Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 64

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

→

Editorials and opinion pieces

WP:RSEDITORIAL states

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

I've been working with a lot of Islam-related articles on controversial topics, both pro-Islam and anti-Islam. Many of them have "criticism" or "controversy" sections. Since opinion pieces/editorials are primary sources, is it appropriate to cite them directly in such articles to say, for example, "Person A believes that Muslim Organization X is Islamist and terrorist-leaning" (citing Person A's editorial) or that "Person B believes that Person Y is very anti-Muslim" (citing Person B's editorial)? Do the editorials, as primary sources, need to be covered in other reliable secondary sources before they can be discussed on the article of whichever Wikipedia topic is the target of criticism by the editorials? If not, does that mean practically any editorial could warrant mention for the opinion of its author as long as it is relevant to the topic of the Wikipedia article? Snuish (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it kind of depends. It probably wouldn't be WP:DUE (?) to cite the opinion of just anyone who wrote an opinion hit-piece about some group they don't like (which really seems a lot more accessible than people might think, by the way). If this person holds some sort of status it might be worth mentioning. Do you want to give an example so we have a clearer idea what you're talking about? Like, I think "Person who studies Middle Eastern politics said X" holds a lot more weight in this regard than "Person who can write opinion pieces for The Hill (or whatever else) said X". Something that especially wouldn't be due in my view would be stacking a bunch of opinions from people who fit the latter picture together to make an enormous "Criticism" section out of rather probably-not-very-noteworthy commentators. I could be wrong here, though. --Chillabit (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I have a few examples. Two examples on Ali Sina (activist):

"Munawar Anees considered Sina to be among the writers on the internet producing Islamophobic literature," which cites his opinion piece on the Huffington Post. Although the piece is labeled "news," it reads like an editorial. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that it's definitely an editorial.
"David P. Goldman argued that Islam was both a religion and political ideology and asserted that Sina was incorrect for not accepting Islam as a religion," which cites his opinion piece from the Asia Times.

There are also a few examples on the article for the Council on American–Islamic Relations:

"Steven Emerson has accused CAIR of having a long record of propagating anti-Semitic propaganda," which cites his piece from his own website, though it seems it was also published in The New Republic Online.
"In 2001 journalist Jake Tapper criticized the communication director of CAIR," which cites his editorial on Salon.
"...Sam Harris, criticized CAIR by saying the organization is 'an Islamist public relations firm posing as a civil-rights lobby'," which cites his opinion piece on the Huffington Post.

Are any of these inappropriate for inclusion on their respective articles? How are we drawing the line between inappropriate and appropriate? Snuish (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a related discussion on RSN; I posted my thoughts at length there. But in general, I feel that editorials and opinion-pieces should normally only be used when the opinion of the author, in particular, is relevant - that is to say, if the author is a well-established expert on the subject, or if they're someone so important that their opinion clearly matters, like a world leader (I wouldn't generally accept "has written a lot of opinion pieces on this subject" or "works for a think tank to push opinion / policy on this subject" to be sufficient.) The basic question to ask when you see an opinion piece or editorial in an article is "why should the reader care what this person, in particular, thinks about this subject?"; if you can't come up with a good answer then there's no purpose to establishing that person's opinion there and it should be removed. --Aquillion (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I suspect you would not accept “Because the author agrees with my priors” as a good enough answer to the question? This is likely the most common reason editors want to add op-Ed/columnist opinions. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the reasons why I feel it's important to be cautious about them. One thing I'd point out is that editors can still make that mistake in good faith - it's very easy to say "well, I know this is true, and it's clearly an important opinion, so it's fine to have a relatively weak opinion source for it, because the alternative would be to leave out a strand of opinion that I, personally, know to be extremely important and accurate." It can also lead to are editors on opposite sides of an issue essentially arguing by proxy by adding duelling opinion pieces to counter or balance each other out, resulting in a bloated opinion section that doesn't have much regard for due weight and which reads more like a list of snappy retorts and grandstanding by opinion writers. And finally, it can lead to editors trying to effectively establish that one side or the other is right or wrong by sheer number of opinion-pieces cited - part of the problem that WP:DUE is supposed to avoid. --Aquillion (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I really like what User:TFD had to say in that discussion: "I find it useful to never directly report opinions but to use reliable sources reporting on them." I wish that was policy for opinion pieces not written by subject matter experts. If an opinion piece has serious significance, it is going to end up being covered by reliable sources. The policies concerning editorials, as they're written now, seem to leave a lot to editor discretion. Snuish (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Propose to be able to cite application source code

Sometimes there are articles which are about an application or piece of software where it can be difficult to find reliable secondary sources describing application features, known issues, etc, as they may not even exist in the currently allowable list. I propose the idea that if actual source code is publicly available, that it should be allowed as a reliable source. The source code doesn't have a point of view, and cannot lie or make exaggerated claims (the comments might, but the actual code cannot). If source code can be pointed to, then it should be acceptable. For example, the GIMP article has a lot of references to gimp.org for release notes (which is technically not even allowed, as it a website promoting a product), but the GIMP source code itself is the source itself, and should be an indisputable source of whether or not a certain feature (or bug) exists. --Thoric (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

This would be equivalent to a primary source. As to what a piece of code does, that probably needs interpretation by someone, eg that some piece of code contains a bug. So that is where a secondary source would be needed to avoid original research by the code reader/Wikipedia writer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Thoric, why do you think that citing "a website promoting a product" is disallowed? It wouldn't demonstrate notability (because it's not independent of the subject), but it's just as reliable as citing a politician's campaign website, or a tweet from a celebrity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WhatamIdoing, some primary sourcing is allowed, we just don't want articles that only or primarily rely on sourcing from the primary website as that would be self-promotional/lack of notability.

But if there is software bug or the like, we want 3rd parties to explain that bug, we absolutely do not want editors to go and point that out , as that would be original research. --Masem (t) 23:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If there is a software bug, we want someone who is not a Wikipedia editor to point that out. We don't need Wikipedia:Third-party sources for that; if there's a bug in Microsoft Windows, and they post a note about the bug on their corporate blog, then it's fine to cite that non-independent website.

I strongly agree that the overall article needs to be WP:Based upon sources that are independent and (ideally) secondary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

But that said, the severity of the bug could be an issue. Coming from video games, I have seen situations that have escalated to WP problems of players upset over a small, trivial bug that most sources have not discussed, that the developer has stated exists but do not have time for resolution on. We could source the dev to say this bug exists, but if no 3rd parties are talking about it, is it really significant? We don't want WP editors to be trying to determine what are the most critical bugs in a software program if there's no guidance behind that. --Masem (t) 23:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The source would still be reliable for that claim. A non-independent source doesn't carry much WP:WEIGHT, so it might not be included in the Wikipedia article at all, but the source is still reliable and still able to verify the claim. The problem of being able to fully verify trivial, insignificant details in sources that are reliable for those trivial, insignificant details is exactly why Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. It's reliable; we still might not use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If we're not talking about notability (something which is subjective), but talking about a fact (something which is objective, true, or false, and not an opinion), then why are primary sources not allowed, especially if we are talking about a feature of a software application? Why do we require use of a secondary source to cite such a thing, when anyone can see that it is true or not? --Thoric (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Because primary sources usually require interpretation which is often a violation of Wikipedia policy. If they don't require interpretation, there is still a question of due weight: if something is only found in a primary source, does it really belong in an encyclopedia article? Just because something can be found in a reliable source doesn't mean that we should or must include it in an article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Everything requires some modicum of interpretation -- including the comprehension and rephrasing of a secondary source. We accept that skilled wikipedians comprehend highly technical secondary sources on a regular basis, even when the subject matter may be too technical for someone without knowledge in that area to adequately comprehend. Plenty of wikipedians are skilled enough in different programming languages to at least be able to point out something like, "There is source code here indicating support for feature X (citing line of code). The documentation describes how to use feature X (citing application documentation)." I understand that saying something like, "When running the application, I can find and use feature X", is considered to be original research, but citing a reference to the source code is little different than citing a research paper. --Thoric (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You are allowed to cite primary sources. However, you can only cite them for the content that a normal, non-expert, generally educated person can see in the source. This means that you can cite computer code (if it has been published). However, what you could actually write on the basis of that would sound more like 'Line 2238 contains a comment that says "You are Not Expected to Understand This"' than "The source code indicates support for feature X". This is because a generally educated non-expert won't be able to tell whether the source code indicates support for feature X by looking at the lines of code, and honestly, neither can you, unless you read the whole thing and determined that the code actually worked and wasn't broken or nullified by some other piece of code. (Think about the critical difference between laying the ground work for a feature that might appear in the future vs the feature actually being present.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

What happens when a reliable source become geoblocked?

