Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 70

Archive 65

←

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Proposal - Add Cartoon Brew to deprecated sources.

I propose to you today a removal of the website Cartoon Brew from the reliable sources tab. It was once just that for animation news but its trust with anyone remotely interested in animation has been betrayed in many ways over the years, from current stalwart Amid Amidi taking a vindictive attitude toward fans of The Loud House to it publishing what turned out to be a false headline suggesting that Cartoon Network Studios would be closing its doors forever to it now appearing to have doxxed Steven Universe creator Rebecca Sugar. Your article on this website suggests it has apologized for it, but the damage is now done and now it is time for this source to be permanently added to your roster of deprecated sources. Will you do this honor? 2600:8800:7D96:5400:F1D7:F2CB:7F9C:E4FB (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi; this discussion belongs on WP:RSN; that's where we discuss the reliabiliy of specific sources. DFlhb (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source in the newspaper headlines

What's a reliable source? I want to know. I want help and improve my skills to have references in the newspaper headlines on Wikipedia. 100.2.114.167 (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The primary source for the definition of reliable sources is the verifiability policy and I'd suggest that you read it carefully and in full. The material in this Reliable sources guideline is supplementary to that policy and a good bit of it is more advisory than policy, so the verifiability policy should be your first stop and primary source. The most basic definition of reliable source can be found in the WP:SOURCES subsection of the verifiability policy, but there are quite a few exceptions and restrictions on that which you'll need to know. Remember that there are certain subject areas, most notably biographies of living - and some dead - persons and medical information, which have sourcing requirements which are different and more diligent than the general policy requires. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

And just in case you literally mean news headlines, they aren’t reliable, they are written not by the journalist who wrote the article but by headline writers to grab attention. I actually wrote headlines for a major newspaper when I was 21 and I had no training or background in journalism. Doug Weller talk 08:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES is also relevant.--65.93.195.22 (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal - Let tweet / handful of message news articles be excluded from RS

Wikipedia RS should exclude mainstream media articles which consist of a few facts and then 10 or less quotes from troll tweets, facebook posts or other social media sources.

Reason: There are trolls seeing to invalidate just about any topic out there. Pick a sports team, holiday, charity organization, etc. and you will find a few tweets, facebook posts, etc. that are hateful, anti-(pick your marginalized group) which get wrapped into a mainstream media story.

Can those mainstream troll tweet stories be excluded from RS?

Two, three or even 10 hateful tweeds does not make an organized opposition to something, a team, a holiday, charity organization or marginalized group. Flip to the other side and one could find 2 to 10 hateful tweets against the opposite.

Wikipedia should not use RS from those cherry picked troll message based mainstream media stories. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:218A:28F2:CE58:32E3 (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Social media posts are already limited by WP:SPS - and by WP:ABOUTSELF. Blueboar (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

IP kind of has a point - some outlets like to publish lazy, pot-stirring articles that consist of tweets from randos complaining about something, and presenting it like it's a real or significant controversy. Those should always be WP:UNDUE, in my view. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Those sorts of sources are already excluded. If anything has to change it is to clarify the way media sources can be used. Just being published by a reputable publisher does not necessarily make the part used reliable. Often the reliable source publisher is just quoting an unreliable primary source, without agreeing with it. That makes the quoted nonsense, still primary nonsense. Wikipedia articles are full of this misuse of sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this requires some respect for nuance and some subtlety in writing. Consider a "source" (scare quotes intended) like https://www.huffpost.com/entry/funniest-tweets-cats-dogs-december-31-january-6_n_63b8a1d6e4b0fe267cb04c2b

The whole purpose is to collect "quotes from troll tweets, facebook posts or other social media sources". But it would not be an unreliable source for a statement like "A post by Larry the Cat was quoted in The Huffington Post"; that web page would be a very reliable source for such a statement. What you wouldn't want is to use such a source to say that it's true (in this case, that humans are going back to work, or that they meddle in cats' business when they stay home). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

self-referential references

I’m trying to find evidence that this is true, but I can’t find it explicitly on Wikipedia’s policy pages.:

Is it improper on Wikipedia to use a work of literature as a reference to the same work of literature? For example (and only for example, as I see it elsewhere), the article Tumah and taharah, which is about ritual impurity in Jewish law as laid out in the Torah and expanded on in the Talmud, uses 30 out of its 58 references to refer the reader to the Torah itself, and at least six references to the Talmud itself. This seems like a blatant violation of the rules regarding secondary sources, notability, etc., no? NewkirkPlaza (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@NewkirkPlaza, per your description, the article may have a WP:PRIMARY problem, see for example points 4-5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the question is posed properly. A work of literature is usually understood to be a work of fiction. Everyone, including the authors of the works, know these works are fiction. The Torah and Talmud are regarded as religious works, and are considered true by some believers. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h, my point is that the article in question uses said religious works as references to themselves, as if to say "Ancient Text says X, and we know this because Ancient Text says X," which seems silly since there are countless books whose that have referred to both the Ancient Text and X that they could've used as references.

