by the Turquoise Militia and XYZ News cannot verify its contents" would be primary sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this

I just saw this policy being referenced and realized that it had just been written. I read it over and I see it being discussed here. I wanted to comment that I feel it is good enough and that it should work in most cases as it is. Thanks for this Mr. Stradivarius. I look forward to watching this be developed over time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Drawing the line between an interview and reporting

@Mr. Stradivarius: - I actually was going to start a discussion on WP:RS about this very subject, though I had another thought on this which isn't really addressed: interviews which are not clearly presented as such in the source material.

This is a big problem in many cases, where an article is fundamentally interviewing someone, but it isn't written like an ask-and-response thing, but written in a different format. These are still primary sources, because the material is all being sourced from the person in question, but the article does not present it in the usual interviewing format, and it is very easy for people to think that they are reporting on something when all the material is coming from the interview.

Where do we draw the line? Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability

I'm curious about the Notability section. I don't necessarily think it's wrong, I'm just not sure how much it reflects opinions across the project. In video game-related deletion discussions—the AfDs I'm most familiar with—it seems like more of a 50/50 or even 60/40 split, with the (slight) majority believing that interviews don't count towards notability, or at least they don't count very much. Of course, perhaps that's just my own confirmation bias, or maybe just a trend within video games. Woodroar (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree and recommend this section be clarified. The essence of notability under WP:GNG is a more technical definition than in common language. Here, it's not enough that a subject seem notable. We have a specific definition requiring that others not connected with the subject take note and that they do so by offering their own secondary thoughts in reliable sources. Earlier passages in this essay correctly make clear that anything the interviewee says about himself or his own work is clearly primary. If it's primary, WP:GNG makes clear that cannot contribute to notability.

But not interviews are alike. Some are just softball Q&A allowing the interviewee to say anything he likes. Those interviews are clearly primary because they contain no meaningful secondary content and are thus unhelpful in establishing notability. Others are more like an investigative 60 Minutes segment, where the interview material is interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts, often challenging everything the interviewee says. An interview like that does contribute to notability. But you need that secondary analysis before the interview can be helpful in establishing notability and, even then, only that secondary part is helpful. Msnicki (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and revised this section as I outlined here. If there objections, please revert me and let's discuss it here. But given that the original concern has been sitting here without objection for 7 months, I'm hoping my edit will seem reasonable. Msnicki (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I like the changes. The distinction between softball interviews and those with secondary analysis is an important one. Woodroar (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you've taken it too far. While an interview is not a third-party source when it comes to the content, and someone declaring themselves important does not make them such, the fact that someone is repeatedly selected to be interviewed (assuming they're not man on the street interviews) does indicate that the person is of interest to the people conducting the interviews. It may establish that the person is an expert in a topic or that someone is widely quoted by their peers. Some interviews may also combine independent fact checking (you were alluding to that) or reviews. Often you'll find lower quality sources that are just reports about the reports (So and so said this in an interview) and that seems like a much worse source to be citing. I'd hate to encourage it. I'm going to take a stab at this. Feel free to revert if I'm way out of line here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hostgeeky (talk • contribs) 01:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't. I see that you only have a small number of edits here on Wikipedia and none of them in an AfD, where we decide whether to keep an article based on notability. The argument you've offered is one that's commonly offered by editors who are new to Wikipedia and don't yet appreciate that we use a more technical definition for notability than in ordinary conversation. The argument is wrong and it rarely prevails. This section was written for new editors like yourself to explain the problem. Before you decide it's all wrong, I think you should gain some more experience, especially in some AfDs. Msnicki (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Too late. I was editing while you were typing. Read what I said and feel free to revert or revise (I'd prefer you revise since I fixed several grammar issues). I think I'm being pretty reasonable here in translating and clarifying what you were already saying and what I remember this essay saying several months ago when I last read it. Hostgeeky (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Not correct and not acceptable. I've reverted. WP doesn't work the way you wish it did. Msnicki (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Interviews by self

I noticed this particular essay references who the interviewer is, ie are they a respected journalist? What if a Wikipedian manages to wrangle an interview with a celebrity or a notable expert in the field himself? Do interviews conducted by individual editors count as credible sources, as opposed to original research? If credibility is an issue, rather than taking the editor's word for it, Wikipedia can request transcripts or a digital recording of the interview in question to complete the cite and prove what was said.