Given that edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Istanbul_Airport&oldid=1012106079 , what happens if a source cannot be read and thus no longer gives proof? --Bouzinac (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

A geoblocked source is approximately equivalent to a source in dead paper. It is still a reasonable source to access, even if you can't. --Izno (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I get the idea. I am all the more confused as https://www.dhmi.gov.tr/ : normal looks to tell it is not geoblocked...

Bouzinac, if you want to fix it, the instructions are at WP:DEADREF. This applies to any website that seems to be offline for any reason. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Nintendo Everything development interviews

I've asked this question at WT:VG but wasn't really satisfied with the answer.

Nintendo Everything is considered an unreliable source per WP:VG/RS, namely because it's a fan blog site in broad terms. However, they often interview video game developers, and more often than not I see these interviews trying to rewrite an article (this time around Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam). So, would these interviews be considered WP:PRIMARY and allowed, or would they still be unusable? And follow-up question, would it meet WP:GA standards? P anini ^🥪 17:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Panini!, please move this question to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yikes, was this not the correct place to ask this? Oh, looking at the talk page header now. Sorry about that! P anini ^🥪 17:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep context in mind when arguing claims

I'd like to add this to the project page with the above heading. The section WP:CONTEXTMATTERS or WP:RSCONTEXT deals with 'reliability of source' whereas this section would deal with the issue of biased generalisation of claims.

Theories dealing with subjective interpretations and implementations need to be contextualised in concrete conditions. This contextualisation needs to account for specific historic development and overlapping characteristics without trying to extrapolate to other contexts with different historic backgrounds and conditions. There are a set of topics that are contentious due to the nature of their implementation and corresponding effects. The contention could arise from the lack of contextualisation, the fallacy of mixing theory with practice, giving WP:UNDUE weightage to certain examples or because the point of view is not supported by WP:RS. Due to this, editors will almost inevitably confuse opposing views, based on different contexts, as violating neutral point of view. If you think you've spotted one, please spend a moment before trying to report them straight to the incident noticeboard and consider dispute resolution. Vikram Vincent 09:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Based on the discussion below the one line I'd like to propose, while dealing with contentious topics or arguments, is: Clearly state the context of the claims that you are making. Vikram Vincent 10:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm having some difficulty understanding the proposed text. Could you provide an example of how this would be applied to article content? — Newslinger talk 10:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Newslinger I would prefer to keep the examples on my user subpage due to the contentious nature of the topics. User:Vincentvikram/Always_keep_context_in_mind_when_arguing_claims Vikram Vincent 10:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is covered by Wikipedia:No original research § Synthesis of published material (WP:SYNTH) in a more general way. Is there something missing from that policy (or other existing policies and guidelines) that would be covered by the proposed text? Since this guideline is focused on evaluating the reliability of a source, guidance on matters outside of this scope would probably fit better elsewhere. — Newslinger talk 11:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Newslinger Noted. Which venue would be appropriate? Vikram Vincent 11:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be best to complete the essay at User:Vincentvikram/Always keep context in mind when arguing claims before proposing any changes to policies or guidelines. Since the proposed text discusses a range of topics (content disputes, conduct disputes, and dispute resolution procedures), it would be challenging to include the text into a policy or guideline page in its current form. You would most likely have more success by breaking the proposed text into smaller portions that can be implemented as amendments to existing policy/guideline sections, if you can identify any policies/guidelines that would benefit from clarification.

The policy village pump is the most visible venue for policy/guideline suggestions, and my advice is to start a discussion there (after completing the essay) to determine if any portion of the essay content can be incorporated into a relevant policy/guideline. There is a possibility that there would be no consensus for any changes, and if that is the case, there is nothing wrong with adding the essay to the essay directory. — Newslinger talk 21:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I missed a word. — Newslinger talk 08:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Vikram Vincent 04:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Anything legitimate it has to say is redundant and not needed per Newslinger, the userspace essay is a WP:COATRACK for pro-Marxism-Leninism material, and the whole origin of this "contextualization" stuff is to aid and abet POV pushing. Per the history related at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism: Originally, there was an ANI thread about a user who was pushing a Marxist-Leninist POV and WP:NONAZIS was invoked as a point of comparison, and Vincentvikram was defending the user; the reported user (not Vincentvikram) has since been topic banned after another ANI thread. [1] Vincentvikram created a draft essay after the first ANI thread called "Yes Marxism-Leninism" which was clearly a WP:POINTy counter to NONAZIS. I nominated it for deletion at MfD. Vincentvikram moved it to his userspace and later changed the framing to be about "contextualization", but the tide was turning against it; finally before it could be deleted by the discussion, he deleted the nominated page as CSD-U1 and recreated it (or something very similar) under the new name User:Vincentvikram/Always keep context in mind when arguing claims. I consider this a clear attempt to evade the MfD process, and if anyone wishes to nominate the new version, I'll support this; but I gave up at that point. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads while your entire commentary is fine, your sentence the whole origin of this "contextualization" stuff is to aid and abet POV pushing is toxic and far from the truth. My PhD work has been around historical thinking and my interest stems from there. You attributing motive where none exists is against WP:AGF. I think you need to redact that sentence and apologise cause this is not how an editor treats others irrespective of the disagreement. Vikram Vincent 09:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the March 5th proposal is helpful. It sounds confusing: All theories are required to have implementations in concrete contexts? Abstractness is banned? But then I'm not allowed to mix this theory with any practical applications, so I can't give you the concrete stuff? There's probably something in there, but this isn't ready. You might find it more effective to be specific, like "Don't claim that since one person one a specific lawsuit, then everyone else will win all the other lawsuits, too." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing! My thoughts were based on the use of causal claims from non-(strict)experimental studies or observations. aquillion gives a good explanation in the following section, What happens if a reliable source makes a false claim, while dealing with claims in statistics. The proposal is simple and can be boiled down to one line:Clearly state the context of the claims that you are making. This would be very useful to contentious topics. Vikram Vincent 06:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that most editors will understand what you mean by "the context of the claims". I suspect that you mean something like "Don't write This drug costs US$0.14 but instead write According to Named Survey, the government of Costa Rica paid about US$0.14 per 250 mg pill in 2015". Other people might think that "the context" means that they need to say something about the political leanings of the survey organization, or that the whole thing assumes a capitalist system, or that this drug is cheaper than another drug, or any of hundreds of other things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

hmm yes, or any of the hundred other things seems to actually be the possible application... Vikram Vincent 14:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Dietz Press?

Doing a GA review of Siwanoy, there's a source I'm dubious about:

Barr, Lockwood (1946). Ancient Town of Pelham, Westchester County, New York. Richmond, Va.: Dietz Press. p. 13.

I can't find much on Dietz Press. Their website (https://www.dietzpress.com/) gives precious little information. The google book entry also mentions Higginson Book Company (https://higginsonbooks.com/) which also doesn't say much. I'm guessing this is a vanity press. Anybody know anything about Dietz? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith, I don't think your instincts have led you in the right direction here. I think it is a small press, but a real one. These websites refer to books printed in the 1940s,[2][3] including a highly regarded work for stamp collectors.[4] While vanity presses did exist in previous centuries, it was not common. This website describes it as a publisher of children's and young adult books.[5] And if they really were a vanity press, they have made it impossible to figure out how to let people pay them to print books for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you were looking for WP:RSN? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Nature article on "the systemic production of falsified research"

I thought that folks would want to be aware of this.

Else, Holly; Van Noorden, Richard (2021-03-23). "The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science". Nature. Retrieved 2021-03-29.