Side note: the Talmud is a (massive) legal document written by known and historically confirmed people, and while it is considered religiously binding by many, its "truth" is not relevant because it isn't divinely inspired nor of unknown ancient authorship. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, we should be usung secondary sources. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Religious texts should be cited directly only for quotations or to illustrate a secondary source also cited. Everything in the Torah is commented on in countless secondary sources so there is no excuse. The Talmud is additionally problematic in another way: it often gives multiple opinions on the same subject. Zero^talk 03:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Answering your original question: It is absolutely normal and expected to use a work of literature as a reference to describe the contents of that same work of literature. This should be obvious if you remember looking at articles such as Hillbilly Hare#Plot, Snowpiercer#Plot, and Knuffle Bunny#Plot; all of that description is taken from the works themselves. Editors believe that this is so obvious, and so obviously acceptable, that we don't usually bother adding an Wikipedia:Inline citation to such descriptive material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

University Newspapers

Are university newspapers generally considered reliable sources? Specifically this one: https://thestrand.ca/about/ CT55555(talk) 13:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• It depends on context. A student run paper would certainly be reliable for reports on how the school sports teams are doing… Probably not for commentary on national politics. So to answer your question, we need to know what statement it is supporting. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  It also depends on the paper. I don't see how a blanket statement can be made that all student papers are reliable or unreliable or anything in between. I'd also be wary of making statements about a particular paper for all time. Student papers have different staff every year. Sure, there's some continuity, but in general the staff (and editorial) turnover is faster than at most papers. One year a given paper may be a paragon of careful investigative journalism and a few years later, a sordid scandal sheet. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  For context: I was considering using The Strand as a source for an article about the Irving family. https://thestrand.ca/on-the-family-that-owns-new-brunswick/ CT55555(talk) 21:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  That article doesn't sound like an unbiased news report. Statements like The Irvings know that they have done and continue to do some incredibly disgusting things... don't give me warm and fuzzy feelings about using this as a source for anything that's not specifically attributed as an opinion with "according to..." language, if at all. And even if you do provide the required attribution, keep in mind that WP:BLP would apply here; it requires "high-quality sources" which I interpret as being held to a higher standard than just "reliable". -- RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah… I would agree with Roy’s assessment. In a BLP context, this would not be reliable enough. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks both. You've persuaded me to look for better sources. CT55555(talk) 02:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I like the bit in which the college student complains that the newspapers aren't publicly traded on the stock market, and that employees who write for their actual jobs are giving up their copyrights in return for their paychecks. They're not going to pay you to write something that they're legally unable to publish...

I wouldn't cite this anywhere on Wikipedia. I also would not list it among ==External links==, as it fails the "contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

How many sources?

There should be a defined number of reliable third party sources an article needs to be considered notable. I have seen articles with as few as 4 sources, so that seems like a reasonable amount. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• A lot is going to depend on what those sources are. For example, a somewhat obscure historical person might be deemed notable even with only one cited source listed in the article - if that source is substantial and written by a well regarded biographer. Another historical person might not be deemed notable even with multiple cited sources - if all those sources are simply brief mentions of the subject’s name in books about other things entirely. In other words, quality of sources matters a lot more than quantity of sources. Blueboar (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  If you want to follow up on this, then you should probably be talking about it at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Before you do that, though, spend some time contemplating WP:NACADEMIC items 4 and 7, which do not appear to require any sources at all (third-party or otherwise) to justify their inclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ok. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Are restaurant reviews reliable sources?

Are restaurant reviews reliable sources? Are restaurant reviews independent sources?

There are a lot of articles about restaurants in Portland, Oregon, that are for a big part sourced with restaurant reviews and listings from "local" newspapers (i.e. newspapers active in Portland). As example this version of restaurant Yonder that to my opinion is filled with spammy and irrelavant info, so I did cut it out. The original author declares on the talkpage Talk:Yonder (restaurant)#Recent changes that restaurant reviews are reliable sources.

I like to have more opinions. The Banner talk 18:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"RS" alone doesn't address what I think that you are asking about. IMO the fundamental question is whether they can be used to fulfill the the source/coverage requirements for WP:Notability. IMO no, and we should reinforce that somewhere. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@North8000 For this discussion, I'd appreciate if we focus on the appropriateness of using such sources and not necessarily notability. As far as I can tell, The Banner seems to think reviews cannot be used for adding claims to articles, even for details such as menu items, which to me is absurd. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I segued a bit, but to an area which be relevant on many of those discussions...where the article itself shouldn't exist. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have stated two clear questions at the beginning: if restaurant reviews are reliable sources and if they are independent sources. Let us start with getting an answer on these questions first. The Banner talk 21:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• A restaurant review is reliable for the attributed opinion of the reviewer. The next question is whether that reviewer’s opinion is WP:DUE… and THAT depends on who the reviewer is. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• It's obvious that this is so conditional on the source itself. If it's a reviewer that isn't paid to review, like most newspapers and news sites, you can cite them for describing the facts like attributes and history of the operation, and cite their opinions, staying clearly that they opine that. Other than that qualification, we really just have to look at places like WP:RSP to see if the publisher itself is reliable. ɱ (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

RSP is not the be-all-and-end-all of reliability. It is simply a list of sources that have been discussed “perennially” (ie over and over again). Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Duh, read my comment again. ɱ (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

When I see how some editors use and talk about RSP, I'm not sure that they consider this to be such an obvious point.