This would particularly helpful when referencing articles on relatively obscure or technical fields with interviews we conduct via notable persons - particularly if there isn't much in the way of published material about the topic.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I realize I'm responding to a few-years old comment, but as no one else has responded.... No, a Wikipedian interviewing a subject would not be useful as a source for an article for several reasons. 1. Verifiability requires that readers be able to access the source, therefore meaning that the source must be published. A digital recording of the interview uploaded to Commons might arguably, technically meet the verifiability standard, but it would still be 2. Original research, which is forbidden under Wikipedia policy because Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source, repackaging information previously published by secondary sources. 3. We would be opening ourselves up even more than we already are to spam, advertisements masquerading as articles, and sundry other junk. Remember, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. 4. Notability requires that the world at large have noticed and reported on a topic before we include it in Wikipedia. If we are having to do our own interviews because there is a lack of information in published reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then the subject is not notable and should not have an article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The "Notability" section does not reflect consensus

The decision by a reliable, independent newspaper or magazine to feature a substantial interview with an individual does carry weight for the notability of that individual. If many reliable sources feature interviews with them, that is an unassailable argument for notability, even if none of those reliable sources printed a single word of analysis or criticism. The fact that these reliable sources have made the decision to run those interview means that they consider the topic to be notable, and their decision creates an assumption of notability here too.

Uncritical interview sections should indeed be treated as primary sources for verifiability purposes, but for notability, a reliable independent source is still a reliable independent source unless some very exceptional circumstances apply (for example, the New York Times interviewing Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times).

I see that this argument is dismissed above as being "commonly offered by editors who are new to Wikipedia." However, it is also the current project-wide consensus on this topic, and it is supported by the general notability guideline.

Thparkth (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think WP:GNG does support use of interviews. In the opening sentence, GNG requires sources that are independent of the subject. Further down, "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. If the source is the subject talking about himself, I don't know you how you argue that's independent. It could certainly be used to support notability of other independent subjects the interviewee talks about but not the interviewee himself or herself. If you still disagree, it would be helpful if you could cite not just GNG but the specific language in GNG you rely on and your reasoning. Msnicki (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You are fundamentally misunderstanding what is meant by "independent of the subject" in the context of notabilty. The New York Times does not become dependent on Donald Trump because it publishes an unabridged interview with him; it remains a work "independent of the subject". The independent source's decision to publish the interview is what confers notability, not the content of the interview itself. The things you cite (advertising, press releases etc) are not evidence of notability because the decision to publish them is not being made independently of the subject, but that is not in any way comparable to an editorial interview in a newspaper. Thparkth (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, suppose Donald Trump stopped by for an exclusive interview with the NYT staff and they published it verbatim without additional comment. You think that would indicate they thought he was notable. I think it would indicate they're aware he's the frontrunner for the GOP nomination for president of the United States. He's already obviously notable, the subject of countless reliable independent sources and absolutely nothing about his notability hinges on what this interview contributes.

But that's not the usual case in an AfD. We're not usually discussing whether to have an article about a leading candidate to be the next US president. Those are usually pretty easy calls and rarely make it to AfD. The more typical scenario is the author of some how-to books on programming, including one on the latest Microsoft or open source whatever. We have a few weak sources (blogs, listings as a speaker at various conventions and so on) and we're asked to consider an interview somewhere on the web where he/she (usually he) talks about the new whatever and maybe his/her own personal life. Accompanying the interview is a short one-paragraph bio, usually supplied by the subject, rarely copy-edited except for length.

I don't think those interviews contribute to notability. Do you?