Peaceray (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The "paper mill" problem looks to me like part of a general problem of the volume of publishing being too great for the gatekeepers to inspect properly. If pre-publication peer reviewers could not check the papers for being from bad sources, they surely could not perform a more difficult check for quality or even authenticity of research. Yes, Wikipedia, though much smaller than the sum of scientific research papers accepted annually by even one major scholastic society, suffers similarly as it grows, yet organized efforts to attract new editors mostly concentrate on a hope for adding to the article count. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Also related: predatory publishing, many journals aren't indexed at relevant places, articles on certain topics may strangely be found in journals that appear to be on other topics (usually an indication it had difficulty to pass peer review in its field), some journals are on warning lists (notable was Beall's, WP has some efforts like WP:RSP and WP:CRAPWATCH), on Wikipedia a particular problem to avoid is citogenesis, astroturfing is increasingly common (disguised fronts for propaganda), then of course, it's unnecessary to mention the importance of secondary reliable sources to evaluate primary sources... —Paleo Neonate – 10:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Question about reliable sources and liberal bias

I have read Wikipedia articles on a regular basis (usually daily) for several years now. What I've noticed is that the large majority of reliable sources are liberal/left-leaning news media outlets. This is a fact based on simple analysis (not opinion). Why are so few right-leaning/conservative news outlets considered reliable? I could be wrong on this but I believe WSJ is literally the only right-leaning outlet considered "generally reliable" (i.e. the green check) according to perennial sources page, while there are at least 15 or 20 liberal/left-leaning sources. How can Wikipedia be considered a neutral and balanced encyclopedia when this is the case? K.Q.1997 (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I answered this at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#‎Question about reliable sources and liberal bias, didn't see before posting that that the user had posted the question in two places. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Checking back and noticed none of the above editors answered my original question about the bias found throughout Wikipedia on American political articles. Instead people brought up stuff about how Trump is a liar (which I agree with) and how conservative media are all in a cult and embrace alternative facts. This makes me thinks the issue could be the editors themselves who have a partisan bias and are able to skew Wikipedia in one direction. What are the credentials of people who edit Wikipedia articles? Also to be fair I don't follow politics of other countries but as a person who identifies as a centrist on most issues/liberal on social issues like abortion & LGBT rights, the bias in favor of one side is pretty obvious. K.Q.1997 (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There are fewer center-right publications in the American media landscape. To increase this number, the general public would need to support high-quality center-right publications outside of Wikipedia and ensure that they stay in business. On Wikipedia, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources", keeping in mind that "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered" (WP:NPOV). — Newslinger talk 04:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are there so many "high-quality" center-left publications and so few center-right ones in the United States? K.Q.1997 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

A detailed answer to that question would span the length of a book. See Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics for research from Harvard University's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society that addresses the question. The publication is open access, and available free of charge through Oxford University Press at the link. — Newslinger talk 05:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Many people on this website seem to genuinely believe (I'm going to assume most are acting in good faith) there is not significant bias in corporate mainstream media (MSM) like NYT, WaPo, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. But how do you then explain the way media covers Democrats vs. Republicans? Again, just to be clear I'm not a conservative or a Republican but when I watch/read mainstream news it seems blatantly biased and agenda-driven (almost like MSM and Democrats work hand in glove). Evidence of this would be several now-debunked stories reported in corporate media like the Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy theory and the more recently debunked Russian bounty program story. Another example would be how MSM covered up and censored the Hunter Biden laptop story in October 2020 claiming it might be "Russian disinformation". Last month Hunter Biden gave an interview and admitted the laptop could have been his (in other words it was his laptop). Honest journalists like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi (there are a few others but those are two "big" names) have exposed a lot of this. People on this website should be aware that media in United States is not like mainstream media in Europe or Canada or Australia, it is controlled by a corporate elite that have zero interest in getting accurate information to the American people. K.Q.1997 (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC) *pinging users: Muboshgu,Newslinger

Something about NYT, WaPo and CNN

IAR closing this because we all know it's heading to nowhere (and it comes from an editor just off of a topic ban in American politics). FWIW, WP:BIASEDSOURCES tells that bias does not make a source unusable or unreliable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

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.

These two media outlets seem to be consistently failing to verify what they hear from unnamed sources. See the articles from multiple media outlets this week about the unreliability of reports (broken by the NY Times) about the Russian bounty program. Pkeets (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} --Orange Mike | Talk 14:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

See articles on the Project Veritas videos here where a CNN staffer admitted the outlet's bias: [6] [7] [8] [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkeets (talk • contribs)

Oh, this is hilarious: we are supposed to deprecate a reliable source, based on an "expose" from an unreliable fraudster and conman???? It is to laugh! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:51, 16 April 2021 (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.

Washington Post and CNN

CONTINUED ON WP:RSN

This discussion was continued on the reliable sources noticeboard. It was then closed, and is now archived at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334 § Washington Post and CNN. — Newslinger talk 06:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

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.

Suggest the reliability of these outlets be reduced given recent retraction of Georgia Sec of State story. Pkeets (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Redactions are expected behavior for reputable outlets with journalism ethics. No need to change them because they redacted a story, just emphasizes why WP should be cautions of breaking news per WP:NOT#NEWS. --Masem (t) 22:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course they're not necessarily reliable, and retractions don't make them good when they've based their stories on anonymous unreliable sources. Like every other news outlet they should have been treated with some caution, and the context should have been examined, before Wikipedia repeated their stories (as happened with Trump–Raffensperger phone call). But why bring this up here rather than on WP:RSN? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, we expect reliable sources to actively and quickly correct their mistakes. ElKevbo (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Masem and @ElKevbo: media outlets that issue corrections and retract stories are the reliable ones. The ones that never admit to mistakes are the ones to worry about. Retractions and corrections are common in scientific journals, too. (Obviously, we should stop citing any individual retracted article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pkeets: Wikipedia is full of activists that will NOT allow any wrongthing to seep through. Fox News is downgraded but nobody thinks ~~fiery~~false but mostly ~~peaceful~~true story like this is a problem. Only sources on the "right side of history" will be allowed as top sources on wikipedia, and WaPo and CNN have constantly agreed with the groupthink of the remaining wikiactivists here. They never publish fake news, misinformation, disinformation, because they are on the right side of history, unlike Fox News. Therefore they will never be downgraded, as multiple people here have shown you. 2601:602:9200:1310:1596:19CF:A497:D49F (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Note the current defamation suit brought by Project Veritas against NYTimes: A judge ruled this week for PV in the Motion to Dismiss, calling out malice in the process of injecting opinion into news articles and representing it as fact. To avoid potentially libelous material, that suggests source articles should be evaluated in the future for this failing. Pkeets (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, if our own article on Project Veritas is anything to go by... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, source? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Rulings in preliminary motions are made with specific assumptions that may not be substantiated later in trial and should not be used to make significant editorial decisions in Wikipedia (or anywhere else).

And why are we continuing this thread of discussion anyway? ElKevbo (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The ruling though the markup is from a site "friendly" to PV. But I've confirmed that's the right case and that the NYCourt system is reporting that they did deny the Times' motion to dismiss. But as a order to refuse dismissal, that's not case law, only prelim ruling that may not hold in a final review. That said, if that ruling holds true and through subsequent appeals (which I feel it won't), it does point to the problem of this "accountability journalism" that AP has taken the lede in, the mix of factual and op-en without the clarity of being op-ed. --Masem (t) 20:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The newspaper doesn't do "op-ed". The "op" in op-ed stands for "opposite", as in "the newspaper's editorial board prefers the Demican this election, but because we think that being fair is good for business, we're going to let someone with the 'opposite' view explain on the next page why you might want to vote for the Republocrat in a separate opinion piece".

That is: there are two basic kinds of opinion pieces: the "editorial", which is written by "the editors", and the "op-ed", which is written by basically anyone else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pkeets: can you clarify what retractions you are referring to? This seems to keep coming up but I cannot find any recent retraction, or even a correction, from the Washington Post let alone CNN related to the Georgia Secretary of State. [10] There was a correction by CNN of a different story, the one about Trump and Georgia's election investigator. This involved the claim Trump said to "find the fraud" and also that the investigator would be a "national hero". I believe the investigator was working for the Secretary of State's office, but the secretary of state himself was not otherwise involved in the story. (Well I think I think he may have confirmed the phone call happened too, but that wasn't the disputed part. AFAWK, he wasn't the source for the erroneous quotes.) Other sources who relied on the Washington Post also corrected their stories [11] Some crazy sources incorrectly claimed that the find the votes part of the Trump–Raffensperger phone call was retracted which was dumb, since AFAICT, that phone call has had the audio and transcriptions available since basically the beginning. But anyway given the high profile correction combined with this craziness, I'm having trouble finding any recent retract which deals with a story about the Georgia Secretary of State. Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe it is this story: [12]. --Masem (t) 12:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Has it now become acceptable at Wikipedia to alter someone else's posts and then make raucous comments about it? I'm posting in good faith about issues I feel are important, and I don't appreciate harassment. Pkeets (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2021 (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.