The fundamental problem is that whether a source is "reliable" depends on the sentence/material you want it to support. A video of Donald Trump is not a reliable source for the claim that "85 percent of the people that wear masks catch [COVID-19]". That same source could be perfectly reliable for a statement in a Wikipedia article that said "Donald Trump once said that '85 percent of the people that wear masks catch it'".

I wish we had different words to describe reliable-for-the-statement and probably-useful-in-general. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Not Reliable. Published.

Except that 'published' is NOT 'reliable'. Is it? Published is only ... published. All manner of crap is published. Nothing - not anything - is reliable merely by virtue of publication.

If Wikipedia wants to rely on published sources (God help it) it should say so, and not resort to [ironically, unreliable] euphemisms such as 'reliable'. 122.151.210.84 (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Acceptable sources must be both published and reliable. It is not complicated. Cullen328 (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, there are countless sources that are published but clearly unreliable. Those sources are of no value as references on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia will declare the New York Times as reliable while saying that Breitbart is not. The New York Times is quite obviously biased for the left, while Breitbart is biased for the right. The reliable sources requirements on Wikipedia often include "old stallwarts" like Vox, Vice, and other far left publications, while not extending the same courtesy to far right publications. The vast majority of the editors on Wikipedia are leftists and liberals.... so no one should be surprised. 172.59.104.102 (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we're more concerned about the problems that have resulted in the Breitbart News saying that they have "published a number of conspiracy theories and intentionally misleading stories" than about its "bias". Biased sources can be reliable. Publications that edit videos to make it seem like the speaker said something that they didn't – well, not so much. The Wall Street Journal, for example, is widely considered to be right-leaning, and it's cited in tens of thousands of articles. That's because it doesn't have a reputation for publishing fiction and pretending that it's news. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times is not obviously biased to the left. But if you are pretty far to the right you'll probably see most media biased to the left. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The short list in Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#"Secondary" does not mean "good" might be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Amend REPUTABLE to be explicit that reputation must be from other reliable sources

Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, current article reads. We should make it explicit that the reputation is one as found in other reliable published sources. This may be a bit circular, but it resolves an ambiguity. I believe this is already implied. Andre🚐 23:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say among high-quality sources instead. This makes it clear that the quality matters; not every WP:GREL source is equal. And it somewhat reduces the circularity, while incorporating all the other things we use to judge a source's quality. --Aquillion (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. Andre🚐 23:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. No examples have been given that might hint what the intended effect is, but one might be: instead of repute being something that the general population accepts, it becomes something that appears only in the journals that pat each other on their respective backs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

So you believe it is better to have the reputation be based on the general population? And how is that measured? Isn't it better to have the reputation be amongst reputable fact checkers, reputable books and academic journals, and other high-quality sources that we consider usable and generally reliable for facts? Why should it be a popularity content amongst the general populace? And an example of the intended effect would be to require other reliable sources to be used for evidence in RSN discussions, and categorically exclude sources such as WP:MBFC and WP:ADFONTES from being used. Andre🚐 00:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Cambridge Dictionary definition starts with the words "the opinion that people in general have ...". For ways to measure read Public opinion. Thanks for an example, now I know that an intended effect is to prevent other editors from citing sources even in noticeboard discussions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

But we've never had these discussions about what public opinion polls say. We have them based on what reliable sources say. Andre🚐 19:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you indicate where this has recently been an issue? NebY (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_385, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_390, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_384, CTRL+F for "ADFONTES" and "MBFC" Andre🚐 19:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's more complicated than that.

First, WP:MBFC and related entries are exclusively about what you can write/cite in an article. There is absolutely nothing in there that says you can't, as an exercise of your own personal Wikipedia:Editorial discretion, look at one of those and decide that, since Ad Fontes Media gave a poor rating to Pseudo News, you're going to look for a better source. That would normally be a highly desirable outcome.

Second, we don't require all sources to have that "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"; we only want articles to be Wikipedia:Based upon such sources. Some sources that have bad reputations (Trump's Twitter account?) or no reputation at all (very common) can still be used, just like non-independent sources can be used, too. Such sources shouldn't dominate the article, but they can be used, and they can be used for key points and even contentious or unpleasant content ("I am not a crook" – said nearly every crook ever).

Third, I wonder how you could demonstrate a reputation (for anything) if you have no sources indicating anything about the reputation. Consequently, I wonder whether such a change would make any practical difference.

