Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 68

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

→

Archive 72

Stronger warning against using predatory journals as source

WP:RSN, WP:FRINGEN and WT:MED notified of the discussion.

Nikkimaria reverted the following twice [1]. I strongly disagree that this warning is 'misplaced'. Predatory journals are worse than SPS sources because many (though certainly not all) academics use them as a way to actively avoid peer review. This is well documented ([2], [3]). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of low quality predatory journals, and probably some academics who use them to get a CV item without the rigor, but a newspaper article that makes it seem like universities are filled with lazy-selfish professor tropes doesn't make that a consensus interpretation of the state of academic publishing. Your characterization here with "many (though certainly not all)" makes it sound like an epidemic. Maybe it's more common in some other fields compared to the ones I have experience with, but if I may get anecdotal for a moment, I cannot imagine any of the academics I know submitting to these unless they just didn't know what they were getting into. There's also the issue that a few Wikipedians seem to paint "predatory publisher" with a wide brush that doesn't include just those which lack peer review/rigor, which makes me uneasy with intensifying the language beyond what's already there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"like universities are filled with lazy-selfish professor tropes doesn't make that a consensus interpretation of the state of academic publishing", that's not at all what any of this say. We're not talking about the state of academic publishing, where a random prof publishing a random article in a random journal, but the state of predatory publishing, where a random prof publishing a random article in a predatory journal. The part about the journal being predatory is the key thing here. There's basically three classes of situations where someone might publish in a predatory journal. The first being that they were fooled into thinking it was a reputable journal. In that case the author wants to do the right thing, but got denied legitimate peer review (this is well documented), meaning what's published is basically an unreviewed draft (which is a very different beast from a expert's blog post, where the expert author knows they are unreviewed, and can take safeguards against making claims that mislead the public). The second situation is they were a scholar is under pressure to publish something to pad their CV (again, this is well documented, see both sources linked above, though there literally dozens of publications on this very issue). And the third is that they can't get published in a legitimate journal because their ideas cannot get past the peer review process, so must resort to predatory publishing (also well documented in dozens of papers). This is why predatory publishing is bad, not just because 'they're blog-like', but rather because what is published in them either got denied the peer review they were expecting to happen, or was actively trying to avoid peer review. In the former, the author was expecting good faith errors in logic, oversights, etc... to get caught, but were denied legitimate review. In the later, such errors are made in bad faith and they won't get caught because the author never intended for them to get caught. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

While I understand there may be strong feelings on this issue, I don't feel the content removed is beneficial to this guideline. It's not in most cases possible to definitively identify why a piece ended up being published in a predatory journal, in particular whether that was in good faith or bad. It's also possible that other types of publication, eg a blog, are published in that venue to actively avoid peer review. What's important for readers of this guideline to understand is that these works are essentially the same as SPS and have not been subject to expert review - and the existing text conveys that without the additional characterizations. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Last year, I heard from a prof who had just discovered that the department chair was steering their pre-tenure assistant professors towards publishing in predatory journals. It did not seem to be a one-off accident. (It did seem to be a good way to make sure those people couldn't ever get a better-paying job elsewhere.)

I wouldn't necessarily describe journals with weak or non-existent peer review as being the same as a self-published source, although in some cases, calling the journal a vanity press might be a fair description (or even overly kind to the journal). I might describe them as being similar to a book or an op-ed article in terms of the scientific vetting. Books and opinion pieces are also not peer-reviewed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Nikkimaria on this. On Headbomb's classification, I don't think that anyone deliberately submits sub-standard work to a journal they believe to be reputable with the hope that the review will improve it. Reputable journals only accept a fraction of what is submitted to them and that approach will most likely lead to rejection. Zero^talk 00:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It's really not that you're submitting what you yourself think is substandard work, it's that you can have an idea, work on it, thinks it's the bee's knees and all that, but everyone has blind spots and can have brain farts. For example, I reviewed a paper years ago that was trying to relate the energy dissipated by volleyball impacts to concussion/injury potential (e.g. you're getting a volleyball smash to the head). But injury potential is actually much more correlated with the force of the impact, rather than energy dissipated, because cushioning is rather important in impacts (which is, you know, why stunt people prefer to fall on a mattresses, rather than concrete floors, even though your impact energy is the same in both case). I never heard back from the journal/authors (I had left my position, so the journal had no way of contacting me), but I did notice a reworked version of the paper about a year later. And what do you know, their final versions framed things in terms of impact force. Their data wasn't wrong, but their analysis was flawed. These sort of improvements / corrections are routine in science, and is why the peer-review process exists in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

a newspaper article that makes it seem like universities are filled with lazy-selfish professor tropes doesn't make that a consensus interpretation of the state of academic publishing No, but articles like these do support Headbomb's view as a consensus position per WP:MEDSCI: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] It shows that authors publish in these journals from A) ignorance, B) pressure from publish-or-perish academic models of tenure, and C) a need to publish quickly, without the typical long and drawn out process of review from legitimate scholarship. These incentives make these publications particularly egregious violations of sourcing standards on Wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Not all predatory journals have anything to do with medicine or science, so MEDSCI is not necessarily relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Returning to the text that was reverted by Nikkimaria, it’s unclear to me what it’s actually adding. The title to this thread refers to a “stronger warning”. It doesn’t seem to do that - it’s just adding speculation of why authors may chose to publish in a predatory journal. The outcome remains that articles there should be treated as WP:SPS. Seems unnecessary to speculate on motvation. DeCausa (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I don’t think the text is a very useful summary, nor does it even achieve what Headbomb seems to want (i.e. a stronger warning against predatory journals). I agree with Rhododendrites that some Wikipedians paint with a broad brush on this topic. I note Zero0000 says that Reputable journals only accept a fraction of what is submitted to them. Given journals necessarily accept fewer things than are submitted, that is literally true, but the fraction isn’t always tiny. Open science says we should publish everything that is methodologically sound and open access journals in this tradition publish a higher proportion of what is submitted. Bondegezou (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree that we should have the strongest possible wording against predatory journals. To address some comments above, these journals are worse than "Open science", because predatory journals literally subvert the process of peer review by either neutering it completely (as in the case of Scientific Reports) or avoiding it altogether (as with the pay to play journals on Beall's List). These are not merely Self-published. Most predatory journals likely need to be deprecated, as they publish demonstrably bad/false/plagiarized content without regard for whether it is real science. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Guidelines never fail if they give a rationale for their content. Headbomb's "at best" is obviously the crucial point of the amendment, but the additional text provides valuable background to explain why sources from predatory journals are not on par with SPS. –Austronesier (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  When you add fifty-five words to a rule without actually changing the rule itself, you do fail – to be concise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  I am in agreement with WAID here; the new words are unlikely to be read, and don't change anything. They just add 55 words, and long guidelines don't get read. I don't support this addition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• I like the addition. It explains the problem more fully, which makes the guideline more useful. Nor does it strike me as particularly speculative in its phrasing; it just sums up what's known to happen. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'd omit it, because it seems unnecessary. This might be a good explanation to add to Wikipedia:Vanity and predatory publishing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• The addition is just stating the obvious for those working in the field, but it may be useful information for those unfamiliar with publishing. As it stands the guideline is illogical: it says that given the lack of peer-review predatory journals should at best be treated as self-published sources. If lack of peer-review were the only problem they should always be treated as self-published sources. Tercer (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. This is why the addition is not just extra, excess verbiage: without some amount of explanation, people less familiar with academic publishing are more likely to miss the problem. XOR'easter (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Would putting the proposed additional explanatory text (to the existing warning) in a footnote be a reasonable compromise? Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't really see why it should be a footnote, but I'd be fine with it personally. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It's just something I've seen done on other policy pages for explanations that don't change the meaning of the policy--wondering if that is a good fit here. Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I really like footnotes, they're a good way to keep text easy to read while still having an explanation available for people who can't necessarily immediately understand the reasoning. I think, for the content under discussion, it's a good option - because I agree with others who say that it doesn't actually provide additional warning against it. Personally, I think there should be harsher restrictions around the use of predatory journals, not because the quality of writing is worse or for the specific text under contention in the guideline currently, but because of how readers interpret the source. People assume that a journal is a reliable source. People do not assume that a blog is a reliable source. In order to counter-balance that, we really should have tighter restrictions/language against their use as compared to how we use a blog. I just don't think the specific text under discussion is the right text to portray that, to me it just demonstrates that predatory publishers are a real issue (valuable information, but not additional warning). --Xurizuri (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• I have to say I find the issue a little less clear-cut. It's true that it is an evil for a publisher to create a journal that describes itself as having peer review when the publication criterion is a purely commercial one, but there's a lot of pretence about peer review in scholarly publication: prestigious journals like PNAS appear to fairly regularly have 'soft' editing of 'sexy' results that are well-suited to journalistic coverage: in a sense, this is the same evil. And while respectable journals go through the motions of peer review, it's clearly an increasingly hard task for editors to ensure that at least one reviewer performs their task conscientiously. Then in full awareness of the increasingly flawed nature of peer review, editors display considerable reluctance to retract articles known to be flawed. And its hard to know where exactly to draw the line between predatory and non-predatory: Beall appears to have made some false accusations in compiling his list. An issue, yes, but an issue that draws away attention from more urgent problems in academic publishing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