Sicknick story

I see someone already complained about CNN and the NY Times just above. Is anybody going to say anything here about Sicknick? NY Times broke that story about how he was clubbed to death with a fire extinguisher and then everybody else ran with it, even the Democrats that cited the Times article in the impeachment documents. That's not a very good advertisement for reliability, is it? CNN STILL has articles out there saying Sicknick was killed during the Capitol riot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:f910:e139:4a7e:24d8:4a56 (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the text of the reliable sources guideline. Your comments would be better suited at Talk:Brian Sicknick. — Newslinger talk 15:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Questionable sources

Hello all. I just want to know that references cited in Draft:Smile Foundation are really questionable? Because most sources are from major Indian mainstream media. Some of them are scholarly sources. It would be really appreciative if someone could point me out which sources are problematic? Pratikbhansali123 (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Exclusion of sources that obviously misrepresents the sources on which they are based

We've been having a longer discussion on [13] about a meta-analysis that misrepresents the data of another study. Comparing the tables of the two studies directly, the data as presented by the meta-analysis is clearly not the same as the data presented by that other study. However, I'm told that the meta-analysis cannot be removed from the article as a source because it's very credible and has been published in The Lancet, and apparently if The Lancet decides that 16 is the same as 13 (13 being the number presented in the original), and that 7 is the same as 6 (6 being the number presented in the original), then the fact that 16 is NOT 13 and that 7 is NOT 6 is overruled as per The Lancet's credibility. In my opinion, this policy is deeply harmful to Wikipedia's credibility, as it prevents obviously flawed sources from being removed. There should be some policy stating that if a source either obviously misrepresents data from a source on which it is based or directly contradicts basic rules of inference, then this disqualifies the source, whether published in The Lancet or not. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Addition for clarification

Hi, we should add the following sentence

If scholarly consensus is absent, cite the different positions or opinions in accord with due weight.

after this sentence:

Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent.

Otherwise there is lack of knowledge of what to do if scholarly consensus isn't available. Uni3993 (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Please reply. Uni3993 (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Uni3993: Have I interpreted correctly that you re-added your preferred version despite objection from Nikkimaria? I don't see how that is compatible with WP:WPEDIT. I think that Crossroads tried to adjust it, and I objected to the adjustment. But Nikkimaria was right to go further. Can you show, with some reference to article histories, what trouble was being caused, that this edit solves? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It explains what to do if consensus is absent, which happens frequently.Uni3993 (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Not well. I think Crossroads' addition helped, but really rather than going back and forth in a live guideline we should work out, if this is really needed (and as Peter notes, are there specific examples of cases where it would have helped?), how specifically it ought to be worded here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Look you're introducing a bifurcation by saying that you have to only include consensus but it might not even exists, if exists do this, but the part about if not exist is missing. Logically it has to be included. Otherwise it's awkward. If not exists do a backflip, ride a horse anything can be said about that case. Here Zodiac_Killer#Public_speculation is an example where there is no consensus, all possible scenarios are explained though. Uni3993 (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that section is something we want to be pointing to as a good example. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean, also I already gave you the very rational explanation. Try to refute that. What kind of example do you want me to give you if you don't like that. The other case has to be explained like I said its a bifurcation. Uni3993 (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

That example demonstrates the problems with the addition that was made: we don't really want to indiscriminately include every example of an opinion on the topic that exists. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok then either we should add notable as a qualifier to examples or we could remove the bifurcation it would say only include material that has scholarly consensus. Which one do you choose? Uni3993 (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Neither, as neither is correct. As I said, I thought Crossroads' addition was helpful - perhaps Peter can elaborate on his objections to it, as a potential way forward. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I am actually a bit confused by this entire passage... We should CITE reliable sources for everything we say in WP, regardless of whether it reflects scholarly consensus or not.

Perhaps what is meant is that we should HIGHLIGHT scholarly consensus? I can agree with that, but it is not a reliability issue... it is already covered by our WP:Neutral point of view policy. On any given topic, we want to cover ALL significant views (citing reliable sources to support what we say about them). If one of those views enjoys scholarly consensus, we clearly identify it as such, and give it a lot more WEIGHT than lesser significant views that don’t have consensus... but we cover those other views in brief. If there is no scholarly consensus, then we give the significant views more or less equal WEIGHT... (and, of course, fringe views are given no WEIGHT at all, and can simply be omitted - as they are not significant).

But we still need to CITE reliable sources to verify any of the views that are mentioned. Blueboar (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Who decides what is reliable on Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is not a forum for you to debate politics, nor even Wikipedia policy, given that you've shown no indication of being willing to help improve this project. You have already been afforded more leeway than is required under our policies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

I have three questions about reliable sources on Wikipedia:

-what are the criteria for determining if a source is reliable or not?

-who exactly on wikipedia decides if a source/website is reliable or unreliable?

-what credentials do these people/editors have that makes them so knowledgeable to decide if a source is reliable or not?

I also want to state in response to another editor who accused me in this thread[14] of being a troll that I'm only posing questions on this website in good faith. For some reason other editors are able to do this (I'm assuming this is because they are established editors who are allowed to insult "newbie people" and not be penalized, which is fine by the way but it should be noted). I was also accused of being a Trump supporter becaue I pointed out how mainstream media bombarded the U.S. public for years with propaganda about Trump colluding with Russia. So instead of just being someone who can see how corrupt mainstream media is in the U.S., I must be someone who thinks Trump is good. K.Q.1997 (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Given you're a new account, with zero history of any contribution to Wikipedia content, with an obsession with "liberal bias", I'll point to you WP:SPA and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I propose we close this discussion.

I believe K.Q.1997 should be blocked at this point per WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLE, WP:IDHT, and WP:ARBAP2. --Hipal (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop trying to distract from the conversation and address the 3 relevant questions related to reliable sources and their usage on Wikipedia. Also other users here like Hipal and Headbomb continue to make false accusations and attempt to get me blocked and/or censored, please stop doing that or I will report you. I'm only here to ask pertinent questions in good faith about how reliable sources work on Wikipedia. To reply to Headbomb, I'm not "obsessed with liberal bias" but I am concerned about propaganda in mainstream reliable sources used throughout Wikipedia (mostly related to American political articles since other first world countries don't have the level of propaganda and bias and corruption in their MSM and reliable sources). I should have clarified this but what I really mean by "liberal bias" is a certain type of elitist/corporatist bias which falls broadly under the term "liberal" but who's primary concern is obtaining power and wealth and controlling the narrative that enables them to gain more power and more wealth and start wars for example in Iraq based on lies and fabrications. We also saw this same media for two years constantly speculate without any real evidence that Trump (who for the record I think is also a corrupt and disgusting human being) somehow "colluded" with Russia to help win the election. After a team of 20 attorneys, 50 FBI agents, numerous intelligence analysts and forensic accountants (who issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses) a lot of MSM still wouldn't admit there was no collusion with Russia like the Mueller Report concluded. That says a lot about the irrationality and partisanship of these so-called "journalists".

Also I just read this now on WP:SPA so please other editors follow the rules: "New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility...editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, and to not bite newcomers. Remember that every editor on Wikipedia was new at some point. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits. K.Q.1997 (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2021 (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.