As a practical matter, we normally enforce this at the opposite level: It doesn't need to have a reputation for being good, but it shouldn't have a reputation for being bad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The exceptions for SELFPUBISHED sources like a twitter account are very specific carveouts. They would lack WEIGHT and can only be used for very specific types of facts. I'm talking about amending the policy to define "reputable" and "reputation" to make sure that reputation comes from other reliable, high-quality sources - but that could also apply only to the "based upon" sources or "high quality" sources. Currently, if this is a gray area or charitably, the interpretation is that a "reputation" means a reputation amongst editors or amongst the general populace, that makes it a popularity contest. To your point that how you could demonstrate a reputation (for anything) if you have no sources indicating anything about the reputation you could demonstrate that by citations in other sources, or by sources that describe that reputation e.g. newspaper A calls newspaper B a paper of record. Right now, as you say, we only look for the opposite: when a source was discredited. My point is that the source for acceptable evidence should come from other reliable sources: not from unreliable ones, or from editors' heads (original research) Andre🚐 23:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

What problem is this going to fix? Can you point to a discussion where this would come into play? Springee (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the major effect of this in practice would be to constrain the available sources for discussion on the RSN to other RS, and prevent usage of non-RS to make arguments for or against a given source's reliability. Since right now, one can argue, as it is argued above, that a "reputation" doesn't mean a reputation within the normal source of factual record we use (i.e., RS) but that a reputation is simply according to editors or the general population. So if editors read a non-RS, such as a twitter page or a site like MBFC/ADFONTES, they could use that to determine the reputation of a source. IMHO, that is a misread of the policy but if it's a gray area, or the policy doesn't actually specify the source of the reputation, this would address that scenario. Andre🚐 00:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'm opposed to that. When trying to decide if a source is good/bad we certainly should be allowed to make/use arguments from sources that wouldn't be acceptable in the article space. Adfonts et al would be one example. A self published paper by a subject matter expert would be another. For example, if Burt Rutan disagreed with a RS on the subject of aircraft design that would be a red flag even if the NYT said the source was solid. I do see your concern regarding popularity contest but what if an auto writer for the WashPo disagreed with Racecar Engineering Magazine? Do we automatically assume the WashPo is correct? If Adrian Reynard said a book on automobile dynamics was crap despite being well reviewed in the popular press, well I would listen to Adrian before any writer in the mainstream press. Is there an example where you think this change would have made a difference? Springee (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

In the cases you give, a high-quality expert source, or academic source, would still weight more highly and be valid. This would exclude sources such as Newsguard, Adfontes, and MBFC, from RSN, that consensus had already determined were unreliable for article space, from being used to determine what sources are reliable. A source that would be usable for a high-quality cite in article space, would still be usable for determining reliability as well. It completes the web of trust by ensuring that sources are judged by only other reliable sources that could be used to cite a fact in article space. Adfontes and MBFC are considered unreliable, because they have an unclear methodology and are essentially self-published, same with Newsguard, recent RFCs on RSN have determined they aren't reliable and there's even an explicit warning about MBFC when you go to start a new posting on RSN, as I've mentioned in the past. Present ambiguity would allow editors to consult unreliable sources to form an opinion on a source's reliability. This would firmly enmesh the reliability of sources into what can be demonstrated using only other reliable sources, preventing original research, or consultation of potentially skewed or misleading sources of information for determining reliability. Without this amendment or a similar amendment, I do think there's an ambiguity and the reliability guideline on less sound footing than it could be. Andre🚐 01:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

"Unclear methodology" is irrelevant. Have a look at the summary in WP:NOTGOODSOURCE. There's nothing in there about having a clear methodology. Besides, it's apparently not actually true in the instant case anyway: "Ad Fontes administers an internal political bias test to analysts, asking them to rank their left-to-right position on about 20 policy positions. That information allows the company to attempt to create ideological balance by including one centrist, one left-leaning and one right-leaning analyst on each review panel. The panels review at least three articles for each source, but they may review as many as 30 for particularly prominent outlets, like The Washington Post, Otero said. More on their methodology, including how they choose which articles to review to create a bias rating, can be found here on the Ad Fontes website."[1] See also https://adfontesmedia.com/about-the-interactive-media-bias-chart/

It is essentially self-published, and that can be a serious problem, especially for contentious matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: This looks like a bad idea. Springee (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

RSQUOTE

WP:RS/QUOTE says:

The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article.

I propose removing the word secondary from the middle. We need the text to be taken from a reliable source, but it doesn't really matter whether that source is secondary. There are times when another primary source (e.g., a press release by a company or politician that quotes and apologizes for a tone-deaf tweet they made) or a tertiary source is just as good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing made a bold change to remove "secondary" on 22 December 2022, I reverted, along with a reference to a disagreement on the WP:V talk page, Sources that summarize other sources. I can't think where "not possible" actually applies. I suppose the example of a "tone-deaf tweet" is for a tweet that was deleted, but the tweeter's press release is a discussion of what the tweet supposedly said and so is secondary. I continue to oppose this change. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Press releases are primary sources. (They are also self-published and frequently non-independent of their subject matter.) Quoting someone doesn't transform the source into a secondary source. See WP:LINKSINACHAIN.

"Not possible" could apply to since-deleted recent contents, but it can also apply to lost works. Frequently what we know about works published a thousand years ago is only what someone claimed was in it 500 years ago (see "medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings" in the relevant policy).