As long as it's published on a reliable source not connected the new whatever, the interview could certainly contribute to the notability of that new product. But it would not contribute to that individual's notability. To get that, you have to get other people writing or talking about him or his ideas or even just about the interview.

But once you do establish notability with those other independent sources, a lot of the interview material, even though primary, could be used to support various claims in the article, e.g., about the subject's personal life or views on the new whatever.

Re: your argument that it all hinges on the publisher's decision to publish, that would seem to apply to autobiographies as well. Publishers decide which of those to publish as well. But we don't accept them, either. You think we should? Msnicki (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment I agree with User talk:Msnicki Thparkth many people are mistaken about the GNG on this one and GNG does not consider the content of the article in terms of primary, secondary, tertiary, it states:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

1. The "significant coverage" must be in a reliable source(s)
2. The "reliable sources" must be independent of the subject
3. The significant coverage, meaning a significant portion of the work i.e. title, lede/closing paragraph, or significant subsection, allows us the presumption that the subject is, ...presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. -- before we ever evaluate the body of the referenced text.

Significant coverage addresses the visibility of the publisher and how much of the article's content is about the subject. An interview should be considered mostly secondary because it is not written by the primary source and "...author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts" inevitably leads to the next question. The author is largely interpreting the response, analyzing and then steering the interview content, not the subject.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

GNG goes on to state:

"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.

and then WP:PSTS on secondary sources states:

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event.

So again, the author is analyzing the content from the primary source and reporting on it. If the author does not like the answer to a question, it can be dropped and the author has the option of rearranging the sequence of the questions (during and after the interview) and shortening quotes.

Finally, for statements made in the interview, this is a matter of WP:SELFSOURCE, but if an artist is interviewed in Billboard magazine with her name in the title, the first paragraph, or is otherwise significantly mentioned, that artist has obviously gained some notability. 009o9 (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Required Disclosure: I guess this qualifies as an administrative area, I have to disclose that I do take paid work and disclose my client's identity etc. 009o9 (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've pinged a couple of editors here and there does not seem to be much interest, I'm going to take a go at the article per BE:BOLD. Concerning my paid editing disclosure, this is a completely voluntary and unpaid exercise for me. 009o9 (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious how you factor vox populi interviews into your opinion or understanding of policy. I know people who have been interviewed literally dozens of times between street polling and witnessing crimes and participating in Help a Reporter Out. Should they have their own articles? Woodroar (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Woodroar The primary indication would be, is the subject's name in the title or the lede or summary paragraphs? In your vox populi example (which I know nothing about the publisher), it's not really likely that a serial witness is going to be a prominent part of the story.

Have a look at the article, I've taken a complete pass at it with the exception of the Who, what, where section, which can probably be extended. I'd like to take a break and go through it another couple of times in the next few days. Then put it up for RfC. I'd at least like to get some of the community to evaluate it (to reconsider the prevailing opinion in AfD) and we can revert if it fails. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It's okay to WP:BEBOLD but I don't believe you have consensus for your changes and I don't believe they actually match our guidelines. Consequently, I've reverted them. Let's keep talking. Msnicki (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Msnicki I don't believe there is a consensus here, just an essay with no evidence of an RfC. Was it listed at the Village Pump? What is more likely is that we have a WP:Local consensus that is based upon a misreading of the GNG definition of "significant coverage". Anyway, it looks like I was editing and walked on your revert. Since you object to working on the RfC here, I will be repeat your revert (I'm not warring restoring) to the state before I began editing. My working draft for the RfC will be here User:009o9/Draft Interviews Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

A bit late to the party, but I do find the OP User:Thparkth's argument convincing, for what are my two cents worth few months later :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

We really need to link this from WP:NBIO

See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#We_really_need_a_sentence.2Fparagraph.2Fsection_on_interviews. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Some questions

Some questions about interviews:

1. Are question portions of an interview considered primary or secondary?
2. Are interviews considered primary sources for purposes of determining notability?