NYTimes, NBC and WaPo

Nobody wants to discuss why supposedly reliable sources publish verified news from anonymous sources one week and then retract it the next week? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:f910:18c0:6d81:cba5:b07b (talk • contribs)

I do not think they use anonymous sources. Their reporters talk to people they know but who will not let their names be used in print/ The journalists evaluate their credibility before publishing. Rjensen (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This - they will not directly name their source in print but they internally know who they are talking to, and typically identify "according to our source, who wished to remain anonymous..." or the like. As long as the publication is reliable, we presume they are following proper journalist confidentiality here. --Masem (t) 04:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

But why did these publication decide just the next week that their sources weren't credible after all? They've published misinformation, and made a big impact with it, and then retracted it within just a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:F910:18C0:6D81:CBA5:B07B (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that they retract things is a point in their favor, not a point against them. When we deprecate a source, one of the big things we look for is failure to issue retractions. Hypothetically if it got to a point where a publication were having to issue major retractions every month, then maybe that would stop counting in their favor. But short of that, it's a sign of good journalism. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 05:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

A sign of good journalism that they failed to properly vet their sources and had to retract within a week? Doesn't it become a ploy to publish sensationalist fake news to generate traffic and then retract it later? How does this count in their favor? Plus, it must be hard to keep track of all the falsehoods. Here's a story from CNN that still says Officer Sicknick was killed at the Capitol [15]. No retraction in sight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:F910:18C0:6D81:CBA5:B07B (talk)

It's good journalism. You picked a bad example, CNN relied on open-source court papers not anonymous sources. Several days later it reported that an autopsy showed the policeman died of natural causes not the injuries. Rjensen (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

So then The Daily Caller or The Blaze, for example, could improve their reliability ratings by retracting claims in their articles after a week? Is that the way it works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:F910:FCEC:F3F6:74FB:45A5 (talk)

Read again from Tamzin: Hypothetically if it got to a point where a publication were having to issue major retractions every month, then maybe that would stop counting in their favor. Please sign your posts.—Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

See above. The NYT's last major retraction was just last month. 2601:844:4000:F910:FCEC:F3F6:74FB:45A5 (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Every month, not Within the past month. Either you need to start reading comments more carefully, or you're trolling. If you want to convince people that you're participating in good faith here: Let's define "major retraction" as one which garners widespread coverage in not exclusively media-focused sources other than the retracting publication. (That is to say, not a few publications gravedancing over another's mistake, and not media blogs that chronicle everything.) Using that definition, draw up a list of major retractions by NYT, NBC, and WaPo, and report back your findings. And then we can all discuss whether the frequency is excessive. Otherwise, I don't think there's anything left for me to say here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 06:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend hours in busy work, but here's a sampling I put together in a few minutes. My point is that the "reliable sources" in Wikipedia's list are subject to the same movement toward sensationalist misinformation as many considered less reliable. That means arguments based on the reliability of these sources are starting from a false premise that they are always reliable. This has implications for using them without question in articles, as well. The NYTimes recently admitted that it's writers frequently present their opinions as fact. Doesn't this suggest the WP policy for "reliable sources" needs another look?

May 2021: Giuliani story retractions https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/01/media/washington-post-new-york-times-retraction-giuliani/index.html
April 2021: Russian bounty retractions https://www.foxnews.com/media/media-critics-erupt-russia-bounty-fizzles-nonsense
March 2021: WaPo retraction of Trump GA call. Don’t see NYT retraction, but they carried this story, too. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/543271-wapost-adds-lengthy-correction-to-story-on-trump-georgia-call
January 2021: NYT on its own Caliphate mistakes: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/business/public-radio-group-criticizes-new-york-times-over-caliphate-correction.html
NYT errors discussion in 2020: https://www.cjr.org/public_editor/nyt-correction-factual-errors-editors-note.php
NYT rough year in 2019: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-york-times-is-having-a-rough-year-cnn-anchors-lament-recent-mistakes
NYT botched claims in 2017: https://dailycaller.com/2017/08/09/heres-a-list-of-the-5-biggest-ny-times-screw-ups-this-year/

2601:844:4000:F910:FCEC:F3F6:74FB:45A5 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Henry Drummond

Regarding my comments on "Henry Drummond": I know that Henry Drummond had at least one child because Henry Drummond is my great-grandfather. His concubine, Karoline Kahn, conceived the child Herman Kahn out of wedlock, therefore there is no documentation. (signed) 73.254.97.23 (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Richard Karnes

Disagree: "Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes) may be reliable, their audience ratings based on the reviews of their users are not."

Many movies have interesting splits between their Rotten Tomatoes "approved" reviewer aggregated scores, and their audience ratings. These splits are notable in their own right for many movies, and I would argue that because both forms of score aggregation are in-itself aggregations. In the end, there is no discernable difference between them other than elitism. Citing a single audience rating could is problematic as self-published original research, but aggregate is not that, and I would argue, extremely meaningful. I will edit this policy if nobody objects.64.46.20.154 (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

See review bombing and similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The current words are mostly due to some edits in early 2019 e.g. here by RTG. Can you show an article which has been harmed by the sentence's existence? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Think tanks

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Think_tanks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Glen Greenwald talks with Tucker Carlson

No direction for action proposed. starship .paint (exalt) 11:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

Read the discussion here: [16] K.Q.1997 (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Great journalists like Chris Hedges, Matt Taibbi, and Glenn Greenwald have written that since around probably the 1990s corporatist elitists have controlled most of the mainstream media in the U.S.

Greenwald in particular is great at exposing these people, here is a great article from just today: [17]

There's a lot of literature on the ability to use paranoia and tribal fears in order to manipulate people. You know, when Obama used to be pressured by Marco Rubio and McCain and the hawks in the Democrat party, he used to say that Russia is not a scary power. They have an economy smaller than Italy, they are like a regional power at best and yet in the Democratic party mind, Vladimir Putin is like Darth Vader, Russia is an existential threat.

They've contaminated and infiltrated institutions, they are deliberately stoking the fear constantly among their liberal flock because doing so keeps them frightened, and keeping them frightened means that they are more submissive and more malleable to control. K.Q.1997 (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I propose we close this discussion.

It might also be useful to work on blocking K.Q.1997 per WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLE, WP:IDHT, and WP:ARBAP2. --Hipal (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2021 (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.

What if reliable sources contradict each other?

What if a reliable news source published an article that said A=B. But then three peer reviewed papers said A=A.

Would that make the news article questionable or unreliable, even thought the news source itself is considered reliable. I know this sounds weird but, it happens a good amount of times. (Especially around political issues).CycoMa (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

A=B does not necessarily contradict A=A. But to rephrase for what I think you're getting at, if media sources say 2+2=5, and all or the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed academic sources say 2+2=4, we go by the academic sources. This is per WP:Due weight, WP:SOURCETYPES, and WP:FRINGE. The news media articles would then be "undue" or "fringe" in our typical jargon. By political issues, I assume that rather than issues about current events in politics (not usually covered by academic sources and usually covered well by reliable news media), you mean politicized issues, such as climate change, GMOs, etc. In such cases, news media are even less reliable relative to academic sources, because they are far more subject to political bias from their own editorial stance and staff than academic publishing. This applies across the political spectrum. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It's complicated and depends on context. The basic answer is that we look at the relative weight and reliability of the sources. If one source (or group of sources) is clearly better than the others then we just go with them. If they're relatively close, or if both are strong enough and extensively cited that they can't reasonably be ignored, then we cover the difference, but it would still be important to accurately convey the relative weight of the two sides. Another factor is the time when they were published - later sources can sometimes reflect newer information. Peer-reviewed papers are usually better than news sources, all else being equal, but like everything else it gets complicated (three primary studies that haven't been cited many times published in obscure journals vs. front-page articles showing sustained coverage saying the same thing in every major paper of record, say, is not the same as three high-quality secondary studies with massive citation counts vs. one angry opinion piece in a news article.) Another thing to consider that is often worth trying is to read the sources carefully and make sure that they actually contradict, and if so how directly; few things are actually as simple as A=B vs. A=A. Some peer-reviewed papers are hard to interpret, and some news articles imply stuff without saying it. It may also help to look for additional high-quality secondary sources discussing the conflict or contradiction, which might make it more clear if one side was just mistaken, or if the difference reflects updated information, or if one side is WP:FRINGE, or if both sides are treated credibly in academia. --Aquillion (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I was asking because this is unfortunately very common. Like for example I have seen sources from a very respected news source make claims that went against what peer reviewed and books written by professionals in certain.

The funny thing was the facts from these news sources weren’t technically wrong, it’s the news source and the peer reviewed papers had different interpretations on the matter.

Not to mention the individuals in these news sources appeared to be experts on the matter.(Or at least to some degree.)