Similarly, if a history textbook for schools quotes a bit of the US Declaration of Independence, or even reprints it in full, then that tertiary source is accepted by editors. Specifying that we must use secondary sources amounts to a ban on most textbooks available to students. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Citing a school textbook for a quote of that declaration, despite the fact that original or secondary sources could be found, would be against the current wording of WP:RS/QUOTE. Are you suggesting that your proposal would make it okay? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• I have to agree with WhatamIdoing here… The key is to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. If you looked at the text of a high school history textbook when quoting the Declaration of Independence, that textbook is what you should cite. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Isn't the question one of where you should take the quotation from - in your example, should you look at a high school history textbook for it? NebY (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• More Background: Possibly wrong: The first edition of the section is due to an addition in April 2009 by Mangoe. The specific phrase "from a reliable secondary source" is due to an edit in November 2010 by Blueboar. Blueboar said "based upon talk", which I guess means talk page thread = Quotations. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Looking at that discussion, it appears that editors were thinking that there are only two available sources:

  • the original, authoritative source for the quotation, which is primary; and
  • sources that discuss the quotation, which are secondary.

  This is, however, a significant oversimplification of reality, especially for pop culture and recent events. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• As the instigator of the passage, I have two remarks here. First, the textbook sourcing for the Declaration is not a compelling case. We are on the internet; we can source it from the National Archives. Both are, technically, secondary sources, but the second is clearly more authoritative as a transcription. Either way I'm not seeing the relevance here, because the word "secondary" is implied by the context. The point of the prescription is that, in the quest for accuracy and authority, quotations need to be taken from as close to the original as possible. When it is not possible to use the primary source, we need to minimize the train of transmission. And when we're talking ancient "quotations", the primary source is actually the initial publication of the translation, and yes, we ought to get as close to that as possible. And again, this being on the internet, those primary translation sources are typically on-line. Mangoe (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Mangoe, what makes you think that an accurate transcription of a document is a secondary source? From the article: "Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." It's not a matter of counting up the number of WP:LINKSINACHAIN. An accurate transcription of a primary source is still a primary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Saying that it's an accurate transcription is begging the question: you don't know it is accurate unless you compare it against a more authoritative copy. And if such is available, we ought to prefer it as our source. That's really what my original version of this guideline is about. Mangoe (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mangoe, let's stipulate that the National Archives has put an accurate copy of the Declaration of Independence on its website. Their accurate copy isn't a secondary source. Reproducing a primary source results in a copy of a primary source. It does not result in a secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to try to re-phrase this in a way that makes the problem clearer. Here are two versions of the disputed sentence. These two sentences mean exactly the same thing.

• If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source.
• If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable source that provides generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original quotation.

@Peter Gulutzan and others: Would you be satisfied with the second version? Keep in mind that all I've done is replace the word secondary with the standard definition of what that word means.

If, as I have suggested, you believe that the key point is that we need a source that is unlikely to have screwed up, rather than a source that provides some sort of transformative scholarly comment on the quotation, then perhaps you will see why I think this word should be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess you're thinking of WP:SECONDARY when you say "the standard definition of what that word means", while I admit I think of non-Wikipedia definition e.g. Oxford Learner's Dictionary "book or other source of information where the writer has taken the information from some other source and not collected it himself or herself", I don't believe that's the wrong thing to do when Wikipedia's description doesn't match an ordinary meaning that an ordinary user might know. But if it is, then the other argument, that secondary excludes tertiary, is still in your way. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the line I quoted comes from the Wikipedia article, Secondary source. For Wikipedia's purposes, a secondary source is something that intellectually transforms one or more original ("primary") sources into a new thing. Merely repeating it secondhand is not enough; see WP:LINKSINACHAIN.

(It sounds like that dictionary may be engaging in the practice of lies to children; secondary is not identical to secondhand.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The grownup version is about the same. OED entry for "secondary", 3a: "Belonging to the second order in a series related by successive derivation, causation, or dependence; derived from, based on, or dependent on something else which is primary; not original, derivative." I had to go down a long way till I saw something remotely resembling what you called standard: "Draft additions September 2007 ... In the context of academic research or writing: designating or relating to analytical or critical commentary on material which forms the primary subject of study; designating a text with another text as its subject. Frequently contrasted with primary adj. 17." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

A secondary source is not quite the same thing as a source that is secondary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Chewing the citations

Over time I have noticed a tendency that I call "chewing the citations" (by analogy with chewing the scenery) where statements are introduced with an attribution to the cited source even though they are not evidently controversial or are not unique to the source. While it is important to cite the height of the Eiffel Tower, for example, this is not controversial and so there would be no need to say "According to a Reuters report…." When this is done repeatedly, it results in tedious he-said/she-said text that may suggest nonexistent controversy, or fails to identify the poles of controversy and can invite the inclusion of fringe views. I wonder if some comment about this might be added. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be nonsense. Eiffel Tower, for example, doesn't hedge. It simply says, "The tower is 330 metres (1,083 ft) tall" and provides a citation. A citation absolutely should be provided in that case. Do you have specific examples of what you claim? If so, provide them. --Yamla (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You are refuting assertions that I did not make. I have commented on the phenomenon before at the Jerome Powell article, and came across one today at the "Banking in Canada" article, but I have not kept a running dossier of examples to provide immediately upon demand. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Please give a specific example. --Yamla (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