That's more a debate concerning if a certain journal is predatory, rather than what to do when the journal is predatory. The footnote idea seems to have traction, so I'll restore as a footnote for now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

CC BY-SA cartoon

https://wuzzy.neocities.org/comic/95 is CC BY-SA according to https://wuzzy.neocities.org/meta/credits . Could make a nice addition to the page after uploading to Commons. Though humour can be risky, even if self-deprecating. Any support/oppose? Boud (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it really fits this particular page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Using published article of an Wikipedian

I'm seeking advises on the usage of articles that've been written by authors/writers who also happen to contribute to Wikipedia and these articles are published on news websites etc. which aren't user-generated anyway. Is it okay to use such articles as a reference on Wikipedia articles? Also, what if someone gets his/her article on a certain subject published somewhere and they use it as a reference on a Wikipedia article? I don't know where to ask this and came here to clarify my doubt. Regards, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 12:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, this shouldn't come under WP:SPS because this isn't self-published... ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 12:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_yourself what you were looking for? Vexations (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Vexations, Yep. Thanks! ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 12:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you give a specific example? It sounds like you're talking about BigCityNewspaper.com doing an article on somebody, finding the wikipedia article about them and re-publishing that verbatim? In theory, anything BCN publishes on their site is under their editorial oversight, but if what they're doing is republishing wikipedia content verbatim, I'd be very surprised if they gave it the same kind of fact-checking they would for an original piece, so I'd be inclined to not trust it as a WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that somebody is a Wikipedian should not affect the status of something published elsewhere as a reliable source. Example: David Langford is the publisher of Ansible, one of the most reliable sources of news and information leads in the field of science fiction and science fiction fandom. The fact that he is an occasional editor here (as DeafMan) should not affect that, for good or ill. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If you flip that case around, where you may have a prolific Wikipedia editor that occasionally can get an article or two published in an RS, and they are the sole author on an article about X, then their own addition of material from their article about X may be a bit of COI. --Masem (t) 15:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Masem, I agree with that. There's a bit of COI, and notes need to be made when citing such sources per WP:SELFCITE. But in any case, if they are reliable and independent of the subject (article on which they're used), I don't see any problem, unless the related author of the cited-article doesn't excessively cite it on a plenty of Wikipedia articles. It is okay to "self-cite" from a reliable, secondary, and independent source in case of a need. This is what I've come to understand. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 15:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say it is generally okay to self-cite as long as the sourced piece is as far as possible from the qualities of an SPS. It will be a case-by-case evaluation but definitely not disallowed. --Masem (t) 15:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, so, I recently had an article that was written by the guy who had invented this (obscure) scientific methodology. His cites were to all to papers in legit scientific journals, poeer-reviewed I assume, but they were all written by him. That's a notability issue, but is it a COI issue? After all he is promoting his own theory, but that is part of the job of an academic, to do outreach and education to the lay public. Articles in Discover magazine or whatever. Their university likes when the do this. If Discover, why not the Wikipedia? Herostratus (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

well, it's obviously a COI, and if they are spamming it will be sanctioned (and also WP:SELFCITE). But in general - since Wikipedia's rules on COI are completely toothless, it doesn't even matter. Our COI rules only say "editing while having a COI is discouraged"... so yeah. nobody really needs to care (sadly). --Mvbaron (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Is https://www.b-westerns.com a reliable source?

I am working on an article, and I was wondering if this website is considered a reliable source for me to use. Specifically, I'm using the page https://www.b-westerns.com/henchie8.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorzombie1212 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It says it is a 'fan site'. So unlikely to be seen as WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

are you update and know when its start up to now? for all you know, you should do what necessary words/script to type[user: aning] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8f8:1129:8925:e594:2a50:5cfd:cecd (talk • contribs) 14:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Please read the top of this page which explains that questions re a particular source's reliability in context belong at WP:RSN. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

In a word, no. It's clearly a prohibited self-published source, and is almost certainly not a "independent, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree Abdul Baqi1960 (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source on ingredients

What is the reliable source for ingredients list on a chemical compound. I was rejected for using the legally mandated ingredients list provided by the manufacture, I was rejected for using a photo I took of the ingredients list on the bottle.

What is the reliable authoritative source for confirming that a product does contain a chemical if i cant cite the company that produces it?

Do I need to sponsor a published lab report on the subject, or would paying for a lab report constitute a self reference? TheAuthoritativeSource (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheAuthoritativeSource I have responded on the talk page of the article in question with a suggestion for a source for the specific claim you are asking about. However, for future reference, this type of question will get more response on the Reliable sources noticeboard. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources has an RFC

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

What do you do when you were awaiting a response to an argument but the thread gets archived?