But when I did further research on the matter it was very obvious that the views in those news sources are a very small minority.(Too the point they appear to be fringe in a way.)CycoMa (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if we should address this directly in WP:V and WP:RS. Just a sentence that says "When reliable sources seem to contradict each other, see WP:DUE". Editors often seem to expect us to say "Oh, when there's a contradiction, then that means one of them isn't actually reliable." But that's not how it works: reliable sources can and do contradict each other. Have you ever heard someone say "Two economists, three opinions"? Contradictions are even more likely in the arts and pop culture. What's the music genre? Well, it's whatever the sources say, and if they disagree, then report all of the common claims. Don't look for a rule that makes all except one source get called "unreliable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Thanks for that, I get a basic grasp on that. But some of these contradictions can be extreme.

For example I have seen sources make claims like “experts think this about A” But when I read sources written by experts many of them say something different.

And this isn’t one of those cases where oh Cyco you must have read old outdated sources. Sure that may be the case but in some cases it isn’t.

For example I have seen well respected news sources post articles on why GMOs are dangerous. But, then I would read peer reviewed papers on the topic they say something different. And these peer reviews papers were published years before and years after news articles like that are made.

In weird cases especially when a topic may be controversial, experts from completely different fields of expertise say different things on basically the same topic. A certain view may be controversial to sociologists but, isn’t controversial towards biologists.

I research a lot on topics like gender, sexology, religion, or mythology and trust me you would be surprised how a certain view isn’t controversial among experts in one field but not controversial in the other.CycoMa (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I'd be surprised, @CycoMa. I think some sources are as prone to engaging in POV pushing as some editors. That doesn't make the sources unreliable; it just makes our work difficult.

Ideally, there'd be a high-quality cross-disciplinary source that says something like "When the psychologists say woman, they mean anyone who self-identifies that way, but when the biologists say woman, they mean any postpubescent human likely to be capable of getting pregnant, and when the lawyers say woman, they mean anyone who is (mis)treated like a woman", or whatever the equivalent is for the relevant subject. In my experience, there are too few such sources, but they are very useful when we can find them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Why does so much of this page just copy and paste WP:V?

WP:SOURCEDEF copies WP:SOURCE
WP:QUESTIONABLE copies WP:NOTRELIABLE
WP:RSSELF copies WP:SPS
WP:SELFSOURCE is word for word WP:ABOUTSELF with minor tweaks (like "article" -> "Wikipedia article")

Aren't duplicated sections like this a problem? They are just minor variations of the other, but it becomes arbitrary which section is linked to people, and sometimes one misses out on a point because they happened to read the different version to someone else. It also makes the PAGs look longer than they are. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Can I get your thoughts on this, as one of the resident experts in reliable sources? Can we streamline the wording either here or on WP:V? I think this page intends to be a complete summary on reliable sources from A to Z, which is fine, but then it'd be nice to see WP:V streamlined for duplication. This currently reads and flows much better than that page IMO. Or turn this back into "Identifying reliable sources" and move things like section 1 (definitions) and section 3 (policy on certain types of questionable sources) into WP:V? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok... time for some “history of the page”... We have tried “summarizing” as you have suggested (back sometime around 2007 to 2010)... what happened was that the two pages (WP:RS and WP:V) began to drift apart as “instruction creep” took hold. It got to the point where they began to contradict each other. We were constantly having to bring them back into alignment. What we discovered was that the drift was significantly less if we duplicated the text. Since then, the two pages have tended to remain in sync with each other. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

From BIASED: "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context."

What does this sentence mean? More generally, if I am reading it right, does it imply that biased sources may only be reliable in specific contexts? For context, I feel like the usual interpretation of policy is that bias alone cannot disqualify a source, and was considering WP:BIASED in the context of an RSP discussion for a site with extremely strident, fringe-y views. When I reread this sentence, my brain locked up for a moment because it seems to be written from the assumption that biases disqualify sources by default and that only a "specific context" can salvage them and make them usable. Am I misinterpreting it? Should it be reworded or eliminated, or should it be expanded on to discuss how strong biases may or may not limit the usages of a source and what contexts are appropriate to use them in? --Aquillion (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Good questions. I don't know the original intent here, so I'll just offer some thoughts for consideration.

When the opposing biases found on both sides are mild and close to center, they may exist without ignoring or distorting the facts, and thus both may be truly "reliable" and usable.

As one gets further from center, biases tend to distort things, leaving neither or only one side enough in touch with reality to be considered reliable. That seems to be the explanation, at least during the Trump era, for why any Trump-friendly bias immediately rendered the source as likely unreliable and a pusher of his lies, while opposing sources with strong bias were still fairly accurate and usable. Those sources were still judged by fact checkers to be reliably accurate, even with their biases.

So here's the relevant connection to this thread. If a source is factually accurate in a specific context, then any bias is irrelevant and the source can be used in that context.

Some biases are good because they are still tethered to facts, while others are disqualifying because they let their agenda trump the facts. That's what Trump did and still does. Facts are an inconvenient nuisance to him, so any source favorable to him is suspect, and no context can change those lies to truth. -- Valjean (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion, imagine:

A state-controlled newspaper says that Paul Politician is now the Big Guy at the Department of Administrative Affairs.
Paul's mother self-publishes her joy at his promotion on social media.

These are situations in which we might have a biased or otherwise unreliable source that could be reliable in the specific context of the claim being made in the article. State-controlled media is pretty reliable on the question of party and government titles; you might not want to trust anything else in the article, but it's probably got those facts right. One's own mother is biased but probably (reasonably) honest.

Since you were looking at a source with strident and fringe-y views, it's probably more relevant to remember that all sources are reliable for something (e.g., a self-published anonymous social media account that published "Dewey Defeats Truman" would be a reliable source for a statement that said "One social media account published the following words: "Dewey Defeats Truman"), and that the general problem with fringe-y views is that they are WP:UNDUE, not that you can't find some nominally reliable source that thoughtlessly repeated them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

My problem is that the rest of WP:BIASED does not contain anything that implies that a source can be rendered unreliable solely due to bias. This sentence implies that that is possible (by indicating, implicitly, that there are some biased sources that are, due to their bias, only reliable in a specific context.) If that's genuinely the case then it should be made more clear and the idea of contextual reliability from bias ought to be elaborated on. --Aquillion (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this sentence is trying to address the fact that reliability isn’t binary - ie Context matters. A source that would be deemed unreliable in ‘’most’’ situations can be quite reliable in a few specific situations (such as when cited to verify a direct quote or close paraphrase).

The problem is that this caveat really has nothing to do with whether the source is biased or not. It is a valid caveat for ANY source that would normally be deemed unreliable - regardless of bias. So it is out of place in a section that focuses on bias. Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

While I agree in principle with Blueboar, in practice, if the context-matters principle isn't repeated in that specific section, then we will get more pointless disputes of the "WP:RS says that biased sources are okay, so you can't say my fringe-y website is too biased to be reliable" sort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

What if a writer of a source comes out and says they aren’t defending a view

There are situations where I have seen writers in recent years that make articles that claim certain things. But when asked about it on social media the writer admits they aren’t defending a certain view. What do we do about this?CycoMa (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: - examples? Do we use this information on Wiki? starship .paint (exalt)

I can’t currently remember examples but I have seen writers of certain sources come out and say that people are misinterpreting what they were saying on the matter. Or what they were writing was merely a thought experiment.CycoMa (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

When sources (including any of the following: other parts of the same document, other closely related documents [e.g., the next article in a series], the author, and/or the publisher) says that they do not defend a view or that they did not mean what they wrote, then editors should normally not use that source for those claims. Apply the same pattern that editors use for Retractions in academic publishing or when a newspaper issues a correction. If you need to say something about it (e.g., all the times politicians said something controversial while the cameras were rolling, and then later claimed that they never said that), then you should be able to find a separate source that talks about the situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The other thing I'd add is: sometimes a source that makes claims but doesn't defend them is a great source. Think about the sources that describe other religions: "The _____ believe that when the universe was created..." or "The _____ believe that when faced with an unjust attack, it is better to..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Supervisors of a dissertation who have had books published

In researching a song, I came across an unpublished PhD dissertation that included discussion that I thought would benefit the article for the song. I plan on working to get the article to FA status eventually and would like to get a sense as to whether or not quoting this dissertation is going to bog things down. In the Scholarship section of this page, the bullet on completed dissertations includes the sentence, "If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties." In this case, two of the four professors who approved the dissertation have Wikipedia biography pages that each list more than one book that's been published. Do their published works qualify them as recognized specialists? Danaphile (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is more than enough support. Rjensen (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Danaphile, if you found it on the web, it's not 'unpublished'. Unpublished = not available to the general public. (It might be self-published.)