See Jerome Powell comments here and "Banking in Canada" example here. These are not the only examples I have come across and I doubt that either of us have such a comprehensive knowledge of WP's content to judge how extensive the practice might be. The policy page can be changed or not, but I did not imagine that cautioning against superfluous attribution of statements might be so objectionable that it would be promptly denounced as "nonsense." 67.180.143.89 (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the embargo on IMDB

A heckofalot of articles here on WP are about movies. A heckofalot of information about movies is on IMDB, and I would have to suggest it is pretty reliable, and should be considered as such. I get the feeling that most people there do their work in good faith. As an editor, as a person, I have to go on good faith. Same as Find a Grave, which I also contribute to. Has WP actually studied IMDB or FG and documented how frequently they perpetuates lies? or what sort of political bias they are governed by? Heck, I still advise people to worry about WP: the new/old adage still applies: don't believe anything you read on the Internet. check the sources; read'em if you have to. Because the IMDB is a valuable resource, a way should be found to allow its use. Here's a suggestion: a little disclaimer - just like the omnipresent BLP disclaimers at the top of bio pages: "This page cites IMDB for some of the information presented herein. While we believe IMDB to be generally reliable, please use your own judgement when reading it. Seek other sources if you are in doubt." I say all this because I was reverted for trying to answer some questions about TV appearances by the actress Tracy Camilla Johns. I might simply have gone to the editor who asked for the additions to go to IMDB. It certainly would have been easier than spending 20 minutes on lookups. And on this complaint. Verne Equinox (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Verne Equinox: Have you read WP:IMDB? This was discussed and agreed some years ago. It's not likely to be overturned unless IMDb seriously change their policy regarding user-submitted content. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It would take logic and intelligence to solve for Wikipedia and IMDB, you are looking at the wrong place. Editors favor themselves being right over including useful information. user-submitted content oh that gross, kill it with fire. 2601:248:C000:3F:9D65:D6B4:F90F:280E (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

One small example. I had to submit a change request to IMDB last year because they hadn't even got the title of the show correct. - X201 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

No, IMDB isn't 'generally reliable'. It is full of nonsense placed their by people trying to promote themselves and/or whatever they are paid to plug. It utterly fails to meet WP:RS standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC: The elephant in the room: AI sources

As AI is becoming increasingly prevalent and beginning to be used by sources considered reliable, I think it is time to ask: are sources written by an AI reliable, regardless of publication? If an AI article is written by a reliable publication, does it differ from an article written by the same AI from a situational or unreliable publication? Does that differ from an average person using that same AI? What about articles only assisted by an AI? (see also: the ongoing RSN discussion of CNET). DecafPotato (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No. This is obvious and does not need and RFC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb, is it obvious? Most cases of AI writing aren't the CNET "running wild with tons of errors" type. Most of them are edited to contain factual information. This is asking about AI articles in general on reliable sources, not "is an unedited response I got from ChatGPT reliable".

If consensus is obvious, close it early, sure, but to me, it is not. And not a single person had a chance to reply when you reverted it. DecafPotato (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

One, there has been no WP:RFCBEFORE that I can find. Two, it clearly falls into WP:UGC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Taking a look at the Verge report over in the discussion about CNET, this is what stands out to me regarding AI assisted sources: "...editing its work took much longer than editing a real staffer’s copy. The tool also had a tendency to write sentences that sounded plausible but were incorrect, and it was known to plagiarize language from the sources it was trained on..."

Based on that report, AI assisted writing would therefore fall under WP:GUNREL. If a souce is using a specific byline for its AI writing then that byline can be deprecated much as we already to with Forbes: Columns written Forbes contributors are considered unreliabile opinion pieces but articles composed by Forbes staff writiers are reliable. But if we cannot differentiate between when and where AI assisted writing is being used then the entire source comes into question for reliability. Blue Riband► 01:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Here’s a question… how do we know whether a source was written by an AI? Suppose, for the sake of argument, a here-to-fore reliable source (say the New York Times) uses an AI to write a news article… how would we know? Blueboar (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  In a nutshell we can't know until a pattern emerges. Then there will need to be a discussion on whether or not the previously reliable source has become questionable after a certain date. Blue Riband► 13:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Whether AI was used or not isn't central for whether or not a source is trustworthy. In most cases it's just one tool used in the process of creating a source.

For each source we should look at it's actual reliability. Unedited ChatGPT obviously is not reliable. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• I just added a subsection on LLMs. I understand WP:BRD, but if it gets reverted, I won't be able to advocate for its reinstatement; someone else will need to champion that, or push for their own improved version of it, since I barely have any time to contribute to Wikipedia these days (and likely for the next few weeks).

I'd just like to address one thing: as Axios reported, other WP:RS have experimented with LLMs, but I don't think it's a problem as long as it's used in minimal, judicious ways, with proper oversight. But I think the subsection I added will cause minimal collateral damage. DFlhb (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Liechtensteiner Volksblatt

The Liechtensteiner Volksblatt newspaper has gone out of business after 145 years. Every link (example) now redirects to Liechtensteiner Vaterland, the only other newspaper in the country. There are around 70-ish citations of this newspaper on en.wp, so archive links will need to be placed in. Curbon7 (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

are death certificates and marriage certificates/licenses reliable sources?

are death certificates and marriage certificates/licenses reliable sources? Ladyluck58 (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

No, in most cases. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Masem (t) 19:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what you're relying on them for. What could be more authoritative about a person's date of death than their official death certificate?