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#Punknews.org. Thanks, dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• I would assume no one felt the need to respond. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  Blueboar, would one not assume on this particular case that in the case provided, we would at least want some sort of feedback on the concerns that were brought forward in the comments? It leaves us with a rather muddy consensus. dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A muddy consensus is quite common. What I would suggest is waiting a bit (perhaps few months) and then raise the issue again. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Patents = RS?

So what is the deal on patents: are they RS? Patents can be carefully reviewed with regards to the originality of the claims, but they are not refereed in the same rigor as peer-review journals. Of course they are primary sources. Often they seem notable as proof of discovery however.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I definitely think a patent has enough review to count as a reliable source, but as you say they are a primary source so can only be used for straight statements from the patent and I'd have though one should make clear such statements come from the patent declaration. What kind of problem have you got as the precse situation can often matter? I can see there might be a problem if a secondary source says someone else invented something first. If t is important then I think you need to set up a talk page discussion first to get consensus that there is a problem in the secondary source and how the problem should be resolved. NadVolum (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Patents should only be treated as reliable records of who, when and what they claim. The instructional part of a patent should not be considered reliable for the thing it is meant to teach. The claims portion is simply a list of claims and should only be reliable for "Patent No. claimed X" type statements. Even that can get harry when we mix engineering and legal languages together. A patent that teaches a mechanism that does X (say a clock escapement) may not actually work or may not deliver the performance advantages claimed. So a patent that claims A=B should not be seen as reliable evidence that A=B, only that the people on the patent made that claim. They also shouldn't be treated as "proof" of discovery though they should be used as proof of patenting. I would see it as similar to using statements made in court as reliable evidence for what happened. Springee (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Patents really aren't reviewed all that much, even for originality. That is why public appeals for prior art will happen before litigation - the patent examiners don't have the time or resources to do a thorough job. They definitely don't review for accuracy - for example, here is a patent covering a purported discovery that can deflect gravity. Obviously, if it actually worked it would've been rather big news. There is no shortage of patented free energy devices, antigravity machines, and other nonsense. MrOllie (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

See also British Rail flying saucer. A patent is a 'reliable source' only for its own existence, as a legal claim to intellectual property rights. They don't constitute 'proof' of anything of consequence beyond that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for the comments and helpful advice. I think that the message is that a patent is a particular narrow source for certain things. Occasionally in chemistry, editors cite patents to (i) show precedent ("we came up with the idea first") and to (ii) claim some invention/knowledge/fact. My conclusions to the above advice is that (i) is ok (indeed you got there first), but (ii) is not reliable (your results are not credible in the Wiki-verse). If that analysis is ok, I propose that we incorporate these conclusions into the the WP:RS article. --Smokefoot (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It would not be acceptable for a Wikipedia editor to cite a patent to demonstrate that someone came up with an idea before someone else; that requires specialized knowledge and interpretation of those primary sources that we don't do here. I think that the acceptable uses of a patent in Wikipedia are fairly rare and probably mostly focused on providing links-of-convenience for readers when a reliable, secondary source mentions the patent. ElKevbo (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yup. Patents don't prove precedent. They shouldn't be cited at all unless discussed in secondary RS, and can't be used for statements of fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with and reinforce what Springee, NadVolum and AndyTheGrump said. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's think this through because the patent is a public record. Dr A files a patent on X in 1957. All other literature starts in the 1960's. It would be fair and even useful to tell readers that the X was first reported/mentioned/described by Dr. A. It might be even more useful to tell readers that X was discovered by Dr A.

In any case look at the claims in this article TPPTS.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

But if the literature doesn't mention the patent, saying it's the first or even on topic would probably be WP:OR. And if the literature mentions the patent, the patent is not needed for WP-purposes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You can patent a method of doing something, or a device, that doesn't actually work, so saying that Person X discovered a method of making Lucy Liubots based solely on the patent doesn't hold up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I want one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

How about a Craft Using an Inertial Mass Reduction Device or a High frequency gravitational wave generator. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC

Ha,ha,ha but not useful snark. Do you want us to go fishing for garbage that was published in journals and in books?--Smokefoot (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm just saying that a patent means nothing other than someone applied for a patent, and it was granted. It doesn't mean the device works, or the applicant knows what they're talking about. They're a primary source for the patent itself, not for the veracity of whatever is patented. You can't cite a patent to say someone discovered something, or invented something, because that's not what a patent means. Now, if you need me, I'll be visiting Mars in my inertial mass reduction spacecraft powered by a gravitational wave generator. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

No, what you are "just saying" is insulting to my legit question. I'm sorry I even broached the issue. Outa here.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• A patent is a type of primary source, which can be used for quoting or paraphrasing the content of the patent itself, NOT for providing interpretation, analysis, or context however. For example, if you wanted to cite the date the patent was filed, then you would simply say "The patent was filed on such-and-such a date". If you wanted to say "That means that so-and-so actually made the first..." whatever, that requires analysis and interpretation, and you can't say that based on the patent alone. You need to find a quality secondary source. --Jayron32 13:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • So what you are saying is the since many/most ivory-tower bound academicians do not read and cite patents, the patent effectively doesn't exist. Academics tend not to cite patents. The most likely reason for not citing patents is ignorance of the patent literature or indifference because academic papers are reviewed, edited, etc by fellow academics, i.e. an echo chamber in some respects.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Wait, what? Who said that, I didn't say that? Who said that? What I said was that if you cite a patent, don't put anything in Wikipedia not expressly stated in the patent citation. What person stated all of the stuff you just said? --Jayron32 14:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I have a number of patents and academic publications and a number of the patents were based on things I was also publishing on. That said, they are very different types of documents and the review process is very different. When you fight with the examiner to get a patent through you are really fighting to create a useful set of novel claims. The objective isn't to pass knowledge on to others, rather to fence off an area where you can exercise your own technological monopoly. An academic paper is different in that you are trying to teach others how to do something you created. Ideally you create something like It is often very frustrating what things are/are not considered novel but that is how it works. With academic work things are different because your (ostensible) intent is to enable others to build on your knowledge. One of the best modern examples is the Marching cubes paper published in 1987 and cited over 15,000 times. Springee (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• See also WP:PATENTS for the standard explanation. This is consistent with our other rules about self-generated legal documents, e.g., not citing divorce papers to make claims about BLPs. Also, if you find editors trying to claim that colloidal silver cures HIV infection because the patent says so, please arrange to have them blocked for invincible stupidity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022

Some sources use another sources. So we should clearly outline that if a source 1 reference use some questionable source 2 to confirm the fact that is about to be stated in an article then the source 1 must be treated as questionable as well to state the fact. InventingNames (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit requests should only be used for edits where there is a consensus. Please show a consensus for this and if there is not one already, please start a discussion without an edit request template. Thank you. --Ferien (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Capital of Free India

Is this [9] a reliable source for the idea that Port Blair was the "provisional capital of Free India", as used in the Azad Hind article? I'm not sure whether it is user created or an advertisement for the courses or what, exactly. Britmax (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't believe this is a reliable source. It seems very preliminary as a source, and the page does not include any reference citations. Seems kind of questionable Sruthijayanti (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2022

Date Of Birth 09/27/71 I appear on non dungeon Family records frequently not rarely. BigRube (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION and clearly indicating when the reader is reading an opinion.