--Prisencolin (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

An interview is primary with regard to the subject of the interview but could be secondary to the topics discussed by the interviewee. In most cases, an interview is not helpful in establishing notability unless the interviewer has included additional material containing his own secondary thoughts and analysis. Msnicki (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with this. The whole point of WP:N is to see if independent reliable sources have taken note of the subject. And as such, interviews are fine evidence of that. If the NYT interviews you about you, that's a strong indication you're notable. Hobit (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest that notability, as a Wikipedia term of art, acts primarily in service of verifiability. That is, it is less a measure of if independent sources have taken note of the subject, and more a measure of have sufficient independent sources sufficiently (& independently) documented the subject. Interviews add to the former, they do not necessarily add to the latter. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Trying to find consensus on interviews and counting toward WP:N

Looking at this essay, I don't think doesn't capture the intent of WP:N nor does it reach a point that has consensus. In general the point of WP:N is that we are looking for topics that have "...gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large... . And it notes "we consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." I believe that if the NYT publishes an interview with a person, that person has clearly gained attention by the world at large. I think that the primary-source argument used for discounting those sources as not counting toward WP:N makes no sense. And, looking at the discussion above, I think that a number of people agree with me.

I'd like to see if we can't agree that interviews in independent reliable sources should, in general, count toward WP:N. Obviously the quality of publication etc. would matter, just as it does for non-interviews. Pinging everyone involved in discussions above (feel free to add someone if you find I missed anyone): @Msnicki:, @Prisencolin:, @Piotrus:, @009o9:, @Woodroar:, @Thparkth:, @Katangais: @WhatamIdoing: @Guy1890:, @Hostgeeky:, @Blueboar:, {{ping|Jc3s5h}, @Mr. Stradivarius:,@Titanium Dragon:, @Blue Rasberry:Hobit (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The ==Notability== section seems a little off. But I think that this might be the first place to start: "Two steps are necessary to determine the reliability of material in an interview. First, you must determine whether the material is primary or secondary as described above, and then you must determine the overall reliability of the publication."

Well, um, actually, no? You don't actually need to determine whether the material is primary or secondary. It's not usually one of the factors that decides reliability. WP:NOTGOODSOURCE has the list of criteria (taken from WP:RS), and "figure out if it's secondary" is nowhere on the list. Reliability is all about whether the source is suitable, both "at all" (would we ever cite this source?) and "for the exact statement in question" (Einstein's physics papers are certainly lovely, but they're wholly unreliable sources when you're talking about the price of tea in 15th-century China). WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Sounds like this is a proposal to change WP:INTERVIEWS to say what it already says.  This is the problem that comes from questions that are not tied to specific proposals.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm referring to the notability section (as WhatamIdoing discusses) where interviews are discounted as not generally being useful for WP:N as they are primary. I think that's wrong and would like to fix it. Hobit (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
    • You may be referring to discussions somewhere else and making assumptions about what is said here, or perhaps you haven't read the current revision of the section.  What is wrong with the current section?  Please be specific.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Sure: "Under this definition, anything the interviewee says about himself or herself or their own work is primary. If it's primary, our guidelines make clear that it does not contribute to notability." My take away from that is that an interview which is mostly Q&A about themselves or their work (which is most interviews IME) wouldn't count toward notability. I'm claiming if a RS interviews you, they have "taken note" of you and it does contribute to Wikipedia's definition of notability. Hobit (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
        • And it also says, "The essence of notability under our notability guideline is a more technical definition than in common language, and is the evidence that the subject has attracted sufficiently significant attention from the world at large over a period of time....An independent interviewer represents the 'world at large' giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
          • Yep, so IMO, we've got something of a contradiction. And people read the part that they like. I think the part I quoted should be removed--at the least it is contrary to the part you quote and I think the part you quote both has consensus and matches better with WP:N. Hobit (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
            • Ok, I'm starting to see.  When you say above, "My take away...is that an interview which is mostly Q&A about themselves or their work (which is most interviews IME) wouldn't count toward notability.", my reply is that there is part of the interview that does contribute to wp:notability.  I think we want to state that we want to ignore the primary part, as the primary part may be most, even while not all, of the interview.  In the last two comments in this diff, I have provided analysis from an interview.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
            • Google translate of the French interview.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• What is proposed? The NYT runs press release interviews sometimes just like many other publications, so just because there is an interview in NYT does not mean that it is reliable. Primary sources, self-published sources, press releases, and unreliable sources are not necessarily the same, but they often are. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned above, I'm objecting to the notion that an interview in a RS doesn't count toward meeting WP:N. WP:N is worried about the greater world "taking note" (as described above) and an interview is very much that. Hobit (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hobit It is difficult to generalize all interviews. Some interviews in some contexts can be reliable sources backing up certain statements. There is a huge variation in quality of interviews. I think that a thoughtful interview by a reputable journalist with no affiliation to the interviewee is usually a reliable source that would count toward N, but those kinds of interviews are not in the majority. The typical interview online is an email interview posted to a blog, in which the interviewer emails questions to a person and their responses are published verbatim on the blog. I would say that is not a reliable source for establishing the notability of the interviewee. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, but that has to do more with the nature of the source/interviewer than anything else and we need to weigh that source no matter if an interview or an article. Hobit (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it broadly true that any time an interview in a WP:RS publication addresses the interview subject and their work, rather than Punditry, contributed to the Notability of the subject? It seems to me that if they are about the subject they are evidence of notability whether or not they are Reliable or admissible concerning the facts presented in the interview. I would even argue that interviews in reliable source publications are of equal standing for Notability (though not for anything else) to secondary coverage about the subject. (Just another data point.) Newimpartial (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