From my own experience in writing Margaret Sibella Brown#Death, I had sources differing on the spelling of her name and her date of death. I went with the death certificate for the date, but not for the spelling. I explained the discrepancies and why I went which way on each fact. That gives the reader all the information, and they can draw their own conclusions. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

When editors have used official birth or death certificates in the past, they have sometimes made the unpleasant discovery that they relied on the wrong person's certificate. They're probably reliable for a statement that "a" person named Margaret Brown died; they don't, however, tell you whether the Margaret Brown in the death certificate is the same Margaret Brown that you're writing an article about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

That. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Photographs

Many WP articles are descriptions of artworks, buildings, series of industrially produced vehicles and similar things. Actual photographs of such things can be verified by many visitors of WP in reality. That prevents falsifications. Historic photos are not less reliable than historic verbal descriptions. Why aren't photographs mentioned in this guideline as reliable sources?--Ulamm (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ulamm: Have a look at the article Cottingley Fairies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR may be relevant, depending on context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Reply on the second answer at first: Original research of the intolerable kind are private records that cannot be verified. Measurements of physical values such as temperatures, pressures and flows at a certain time. The same thing is with chemical analyses.

The truth of photos of objects with public access that remain unchanged or almost unchanged for years can be controlled by the public, including the Wikipedia/Wikimedia communities.

This leads to my reply on the first answer.

There is an immense difference between photos of situations and photos of constant objects:

Photos of situations are always doubtful. The art of retouching is as old as the art of photography (last not least because just the first photographers wanted to fit some principles of presentations, people were accustomed to from paintings)

But, as I already wrote in my first post, photos of stable objects have a protection against alterations that violate the truth;

the publisher of an essentially altered photograph has to face the possibility that next day (or next week or next year) somebody else will publish a true photo of the same object.

Especially in WM Commons, the correct photo will be placed in the same category as the wrong one.

This way, the falsification can be unmasked much easier than a wrong description in a scientific manual, which is reviewed once in a decade (or more rarely).--Ulamm (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Question about “self-published” sources

So, what if a source has some, but not all, of their sources published? Does the publishing of some account for the self-publishing of others? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Reliable yet profringe