RSOPINION says that For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says...." and that When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion. But the problem is that we often also use that exact style of qualifier to indicate high-quality academic sources, or when citing an expert who is attributed in another source. And that sort of framing is often also used for citing experts in other writing, or is used casually in a way that doesn't indicate the sometimes vast distinction we are making here. This can lead to confusion for the reader - "[name they've never heard of] says that 56% of the people in the crowd were criminals" still gives the impression that this is a statement that has seen some degree of fact-checking, which is usually not the case for opinion pieces. So I feel we should recommend more clear indicators for things that are published in an opinion section - eg. "in an opinion piece, Y said..." or some other framing that makes it completely clear, especially when citing an opinion by someone with no formal expertise. Perhaps it should also caution against using opinion pieces for things that are clearly trying to convey factual statements to the reader, even with attribution. eg. "Politician X ought to resign" is an opinion; "Politician X has resigned" is fact and shouldn't be cited to an opinion piece even with attribution. Similarly, a general statement like "society is declining" could be attributed to an opinion-piece, but something like "crime has spiked sharply in the last year" shouldn't be, since even with attribution it's a specific statement of (relatively) objective fact, which inherently implies that anyone it's attributed to knows what they're talking about. --Aquillion (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Can you think of a way other than in-text attribution to indicate opinion? I can’t. Blueboar (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• We can change the way we attribute it, that is. In an opinion piece [possibly for publisher X], [name] says... Another option would be to change WP:SAY to prefer terms that clearly indicate that something is an opinion when citing an opinion piece, eg. x believes, holds the opinion that..., expresses the opinion that... etc. These wouldn't necessarily be needed when the statement is manifestly opinion, but should be used whenever there is possible for confusion, especially when it could be taken as a statement of objective fact. --Aquillion (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  These approaches (e.g., "holds the opinion that…") work for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  I see nothing wrong with going at things with this approach either. Although I feel like most people are probably smart enough to figure out for themselves if it is a fact, or just an opinion from the references we provide if they care that much about it, and if they don't care that much about it, then they will just say, "It was something I read on Wikipedia", and if whoever hears about it does care about it, they can check the references. Otherwise, it will just remain "something somebody read on Wikipedia". Huggums537 (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• What about trying to fix the reverse, how to phrase statements from academic peer-reviewed sources in a manner that they are to be taken not as opinions? Of course, in such cases, this is usually accompanied already by langugage like "in a YYYY study" or the like, which helps to differentiate already. --Masem (t) 23:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Or just state the fact as fact… in Wikipedia’s voice. If it is accepted fact, there is no need to hedge it with attribution. Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think what OP is getting at is that we often cite "primary" peer-review papers, such as results of surveys or data analysis, and in such cases, we do usually want to say "According to (study or person that did the study), (factoid)". We're not necessary treating it as absolute fact because its a primary source and not necessarily a widely accepted stat, even though it has the weight of peer-review. --Masem (t) 01:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes, it's just puffery. We see a fair bit of "According to a 2018 systematic review from the Cochrane Library..." or "According to a 2018 review by Prof. I.M. Portant of Big University..."

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Cite sources, don't describe them discourages this, but practice creeps the other direction. I think that some editors feel this verbose approach is more "neutral". I'm not telling you that you should wash your hands, which might indicate that I have a biased viewpoint on the subject; I'm just telling you that it's a fact that Alice Expert published the results of an uncontrolled survey involving 132 experienced long-distance backpackers on the Appalachian trail in a peer-reviewed journal in 1997 that concluded that washing hands after defecating reduces the incidence of diarrhea in the wilderness, and now that I've told you this fact, I'm letting you make up your own mind about it.

In terms of opinions, I don't think that it's always unclear. "Alice Expert said that Un bel dì, vedremo is one of the finest arias in all of 20th century opera" is something that people will recognize as an opinion no matter how you phrase it. We only need to be concerned when there is a realistic question about whether this is an opinion or a fact (e.g., "Ed Economist said that the economic outlook will improve next quarter"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Khwezi Lomso Comprehensive School

It was created in 1983 and is situated in Zwide 105.248.206.61 (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not what this page is for. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Should primary sources be used for whole sections like these?

Example: Gillingham railway station (Kent)#Services, with the only source being a National Rail timetable (a primary source). SK2242 (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say that regardless of the source, it doesn't belong in the article, per WP:NOTGUIDE, though no doubt Wikiproject Trainspotters or whatever they call themselves would argue otherwise. Note that there are already external links for train times, making it all rather redundant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Leaving the debate about if this type of thing belongs in the article aside, why wouldn't a primary source be used if it is just verifying simple straightforward factual descriptions of the timetable that don't require any interpretation? What possible use is there for any author's personal analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts on this simple timetable from any secondary sources? Huggums537 (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I just realized my answer to the OP is just only questions. The answer is Yes. You should absolutely use the primary source in this case since a secondary source offers nothing of any real value for this purpose. What I would usually do in cases like this is back up the primary source with a secondary source (if there is one) just in case you have some kind of paranoid secondary sourcing Nazi that wants to have a heart attack about it. Huggums537 (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The answer is **No** and Andy's answer is the correct one. There is no reasonable answer to the OP's question, because it can't be answered: "The typical off-peak service in trains per hour" is not encyclopedic content IF no secondary source has written about the the typical off-peak service of Gillingham railway station. --Mvbaron (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That is only your opinion while I have linked to policy that says otherwise. Also your opinion about anything not being encyclopedic content if no secondary source has written about it can easily be proven as an uneducated interpretation about sourcing by referring to WP:PRIMARYNEWS, where it clearly explains that encyclopedic content about current events is added without secondary sources fairly often with the support of primary news sources. WhatamIdoing gives a good example of this here. Huggums537 (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

what? where is the policy that says we can add information about the typical off-peak service of Gillingham railway station (and related non-notable things)? Mvbaron (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Where is the policy that says we can't?

Without some kind of information on how busy it is, readers will not understand the subject properly. Imagine someone saying that we shouldn't mention passenger volumes at airports, because it's not "encyclopedic" to notice that ATL is much busier than a dirt airstrip in the middle of nowhere. They'd get laughed at. I have some doubts that this current draft is the ideal way to go about it, but there is no rule against providing some notion of whether a train station is a central hub, or a nearly unused wide spot, or somewhere in between.