This is one of those areas where editors disagree, so do your best, and ask for help if a dispute arises. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed reword for WP:HEADLINE

WP:HEADLINE :

Current: News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source. [...]

Propose: News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source then cite it from the body. [...]

Reasons:

It is shorter (yeay, chuckle), and I believe more clear.
I believe it better reflects the RFC consensus. The bolded RFC closure[18] was: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Reliability in specific contexts should include a new subsection to state that headlines are unreliable.
I supported the RFC that created WP:HEADLINE. I reviewed the !votes in that RFC, and as an experienced closer myself it seems clear to me that consensus intended to prohibit citing a claim from a headline when the body cannot support that claim.
And in particular, when I was on general RFC rounds as an uninvolved observer, I came across a relatively new account wikilaywering that the current text of WP:HEADLINE grants them an exemption to source "Nazi" or "neo-Nazi" from headlines, even though the words don't exist outside the headlines. They are disregarding the phrase "explicitly supported", they are disregarding Wikipedia's standard for a source "supporting" a claim, and they are arguing that - in their opinion - the bodies "support" the title under the most vague and nonspecific common usage of the word "support". They claim the current text grants an exception allowing that, and they implicitly accused another editor of bad faith for ignoring (their interpretation) of the current text.

The current text basically attempts to say that it is ok to source a claim from the headline only if you could also source that claim from the body. In principal that makes sense, but in practice that is useless and actively unhelpful. If you can source it from the body, then source it from the body. If you can't source it from the body then the headline is not sufficiently supported (under our meaning of "supported"), and we don't want motivated-argument trying to claim a free pass in between. Alsee (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I could get behind that. I think it is basically always better to source text from the body rather than the headline. So making that explicate rather than implicate is a good thing. PackMecEng (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Works for me, and more clearly reflects the RFC. Schazjmd (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I will provisionally make this change now. We have "unanimous" support of three, and the editor who had interpreted it differently has actively not-objected. They are aware of this proposal and they have commented perhaps it should be rewritten to reflect its actual meaning.^{(Diff available if needed.)} They are free to comment here, but it appears they did not wish to. Alsee (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Yea that seems fine. Even if the information is technically verifiable from both the headline and the body, the headline will almost always lack any sort of context. By the way, I was the one who added —including subheadlines— based on a short discussion. If someone thinks there's a better way to re-word it, then please suggest it. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I dissent. The reference to headlines deals with Yellow journalism and not with standard sources like NY Times, Washington POST, Wall Street Journal etc. The latter editors are very careful to succinctly report the main news in headlines. They rely on annual electronic subscriptions not on sales of individual copies. Rjensen (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Where in the RFC was it determined that the guidance against citing headlines was only for "yellow journalism"? I don't see it in the close or the discussion. (And what outlets that fall within "yellow journalism" would we even accept as a reliable source?) Schazjmd (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

That is kind of the issue with the vague wording Rjensen introduced here. It takes something easy to follow with clear and defined principles and makes it vague and gameable. With no added benefit that I can see. PackMecEng (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The key assumption about attention grabbing headlines is false for prestige papers in 2021. They rely on annual electronic subscriptions and misleading headlines would hurt their competition for a national upscale market. There are indeed tabloids that still use sensationalism but in my experience they seldom used by Wikipedia editgors these days. Rjensen (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

That is contrary to the sources presented in that large RFC and the general consensus around the subject from it. PackMecEng (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Try reading "Distinguishing Scholarly from Non-Scholarly Periodicals: A Checklist of Criteria: Sensational" from Cornell Rjensen (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, but that does not overrule consensus from a RFC with such participation. PackMecEng (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Rjensen the RFC consensus was not "unreliable sources have unreliable headlines", it was that news headlines in general are notably less reliable than the body. There can be issues with headlines for a number of reasons. Even if info in a headline is "correct", it may be lacking important context if it isn't directly covered in the body. Your concern would only relevant if the article body actually does fail to include key information from the headline - which should be rare for NY Times. If a NY Times headline isn't fully supported by the body, and you can't source that info elsewhere, that is sufficiently abnormal to be a red flag that we should wait until we find a source that does directly discuss that info. Alsee (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I support this change; it seems to be a more faithful reading of the RfC close and it's more clear. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Support and relying on headlines is either laziness or editorial malpractice. And the RfC applies to all of the media. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem comes up when we have the headline but not the full text of the article. in that case Current: News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source. [...] allows us to use the headline while the proposed alternative does not ==Propose: News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source then cite it from the body. The proposal replaces pretty-good information with ignorance. Rjensen (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. If we have a headline but not the full text, we cannot verify that the headline is explicitly supported in the body, so the current wording still would not allow that. (And an editor basing content on a headline without being able to read the full text of the source is doing the project a disservice.) Schazjmd (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Rjensen please don't do that. Misleading refs create a far more difficult cleanup problem than no ref at all. It sometimes takes years before some editor digs in and figures out that apparently reffed claims fail WP:Verification. Alsee (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Support - the change more closely matches the RFC result. Levivich 23:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Self-published and independent sources

The guideline about WP:SELFSOURCE currently says:

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources.

I suspect that I agree with what's intended. However, it's odd that this is in the section about self-publishing, because the independence (are you paid to write something?) of a source is unrelated to the question of whether the source is self-published (is there an editor/publisher who can refuse to publish your article, or are you in charge of the whole process?). If you go out to eat at a restaurant and later tweet that it's your favorite restaurant, you're independent, but self-published.

IMO articles should primarily be WP:Based upon sources that are both independent (no COI, no money changing hands, etc.) of the subject and also non-self-published (not blog posts or tweets, even if those self-published sources were written by experts – those can be used, but only for a minority of content). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Independence of source is a factor that varies based on topic, just like primary/secondary distinction. The restaurant tweet, for example, would be independent of the restaurant but not independent for the person tweeting it. But even in such a case, and lets say that a famous food critic tweeted that about a notable restaurant, we'd not want to use that source, but would prefer that the critic had written it in her column that was published in a newspaper that had been reviewed by an editor. So I would agree that the idea is that we want to prefer the use of the "opposite" of what a self-published source, which I guess is "reviewed" ? "non-self-published"? I don't know if there's an easy term for that. --Masem (t) 23:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The term of the art on wiki appears to be "non-self-published" or sometimes, more casually, we'll say "properly published".

One way to change this could be: "Use of self-~~sourced~~published material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from ~~independent~~ sources that are not self-published."

Another way to change this could be to move (or copy) that sentence to another part of the guideline, and say "Use of ~~self-sourced material~~ sources that are affiliated with the subject should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there: if it were up to me, we'd blacklist Twitter (and other social media sites) entirely. I can't imagine a "source" more WP:UNDUE than a tweet that got no attention in secondary published sources. If a tweet is worth discussing on Wikipedia, it has secondary sources that people can use to get to it if they want. And I've seen tweets be cited without any secondary sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Research on this page

Hi, I just wanted to link to an article about this page called "Unreliable Guidelines". It critiques the guidelines for not citing sources themselves, among other things. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

thank you Rachel Helps (BYU) for posting this! Shameran81 (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Rachel Helps (BYU)! I've been reading this and it's really interesting. Could someone please advise what the best process would be for having a discussion about updating the RS guidance with a) citations and b) potentially more different sources? Zeromonk (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm I think the village pump on policy would be a good place to start. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little leery of requiring citations to our guidelines, but in the case of searching for trustworthy sources, there is a lot of good material out there (though how we'd determine if that material is reliable is somewhat of an exercise in circular logic), so this might be viable.