see WP:ANALYSIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.174.237.94 (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• I heartily concur that interviews in reliable source publications should count towards Notability. And that Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability needs to be changed to reflect this. If anyone has the time and energy to put such a change in the wording, feel free to ping me to participate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Old section, but I just came across this and, like many above, was surprised to see some of the text in the notability section, and that it's marked as an explanatory supplement rather than an essay. I've changed the latter, given the former, and since that designation was added by the page creator on first edit. That's fine to do, but when something is clearly controversial (see all of the above), there should be explicit consensus to call it an explanatory supplement rather than an essay. Methinks an RfC is in order. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Explanatory supplement and links from policies and guidelines

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.

---

This request for comment on the Wikipedia:Interviews essay asks editors five questions:

1. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be designated as an explanatory supplement?
2. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the verifiability policy?
3. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the no original research policy?
4. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the identifying reliable sources guideline?
5. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the notability guideline?

— Newslinger talk 01:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, no opinion, yes, yes, yes. This page was designated as an explanatory supplement to the verifiability and no original research policies over 4 years ago until it was changed into an essay last month. The Notability section gives appropriate guidance on determining whether a particular interview is a source that meets the general notability guideline. In summary, content written in the interviewer's voice is considered a secondary source, while content provided by the interviewee is considered a primary source. Since it is very difficult to write an encyclopedia article that meets Wikipedia's core content policies without access to high-quality secondary sources, interviews that do not provide significant coverage in the interviewer's voice should not meet the general notability guideline. — Newslinger talk 01:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose all its an essay, nothing more. The section on notability in particular is just plain wrong: interviews can under no circumstances count towards notability as they are inherently primary sources, and counting them as towards the GNG defeats the point of our being a tertiary source. Also too many questions for one RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose all. The essay is confusing on several points. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm afraid that the essay is not well formulated. There are some relevants part in it, but it's not written in a concise and clear manner. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you for the feedback. It's clear that this essay is not written well enough to become an explanatory supplement. — Newslinger talk 07:11, 20 October 2018 (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.

Paid editors have edited this

Two now-banned paid editors,KDS4444 and 009o9, edited this essay to promote the view of interviews as independent and reliable. You can see that in the history. The reason for this is obvious. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we've gotten all of that out (plus I removed a lot of general verbosity and redundancy today). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)