@Mvbaron, the question I have for you is whether you are really looking for a secondary source or an independent one. Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, to answer your question, the policy [guidance] that says you can add "non-notable" things to articles and lists can be found at WP:NNC, where it says that notability guidelines don't apply to content within articles. It sounds to me like you are regurgitating bad ideas you heard from some other morons on Wikipedia, but I would stop listening to other people if they are not linking to anything to support their ideas if I were you. Huggums537 (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• I just want to note that the “section” in question really consists of three sentences. Having three sentences that are supported by a primary source is hardly outrageous. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• This is more of a question of WP:DUE / WP:NOTGUIDE than WP:RS. Uncontroversial factual details which don't carry any interpretive implications or the like are the sorts of things we can cite to primary sources... but that doesn't mean we should, per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. This is the sort of thing where it would make sense to ask for an independent secondary source not because it's strictly necessary but because it helps establish due weight and provides the necessary interpretive context for what this means. --Aquillion (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Splitting hairs, National Rail technically isn't a primary source, The primary source would the train operator. National Rail is owned by the Rail Delivery Group, of which the train operators are shareholders, but they would not directly be in the actual publication of a national timetable. Reality is that for any service information on a transport operator or piece of transport infrastructure, the cites almost always will be primary. As long as they are being used to confirm basic facts, then primary cites such as this are not bad per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. 03:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kremorne (talk • contribs)

I will say that’s an essay, not a guideline. SK2242 (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Being an essay does not mean you should do the opposite. Insofar as it does a really good job of clarifying the status of primary sources at Wikipedia, which it does, then it is a quite apt thing for someone to have you read in this discussion. --Jayron32 13:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Using a MA thesis

I think MA theses from accredited universities should be considered reliable sources in the same manner as dissertations. They are both supervised and edited by full-time faculty members. While the guideline rightfully says that dissertations should be cautiously accepted, I see no reason my Master's theses should be treated differently.--User:Namiba 13:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The appropriateness of any source depends on that source's reputation in the greater world; a frequently cited Master's Thesis would, hypothetically, be more "reliable" than a Doctoral Thesis which is ignored and never further cited. Reliability is not a checklist, and it is not a set of binary conditions. We can't say "all X are reliable". We can only say "What makes this one X here reliable or unreliable" by applying principles of WP:RS to assessing the source. --Jayron32 15:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It's really hard to imagine any content that would be WP:DUE for inclusion, but could only be sourced to a master's thesis. Levivich 16:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Not RS. Way too broad a category. Way too many institutions and supervisors, and the standard for acceptance of an MA paper varies widely among the institutions, departments, and supervisors. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Masters' theses are unreliable by default because they don't meet our standard for "published." Any source, of course, can theoretically have exceptional extenuating circumstances that make it usable despite falling into a category like that that would normally not be usable, but you will have to ask about the specific master's thesis you are interested in to find out if it is such an exception. --Aquillion (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I've encountered a master's thesis that was the only paper of its type cited for decades (1980s, on engineering circular lightening holes, last studied in the 1950s and not again until the 2000s). It being a master's thesis doesn't make it reliable – it being cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources does make a significant case, however. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

What to do when the primary source for something is on a website considered an unreliable source?

In this specific case, the founder of a movement posted the ideals of the movement on tumblr, would this be considered unreliable as it is from a user generated content site, or would this be an acceptable source as it is the founder publicly stating the ideals of the movement (there is no dispute that this user is the founder of the movement, which personally pushes me to it being an acceptable source, however others editing the article have disagreed, and i would like to understand how this works in this edge case?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeeTheFae (talk • contribs) 09:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_that_are_usually_not_reliable.

Using it as a source would likely fall under WP:SOAP without a supporting independent source to provide the necessary encyclopedic context and show that mention is due. --Hipal (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

For starters I find the title Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_that_are_usually_not_reliable to pretty much to present a distortion as it portrays more than half of articles presented as being significantly inaccurate.

"Likely" is interpretation and I'd argue that issues can be taken on a case by case basis. All sources can be reliably expected to service their own interests. If a scoop has been scooped by an outlet of whatever level of reputational questionability, other outlets will then be less likely to carry that story once it has already entered the newsfeed. The same story may be mentioned once in a source that has, on other issues, proven to be reliable and be entered into Wikipedia while another while the same reporter might submit the same information to a source that has, on other issues, proven to have had unreliability, with result here that the source can't be cited. The source might even present documents and other forensics and I'd say that cases may legitimately made for citation. GregKaye 06:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree with GregKaye, and I would also say this situation could be interpreted as the founder self publishing a primary source on the Tumblr platform. If there is no dispute of the Tumblr user being the founder then it really shouldn't matter if he WP:published the ideals on a scrap of tissue and photographed it for posterity to post somewhere on the internet and be made available to the public. Huggums537 (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, this effectively makes the founder and his principles the source not Tumblr. The principles would be a primary source self published by the founder, and Tumblr would be more like a hosting service. This founder could have published on any public hosting service. The fact they just so happened to choose one called "questionable" by Wikipedia is meaningless tripe in this case with the single exception of making absolutely sure the user on Tumblr is in fact the founder. That would be the most important and crucial part of reliability I would consider relating to Tumblr in this case. Huggums537 (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It's like saying, "We can't accept this fixed medium paper book source on Wikipedia, because Print Your Own Books, inc. is a questionable source." when in reality, Print Your Own Books, inc. isn't a source at all, they just did the printing and distributing. The book itself, and the author are the source. Likewise, Tumblr isn't a source at all if an author self publishes on their platform. The author, and whatever they fixed upon the Tumblr medium is the source. That is why they call it social media. It is clear that Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves,... per WP:ABOUTSELF. Huggums537 (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Songfacts.com

I have started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard regarding the reliability of songfacts.com as a source in articles. If you would like to join the discussion, please contribute here. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:RR (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Did WP:RS or WP:VERIFY ever have a note about the use of religious texts

I'm sure I remember a note about this or something similar. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller WP:RSPSCRIPTURE? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång not sure I see the point of the redirect. In any case. It was a note on one of the above pages. Thanks though. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The point of the redirect is to easily show someone what religious texts are good for on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång sorry, for some reason I missed that. The note I recall was something like that, and I'm not sure why it was removed. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:RNPOV is somewhat related, but probably not what you're after. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, it's mentioned in Wikipedia:No original research#cite note-8. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Thank you! I’ve not lost my mind then. Doug Weller talk 06:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN about religious vs academic publishers

At WP:RSN#Religious publishers, I've raised a question about religious publishers versus academic publishers for biblical scholarship topics. This affects many articles, and I'd welcome editors' input. Thanks, Levivich^[block] 02:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blacklist referenced in Section 5.0 'Deprecated sources'

'Wikipedia:Blacklist' now redirects to 'Wikipedia:Spam blacklist' so it seems as if the paragraph referencing 'Wikipedia:Blacklist' in the 'Deprecated sources' section should be modified or perhaps completely deleted? OneSkyWalker (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like that page has always redirected there, so presumably it was always intended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Abstracts and editorial discipline

There is a general problem, not limited to Wikipedia (we are frankly great compared to most other media), of misreading and/or unfaithfully summarizing the claims and conclusions of academic papers (excluding reviews). In the past editors have correctly argued that sources should not be cited based on reading their abstract alone (and this is MEDRS policy). However, I would like to workshop an additional guideline, with possibly a variant to MEDRS – something like

"If a claim is not significant enough to be in the abstract of a study, it should probably not be quoted", or

"Avoid reporting any conclusions from a study that are not noted in the abstract."