I'm all for adjusting our guidelines in a way that helps bring marginalized voices further into use, though (as an editor who works in the subjects of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience) I'm also concerned about the potential for abuse by proponents of falsehood who frequently like to portray themselves as a marginalized community. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I would point out that WP:MEDRS is actually well sourced, given the rigors of that guideline (and I'm surprised that nor SCIRS are mentioned in this paper). --Masem (t) 15:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

One way to explore updating the RS guidelines would be to focus on a particular marginalized group where there is existing published literature on media literacy around that group. Such literature exists for Indigenous peoples of Canada and the U.S.[19] Also, while it is laudable to try to improve guidelines for many marginalized people at once, in a 2018 RfC there was strong opposition to the idea of having Wikipedians be put into a position of deciding who is marginalized and who is not. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Determining if a source is reliable or unreliable

I'm going to make a post without political opinions and commentary because apparently that is not allowed in this section of Wikipedia which I have been made aware of. Please do not close the discussion. I'm only asking questions here in good faith and trying to better understand how Wikipedia operates.

Two questions about reliable sources:

-What are the criteria used for determining if a news source is reliable for usage on Wikipedia?

-What are the credentials Wikipedia editors have that enables them to determine if a source is reliable and/or accurate?

K.Q.1997 (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Judging from Special:Contributions/K.Q.1997, I'd say you're quickly heading towards a WP:NOTHERE/WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT block... But on the off chance you're genuinely curious, see WP:CONSENSUS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@K.Q.1997: (1) Wikipedia:Reliable sources have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest. (2) This is Wikipedia, so Wikipedia editors have the ability to decide is reliable and/or accurate for Wikipedia, per community-based processes involving multiple editors, usually at WP:RSN. Sounds like a similar question to: "What credentials do you have to live in a house you own?" (exalt) 02:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Message to other users posting here: please don't threaten me with a block for simply asking questions in the appropriate place regarding reliable sources. Looks like only one editor answered my questions since I first posted almost 2 weeks ago (not surprising that people here aren't helpful). To reply to the one person who did take the time to give an honest answer I will just say in response to starship .paint writing "Wikipedia editors have the ability to decide is reliable and/or accurate for Wikipedia, per community-based processes involving multiple editors", where does something like groupthink and political bias come into play when deciding if a source is reliable? I ask that question in good faith because to be honest when I read certain political articles on this site it seems much closer to being a propaganda outlet for certain political points of view instead of a neutral reliable encyclopedia, and I know many many people who feel the same way. K.Q.1997 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@K.Q.1997: - is groupthink possible? Yes. Is political bias possible? Also yes. Both of which is possible because simply, we are human. For some editors (not referring to anyone in particular), bias can be intentional, for other editors, bias can be unintentional. Does it mean that every single source's reliability has been determined by groupthink and/or political bias? Not necessarily. Now, on your point about certain political articles on this site it seems much closer to being a propaganda outlet for certain political points of view instead of a neutral reliable encyclopedia - there's different phenomenon at play here. First phenomenon - I would say more obscure articles tend to attract supporters of the subject, because this is a volunteer project, after all, and who would put in effort to maintain these articles than fans? Second phenomenon - bias in reliable sources. Obviously the approved U.S. news sources lean more left than right. As such, coverage of political issues at least, for the most popular articles, maybe they lean left. Unfortunately, many popular right-wing sources don't have a good record of reliability. We can't trust right-wing sources whose news articles are following Trump's wild claims, because of the tenuous relationship with the truth. How I wish there were more right-wing sources like the WSJ news section - you can read WP:RERIGHT on that. starship .paint (exalt) 02:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

This policy was the death knell of the Wikipedia project -- essentially handing it over to mainstream media and all the biases thereof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.68.187 (talk) 11:02, June 2021 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, many popular right-wing sources don't have a good record of reliability" question for Starship.paint and any editors who have knowledge on this topic - why is that the case? Also Starship.paint said "We can't trust right-wing sources whose news articles are following Trump's wild claims" but the a**hole is out of office now for 6 months so does that mean that all of those outlets/papers (e.g. Fox News, NY Post, etc.) are unreliable forever? I still don't understand the difference in terms of reliability between WSJ, Fox News, WaPo, and NY Times. Obviously the latter two lean left and the former two lean right but Fox News is considered unreliable for politics. I realize Fox has a bias toward Trump but why does that wipe away everything else they do in terms of reporting. NYT and WaPo and CNN reported for two plus years on possible "collusion" between Trump and Russia which turned out to basically be a conspiracy theory. Why aren't those three organizations now discredited and labeled as partisan pro-Democrat outlets (which of course they are to any clear-thinking human) the way Fox News is a partisan pro-GOP outlet? The hypocrisy, arrogance, elitism, and double standard is what annoys a lot people. The good news for the elitists who edit Wikipedia and think these sources are somehow neutral unbiased news sources: almost 60% of likely U.S. likely voters think mainstream media is the enemy of the people.[20] And keep in mind that's only "likely voters", the real number is almost certainly higher. K.Q.1997 (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@K.Q.1997: - even if Trump is out of office, false and misleading claims still exist. It's not really about bias, it's more about what is based on reality. We can have biased sources as long as these sources are reality-based. Pro-GOP, pro-Trump, pro-Democrat, pro-libertarianism, pro-whatever. I wouldn't agree that "collusion" is basically a conspiracy theory, based on the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election#Findings on Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik. Also, while there wasn't 'fire' in this case, the Trump Tower meeting did happen ('smoke'), and Trump and his son made misleading statements about it, certainly warranting a suspicion of collusion. Lastly, we don't care what U.S. likely voters think. starship .paint (exalt) 04:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia should care what U.S. citizens think because many people will (and do) view this "neutral encyclopedia" as a partisan liberal establishment propaganda outlet that pushes narratives over truth and reality. Even the co-founder of Wikipedia recently confirmed how biased and partisan Wikipedia has become--read this article[21].

56% of Americans said they agreed with the following statement: "Journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations" and "59% said they agree with the statement most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public.” Also 61% of Americans think that “The media is not doing well at being objective and non-partisan.” according to this reliable article[22]. As fas as the "Trump colluded with Russia conspiracy theory" the Senate Intelligence Chair Marco Rubio (who yes is GOP but is no fan of Trump) said last year after a long exhaustive intelligence report was released on alleged collusion “We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election." And making "misleading statements" does not equal colluding with a foreign government to influence an election. The Manafort stuff you brought up is nothing since it's all redacted. Also the Washington Post (an elitist partisan propaganda news outlet just like NY Times) even says "Manafort's connection with the Russian hack and leak operation is largely unknown". K.Q.1997 (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Some type of sources section needs to fix a potential loophole

The first paragraph of the "Some types of sources section" says that academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks as very reliable sources, and allows flexibility in its usage by this caveat:

However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field

. In my opinion we can improve the wording on the caveat part of this section. There's a potential loophole in the current version, specifically when a review paper of low quality is presented. The low quality may happen because of it being published in a low-ranked journal, or by a non-expert, or by it being not entering the academic discourse (for example, when the review paper receives no citations despite having been published more than a year ago). In my opinion, we can stregthen the wording of the caveat part of this section by introducing some sort of failsafe text that prevents an editor to game the system, which can hypothetically happen when a low-quality review paper is diametrically opposed to most research in primary sources, and there are no other review papers to counter it. In this case, the editor may weaponize Wikipedia: Scholarship to hold the position in the review paper above the position of the better primary sources. Forich (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

When a Wikipedia editor decides that the lone review is wrong, then the policy's default is that the Wikipedia editor is wrong. At most, a Wikipedia editor's POV on the source could be used to exclude the source – not to write the opposite. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Beall source

Dhaluza: the Jeffrey Beall source you now appear to be edit warring over [23], [24], or you are in violation of WP:BRD, is in no way barred by WP:SPS on this page. There is no "irony" about it. Please undo your out-of-process revert and incorrect application of SPS to change a longstanding part of the guideline. The Beall source is useful for identifying predatory journals, and its removal can only support predatory journals. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

And I've restored the link. Dhaluza, stop removing it without consensus. Beall's criteria are useful and relevant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I was actually applying WP:BRB since your comment was ambiguous, so please don't accuse me of edit warring. The Beall source is SPS, and not essential since there are several other sources. Dhaluza (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The Beall source complies with proper sourcing on this page, including WP:SPS; since your only reason for removal was a misapplication or misunderstanding of WP:SPS, my edit summary should have been clear to you. And you should have opened this talk page discussion before you reverted. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, @Dhaluza, BRB requires making a different bold edit, not making the same rejected edit again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)