This is preliminary, so I appreciate any feedback and alternative suggestions. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be getting at a level of granularity we don't need; citing studies directly from research journals is already discouraged, we should only be presenting secondary analysis, not primary research. --Jayron32 16:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Well we all track different articles, but currently every WP tab I have open (except a movie) cites at least one raw study: Chaco_War, RationalWiki, Replication_crisis, Global_spread_of_the_printing_press, ... shall I go through my watchlist? SamuelRiv (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's more complicated than that. First, by "in the abstract", you probably meant "in the abstract or conclusions section", since the idea for citing most sources is to say what the result of the research was. The conclusions section might provide more/clearer information. Also, some abstracts are written "teaser-style", with a sentence like "This paper reports the results" instead of mentioning what the results were.

Second, imagine a decent paper about a disease. It probably contains some background information (e.g., scaryitis is mostly seen in babies, the prognosis is good, it affects one in a thousand babies, etc.) as well as information about the specific study (e.g., we conducted a retrospective study of the last 42 consecutive patients, etc.). Imagine that there are very few sources about this specific subject. Do you really want to say that this paper can't be cited for simple background information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I did indeed intend to say "in the abstract or conclusions section." And of course we all hope that editors distinguish when guidelines should be seen as suggestions versus hard rules at all the right moments. There are of course highly technical articles that can only work from a handful of technical papers and some very competent editors – that's just a different type of editing with a different type of verifiability. But a hair's length removed from that are articles that don't have a wealth of meta-analyses or historical reviews to draw upon, and where there's some juicy research floating around that has some tangential relation to the subject but doesn't really focus on it, and it's either about a more popular subject or a subject in which misinformation can be particularly harmful or is not easily refuted.

The WP:SCIRS essay is quite well-written and does get at a lot of main issues, but there will always be articles or sections of articles where there's a reasonable temptation to cite directly from recent research, and I'm not sure people think to counteract it enough, especially when all anyone really knows is WP:RS and none of the specialty essays. There are a couple of problematic behaviors in particular that I've noticed, and I'm not sure whether it would be better to point them out as individual "don't-do"s rather than have a general "do only" guideline. The least worrisome is quoting material from the intro of a study (again, not a review) as a general appraisal of the field – a paper is making a case for a specific (sub)problem, so the background discussed is going to be very selective. Then there's taking from the methodology section, which can sometimes be very interesting but usually a really brilliant new methodology in even a specialist field gets secondary coverage sooner or later. Then there's taking from the results section, which might be the worst depending on how badly it's abused. A couple data in isolation from the statistical analysis, for example, or ignorance of significance, or misinterpretation of significance in context are things we've all seen. The results section can also can be a very good source, because that's usually where the illustrative graphics are, which sometimes can be a very appropriate visualization to adapt for an article – but that's where I'd leave it. Finally, there's the discussion, which can range from being a sober reprise of the argument made from introduction to conclusion, to just a license for snide remarks and idle speculation. Of course there are some truly legendary opening and closing lines in several papers across many fields, but that kind of easily becomes notable from its later secondary coverage. Of course as I talk about this I have only one general mode of research paper in mind – the classic methods-results-conclusions presentaton. There are a lot of papers in a lot of fields organized very differently for which this would not apply. WP:MEDRS has stricter standards, WP:HISTRS is just altogether different, and we really could use good Anthropology and Economics RS essays. If you can read this you've listened to me for far too long. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I've seen the situations that you describe here, and I agree that it's not simple. For the problem of overly detailed descriptions of research papers, you might be interested in the advice at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Cite sources, don't describe them.

I have mixed feelings about SCIRS. Parts I agree with; parts I'm not sure of. For example, what does it mean to "respect primary sources"? Are you "respecting" them by citing the original/seminal paper? (Non-medical real-world science folks often want some effort made to "give credit" to the scientists; the English Wikipedia tends to sneer at them for caring about their careers.) Are you "respecting" them by cherry-picking the ones that seem most convincing to you? By emphasizing them (whether "Watson and Crick published their famous paper in 1953" or "This might cure cancer")? By downplaying the results ("Someone did some research" – but there's no mention of the alleged results or explanation of why it matters)? By describing them in great detail? By keeping them out of Wikipedia articles as much as possible?

I think that there is a place for primary sources, including very recent primary sources, in articles. I'm still not sure how to explain that place to anyone else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Bob Schneider

Bob Schneider dated Sandra Bullock briefly from 2002-2004. Bob is currently married to Laura Moore Schneider. He has 2 children, Luc and Scarlet. 2603:8080:1301:7F45:E092:D708:9979:333E (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Conference papers

Are conference papers by subject matter experts considered reliable? Are they closer to scholarly articles published in journals (which are considered reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP) or to self-published sources (which are not considered reliable unless written by subject matter expert)? I see that the last substantial discussion about it took place in 2008 and it was inconclusive. Alaexis_¿question? 09:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSN is probably a better place to discuss this. But in my experience as an academic, although there is tremendous variation between disciplines conference papers are much closer to self-published sources than peer-reviewed papers. I have authored, coauthored, and reviewed submissions at conferences in several different disciplines and the review process is much simpler than the kind of reviews we do for journal articles, book chapters, and books as conference papers are viewed as works-in-progress in many disciplines instead of completed, finalized, and detailed discussions of completed work. They're intended to be updates, conversation starters, or opportunities for feedback rather than the detailed reports and analysis published in more formal venues where publications receive more detailed and lengthy scrutiny prior to publication. (No, I don't know if this viewpoint/kind of information is readily available in reliable, published sources; it probably is if you look but is not likely the focus of much or any scholarly work as it's a lot of "inside baseball" that isn't likely to be the focus of scholarly research itself but more likely to be advice for graduate students and junior scholars.) ElKevbo (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The first question is: What content is being supported? A conference paper is a perfectly decent, if primary, source for "Alice Expert published a conference paper". It's a lousy source for WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, like "Alice Expert discovered the cure for cancer last year".

The next question is: Do editors feel like they need to cite this publication? Is this the only possible source for this content? If so, it might not be WP:DUE. Is this the best source available for the entire subject? If so, the subject might not be WP:Notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@ElKevbo, @WhatamIdoing, thanks for your answers. Alaexis_¿question? 21:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Depends entirely on the field and subject (as I'm sure you know). I just started expanding an article (Maya ceramics) in which a bulk of the review of typology literature (as in, someone saying what other people have done on the subject, as opposed to just what they're doing in a dig) is coming from unpublished degree theses. In a previous lit review I did on a historical oddity in engineering, there was zero original published literature between World War II and the 1980s (and that was a single MS thesis) -- any new testing on this ubiquitous engineering technique (literally just plain round drilled holes in a structure that are still everywhere) was being done entirely in-house as devices were built. If there were conference papers that escaped my review, they would have been fine, as they are simple experiments that have been established previously and just needed to be done on a range new materials (it had only previously been rigorously tested on thin sheets of aluminum and two types of steel, all specific to WWII airframe applications.) Sometimes conference papers, or their collections, can do more to illuminate the state of a field or industry or development at a key point in history. The point is, sometimes you just don't know what you're gonna get until you see it. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Bold addition re news sources

I have boldly added a brief note about the need to check subsequent reporting (for updates and corrections) when using news sources. I don’t think this is controversial, but feel free to revert if necessary and we can discuss. Blueboar (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

That shouldn't just apply to new sources, however. Academic journals, for example, also issue corrections e.g., retractions, notices of concern. ElKevbo (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I reverted this because it seemed to duplicate content already elsewhere on the page, but ElKevbo makes a good point - should there be a more general note somewhere about looking for updates/corrections? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I don’t disagree … the need to check for updates and corrections does go beyond just breaking news (although that is an area that is particularly prone to having updates and corrections). I have no objection to a more generalized statement. Is there a good section in which to place it? Blueboar (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps in #Age matters? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, I think that's a great location for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Anyone have preferences on specific wording? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Objection to "Definition of published"

The "Definition of published" section contains the sentence "Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited." I object to this sentence because it is not actually part of the definition of published. There is an unfathomable amount of text and media that is neither produced by a reliable source nor cited in Wikipedia, but it is nevertheless published.

If we allow this style of writing, we will have to reproduce the entire guideline in every section. No, that's not good enough, we will have to reproduce the entire guideline in every word, which means the guideline would have to consist of a single word that says everything we want to say about reliable sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

z the leading sentence says: Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form, which implies that any further discussion in that paragraph is specific to WP. Thus it is okay to require publishing to be from reliab!e sources. Masem (t) 20:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems Jc3s5h is not considering the whole definition section and inadvertently taking this sentence out of context. The opening sentence agrees with what your are saying. The first sentence says, "Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form." This fits with your definition of published and is as broad as yours. The sentence you have focused on pertains to being within the reliable sources guideline. The guideline page is the context for that particular sentence. Hope this helps. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Maybe the sentence is allowable, but it is unwise. The guideline should, as much as possible, separate different concepts to allow clear use and discussion of those concepts. "Published" is one concept. "Reliable" is a second concept. "Cited" is a third concept. "News organization" is a forth concept, and so on. If I want to say that a certain source, for example, https://www.capnhq.gov/ is unacceptable for use in Wikipedia because it is not published, I should be able to do so for the sole reason that it is not, and so far as I know, never has been, available to the public. I shouldn't get dragged into a discussion of whether it's cited or whether it's reliable when the sole issue is whether the public can get access to it. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Your example (Civil Air Patrol? Anything more?) is on a website that I can theoretically access with an authorization that I can theoretically acquire (even if it's difficult to do so) -- I think the only way it could not be considered 'published' by WP's definition is if it's under some legal confidentiality that prevents disclosure (personal confidential info like med records, classified docs (including docs intrinsically classified), certain corporate docs, docs under court seal and/or general injunction, etc etc etc.). WMF and other higher-ups would be better suited to give the full run-down on that, but it should be more or less clear in the western world, and you should take uncertain cases (like releases of classified documents on video game forums, for example) to admins. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The specific example I gave, the members-only website of the Civil Air Patrol, ordinarily would require one to join that that organization. A work that is only made available to members of an organization is clearly not made available to the public, and so is not published. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

That would still be published for all purposes. Publishing does not require to the public at large but to a subset of the public (here being the members of this group) Masem (t) 22:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It is immoral to cite material that is only accessible to people who endorse particular views, such as the views of an organization, religion, or political party. But that is not the subject of this thread, it is about not intertwining definitions so that none of the words or phrases in this policy have a distinct meaning; everything means everything, hence nothing means anything. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

We didnt say it was okay to cite it... WP:PAYWALL discusses this further. Masem (t) 00:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this point that, "published" is a concept, and "reliable" is another concept. We need statements to be verifiable, i.e. published reliable sources. Some sources are published, but unreliable. I believe that should be updated if it is not clear in the text. Andre🚐 00:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Masem, our definition of "published" actually does require that the material be "made available to the public", and "available only to members" is definitely not the same as "available to the public". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Masem, if you look at my edit more closely, I was showing that the proposal shows why archival sources are consensus not usable due to being unpublished. I was not changing the policy but changing the wording to reflect the policy. Andre🚐 01:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

that proposal you linked to us failed, meaning it doesn't have consensus. Masem (t) 01:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, I was saying that the proposal shows why archival sources cannot be used. The proposal was a proposal to allow the usage of archival sources. Just, look at it again, please. Andre🚐 01:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

just because the proposed language failed makes the opposite a passing consensus, only that consensus for what was proposed did not happen. you cant make that type of assumption about that, in addition to only being the result of a straw poll rather than RFC. Masem (t) 01:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to link to that from here, but that failed proposal contains a consensus (nevermind it being a "straw poll") that has as far as I know has never been overturned, that archives aren't valid because they aren't published. Andre🚐 01:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Your reference for this policy is a 2006 RfC??? Let's use an example: a published-at-the-time obscure 18th century book or newspaper can only be accessed by request in library archives (say, only one library archive allows this option) as it is not digitized. This is not too abstract of a scenario, as in one Resource Requests I saw a 19th-century British paper which was only digitized for the latter half of its run, with the former half according to information online having few surviving copies and only available at a single library. Before you say this has become Primary at this point, you still need make an effort to look the original source up to do a proper secondary citation. So the question is, what is the essential difference between this scenario and what is being described in the 2006 RfC? What is it precisely the editors there had in mind when they were discussing archival materials? Was our current "WP definition" of 'published' even around back then (I back-traced the history on it a couple days ago, and it's only a couple years old, so the answer is "no"). SamuelRiv (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Published "at the time" was published, the policy makes this clear, even if hard to access. Many archival sources were never published. [01:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)] And you can see clearly from reading the 2006 RFC that the terminology of sources being "published" to be reliable existed at the time. It might have been written in a different way or in a different section. Oh yeah, and I participated in the 2006 discussion. Andre🚐 01:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

FWIW I started a thread and an edit on WP:V/WT:V about making it clear that archival sources, inasmuch as they are unpublished, are not verifiable, and that it is WP:OR besides to dig thru an unpublished archive for use on Wikipedia. Andre🚐 02:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

My overall impression of the WT:V thread is that people don't agree that archival sources are unpublished. The analysis seems to be something like this:

• Is this allegedly unpublished archival source available to the public?
  • If yes, then it's actually a "published" archival source.
  • If no, then it's not published and cannot be used.

For example, if you could make an appointment at the archive, show up, and some nice archive librarian would bring you box 23-2494 and let you flip through the papers until you find a hand-written letter from the subject's mother, then that's "published" – as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If, on the other hand, you contacted the archive and they said "Oh, no, certainly not: only members of the Certified Careful Professor's Club are allowed to look at anything in the archives", then we would not consider that to be published for Wikipedia's purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that's not clear yet from the discussion. The hand-written letter is at the least a primary, not a secondary source - and since it's not published, I'm not sure if it's reliable, I would hope that it would not be considered reliable for fact inasmuch as it is used to source statements from within the content of the letter. I have never previously heard that this kind of archival source was reliable, not-original-research, and verifiable. I would like to ensure we discuss this a bit more. We can discuss it here since this was the original thread and pertains to reliability, but I had started the discussion and edits there since I think this is really more about verifiability. Andre🚐 23:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

lets not worry about primary/secondary or reliability here. its about the ability of a reader to locate and obtain and read the source (within consideration of possible time and cost) which is the core verifyability aspect related to publication here. Masem (t) 23:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan, when you write things like and since it's not published, you're assuming that it's not published, even though I just told you that a hand-written letter can be "available to the public" and therefore what Wikipedia calls "published". Maybe it would help if you stopped thinking about real-world publication processes and starting thinking that the policy requires sources to be WikiJargonPublished, not real-world published. A hand-written letter that is posted in a store window is WikiJargonPublished (it is also LibelLawPublished, for that matter). A hand-written letter that is in an open-to-the-public archive is WikiJargonPublished. The policy does not require editors-and-printing-presses kinds of publication. It only requires available-to-the-public kinds of publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Part of reliability, at least used to involve, some oversight and reputability of the nature of publication. I'm not sure at what point the definition of published became so broad that anything that's available to any subset of the public is published, but I don't think it's a good idea for the reasons I stated, and I'm not convinced that really is the consensus view of the present policy, or that we shouldn't start some kind of discussion about tightening up that policy, provided that there are other editors who might agree (and I think 1 or 2 people seemed to agree, not pinging them out of respect for their time and attention). I like the notion of the broad distribution and wide availability, as a place to start. Regardless, a hand-written personal letter in an archive, in isolation and absent any other form of publication, would be the equivalent of a self-published blog post for reliability, and a primary source as well. So I can't see a lot of situations where this letter-in-an-archive thing is going to give anything useful. Do you know of any current articles that are using this kind of source? Andre🚐 02:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The question of whether something is "reliable" is not the same as whether something is "published". This discussion is only about whether something is "published". Lots of "published" things are totally unreliable for any statement more complex than "Somebody posted ____ on the internet".

We have never had a definition of reliability. In practice, a reliable source is whatever source(s) experienced editors will accept as sufficient to support a particular claim. The acceptable source might – or might not – have some oversight. It might or might not have a positive reputation. It might or might not be one of the types of publication that we usually prefer. It might be a "good" source, or might be a WP:NOTGOODSOURCE.

If you're searching for sources that are likely to be reliable for most of the typical uses that an experienced editor would make of a good source, then we have always provided advice on qualities to look for, such as fact-checking, editorial oversight, non-self-published, etc. But you can't actually determine whether a source is actually reliable until you compare it against the statement it's meant to support. A corporate press release has none of the qualities we advise editors to seek out, and yet it's "reliable" for statements about what the corporation said once. A scholarly book about chemistry has all the qualities we advise editors to seek out, and yet it's "unreliable" for statements about which celebrity got arrested last night.

And, again, for this discussion, none of that has anything to do with whether the source is published/available to the public. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't conflating the definition of reliable and published. But part of reliability, at least in my heyday, has come from how and by whom the source was published. We do have a definition of verifiability: reliable, published sources. That's why I moved the thread, or tried to, to WT:V instead of here. Since this is WT:RS.

You didn't quite answer my question of a real-life example of an archival source being usable. I contend they should not be used. I can give my own example. A few years ago I went to the Rockefeller Archive Center which is open for visitors, who are mainly academics and historians, but you need to make an appointment, and presumably have a good reason as well and your area of research interest[10]. There is a bunch of unpublished material there that helped me research Cornelius P. Rhoads. At one point, I created an article about a borderline notable doctor and public health administrator called George C. Payne. Later it was deleted for insufficient references. I have scans and photos of my visit to the archive and I can cite the boxes. Should the archival docs count toward his notability and be usable for facts about him?

I would say, under my understanding of policy, they should not. Notability is determined by weight published, reliable sources. More reliability and prominence = more weight.

I agree with you that some self-published and unreliable sources are usable in context, but that is not about verifiability. If I started citing letters from an archive, it might be borderline unverifiable or very difficult to verify, if not impossible. That is a lot of surface for failed verification reference checks, in my view. Andre🚐 03:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

One of the factors that we encourage editors to consider, when assessing whether a source is reliable, is who/what published it. This is still the case. Things that are WikiJargonPublished in (only) an archive get basically zero points on that score. You would treat them the same way that you would treat a verified social media account.

If a source is usable in an article at all, then the source verifies the content. That is about verifiability. Any reliable source – even one that is "reliable only in context" – is a source that makes it possible for someone to check that editors didn't just make up the content, but instead took the content from a source that is reliable for that content.

But I'm not sure that archives would usually count towards notability, whose overall goal is to determine whether there is "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large". Most of the contents in a typical archive (e.g., a personal diary, a contract signed by the subject) also wouldn't be Wikipedia:Independent sources, and non-independent sources never count towards notability, even though they are frequently reliable sources. I would expect approximately none of the archives contents to be secondary sources, which the GNG theoretically also requires (though AFD routinely accepts WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I definitely agree that things wikiJargonPublished only in an archive get 0 points since it's essentially, as you say, a verified social media account. But does everyone agree about that? And is that clear from policy or just our shared interpretation? Because archival sources have a lot of pomp and circumstance, so they seem really reliable and important if you aren't well-versed, but I agree they should be given no weight. I think it's worth figuring out.

You understand how it's confusing to say "who/what published it" is important but we actually just mean "who/what made it available," which isn't really quite the same non-wiki-jargon. Because there are reliable publications, and unreliable, and in some cases it's not a publication in the conventional sense. So it's also how, and where, and in what form it was published, and made available. But actually being real-world published in a journal confers notability, like in science that has a very specific meaning. So it makes it hard to understand and interpret the policy because we don't go into enough detail on what is the wiki definition, how it applies to reliability (this page), and different meanings that don't apply.

Archival sources are not always non-independent, and not always non-secondary. For example, the archive I referenced above included in their boxes, press clippings, internal reports, letters from various entities to and from each other, draft articles that could be published but weren't, etc. Some of those letters or other sources were from 1 independent person to another independent person about a 3rd person that was also independent from the archive.

Maybe, if you want, I'll upload a bunch of archival sources to an imgur so you can see what I'm talking about. Andre🚐 01:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)