Turns out it was WP:BLOCKEVASION all along. Generalrelative (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see we have some back and forth regarding a recent addition about profringe sources being unreliable. This is not always the case. Profringe sources CAN be reliable… yet excluded because discussing/citing them can be UNDUE. In other words, the addition is addressing a valid problem, but using the wrong policy to address it. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC) No, you're wrong. The well-established consensus is that white supremacist sources by authors such as Arthur Jensen, Charles Murray and Heiner Rindermann are never RS regardless of who the publisher is. That's why guidelines such as WP:PARITY do not apply to these sources, and they are kept out of articles even when published in the same journals as their critics. This guideline needs to be updated to reflect the current consensus and standard editing practices. Sovkhozniki (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION Generalrelative (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Note: Sovkhozniki's suggested change appears to be related to this RFC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eyferth_study#Request_for_comment_on_hereditarianism_subsection — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.31.71.58 (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC) I think you are missing the point… it does not really matter whether such sources are deemed “reliable” or not… since they can be excluded under WP:UNDUE. We often get so wrapped up in arguments about reliability that we forget that there are other policies and guidelines that also affect inclusion/exclusion. Not everything comes down to whether the source is “reliable”. You are essentially adding instruction creep to address a problem that is already adequately dealt with elsewhere. No need for that. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC) The change is needed because for three years, a few editors have disruptively argued these sources should be included based on WP:PARITY, because they have the same quality of publisher as sources presenting the mainstream view. See the RFC that the IP linked to above as a recent example. WP:NPOV allows the inclusion of reliably sourced minority views, but it does not allow the inclusion of material published in unreliable sources. Clarifying the guideline to state that sources by WP:PROFRINGE authors are inherently unreliable might put an end to this disruption. Sovkhozniki (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC) You inserted ", except in cases where it promotes fringe theories", then re-inserted despite my revert and objection. You say "a few editors have disruptively argued", have you informed them that you are making this conduct accusation and trying to change the guideline to get around their disruption? You say "inherently unreliable", does that mean you reject WP:RS's mention of things like "context"? You say "white supremacist sources", so can we take it that your most recent argument about Nicholas Wade has nothing to do with this? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Calm down. All of these facts, including that sources by WP:PROFRINGE authors are never RS and that the editors who reject that view are engaged in WP:IDHT behavior, have been well-established in the "race and intelligence" topic area for years. Please familiarize yourself with the two RFCs in which this consensus was established: [2] [3] But a few editors have claimed that sources by authors who advocate racial hereditarianism can be RS, and a few of those editors are still pushing the same view. This years-long refusal to accept consensus is disruptive. Sovkhozniki (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC) I think your motivation is good here, but we shouldn't change content policies to address behaviour problems. Disruptive POV pushers will just find some other tenuous justification. Behaviour problems have to be addressed through AE or ANI, user by user. MrOllie (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Dealing with racialist editors one at a time has never been effective. More always show up eventually. Besides, as I said, there is a well-established consensus in the "race and intelligence" topic that sources by authors who push racial hereditarianism are never RS, and the relevant Wikipedia articles have been rewritten based on that consensus. Here's an example of how editing practices reflect these sources being non-RS, not just WP:UNDUE. These sources cannot be cited in the Cadborosaurus article because they are by Michael Woodley, who is a WP:PROFRINGE racial hereditarian author. Those are some of the only 21st century sources about the Cadborosaurus myth. Can they be undue weight when so few other modern sources exist? I don't know but it doesn't matter, because the author's white supremacist views make all of his publications non-RS. This widespread editing practice needs to be reflected in the RS guideline. Sovkhozniki (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC) @Sovkhozniki:, is it your view that articles about the transistor should not cite William Shockley despite the fact that he invented one variety of transistor and, though his role is more complex, received the Nobel Prize in physics for discovering the transistor effect? (By the way, although Wikipedia articles about various kinds of transistors mention Shockley extensively, I have not found any citations to his work). Jc3s5h (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Please don't call this "my view". I'm merely describing the established consensus of the past 2-3 years. I've only removed a little of this material directly, and most of the citations to books and papers by authors who are racial hereditarians were removed by other editors. I think they've been all removed now, including any direct citations to Shockley, but there might be some obscure articles with more that still need to be cleared out. Sovkhozniki (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Sovkhozniki: This comment of yours appears to be a parody of my comment at the Eyferth study RfC (though you ignore the fact that I only advocated the removal of Jensen's FRINGE claims, and elsewhere in the discussion I supported using Jensen as a reference in other cases). Feel free to respond on your user talk page, where I have also commented. Generalrelative (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Your second diff does not say that you supported citing Jensen. You said, "we should be able to find better references." As for the rest of your claims, I won't engage with paranoid conspiracy theories. Sovkhozniki (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC) For another concrete example of the issue, consider Aries (astrology). As I read it, it has two sources that support undisputed facts like the definition of the word and how the sign relates to the astronomical position of the Sun. It doesn't see to have any sources from unreliable publishers. But it has two sources, which I do not have access to , that seem to be reliable sources yet seem to teach people how to do astrology. If that's really what the books are about, then they promote a fringe theory. The publishers I'm thinking of are HarperResource and John Wiley & Sons. If we were to follow the proposed insertion, we would have to substantially reduce the size of the article. Also, in {{Infobox zodiac}} six out of the twelve parameters would probably have to be removed because there are no reliable sources (under the changed guideline) that could possibly give the value of the parameter. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: Assuming that what we're seeing here is a good-faith effort on the part of Sovkhozniki –– and not some kind of Joe job-like socking –– I am concerned that this brand new user may have fallen for a basic misconception pushed by the very pro-fringe editors they seek to counter (the most recent example of which is the hatted discussion here). In fact, there is no issue with the RS guideline as presently written, and as others have indicated above, nor is there any conflict between it and FRINGE. Further, it is simply incorrect to claim that Dealing with racialist editors one at a time has never been effective. The persistence of racist SPAs and LTAs amounts to a minor annoyance, even as substantial progress has been made in the R&I topic area in recent years. I suggest that, as a brand new user, Sovkhozniki spend more time acquainting themselves with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and norms before attempting anything so radical as directly editing P&G. Generalrelative (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Generalrelative, I would rather you not backpedal just because some voters in the Eyferth Study RFC are opposing us over this conclusion, which I assume is the reason you're changing your position. You previously agreed that sources by Nicholas Wade cannot be RS because of his history of pushing fringe claims. Your edits to Race and intelligence today, or your edit to the Cadborosaurus article mentioned above, show that you still agree with the consensus that these sources have to be removed wherever they're encountered. Actions say more than words, but this principle isn't reflected in the RS guideline currently. Let's finally get rid of this gap between what the RS guideline says in theory, and what it means in actual editing practices. Sovkhozniki (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Nonsense –– there is no such gap, and my views on this matter have not changed. Whatever you think you're doing here, you're wasting your time. Generalrelative (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Maps and Charts as sources

I have started a RFC at WP:VPP asking for clarification of the OR policy regarding the use of maps and charts. As it involves a specific type of source I suspect people watching this page may have an interest as well. Dave (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The RfC has been expanded since announced here. The proposals are now:

• Proposal 1: original research
  • Alternative to proposal 1
• Proposal 2: What can be cited to a map?
  • Proposal 2a: reliable sourcing
  • Proposal 2b: image layers
• Proposal 3: history
• Proposal 4: notability
  • Proposal 4a: Notability - Significant coverage
  • Proposal 4b: Notability - Sourced only to maps
• Proposal 5: Reliability

New proposals are marked in bold. BilledMammal (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

buzzfeed news isnt reliable

is this a joke? its even on the criticism section of the buzzfeed news wikipedia article itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuzzFeed_News 2A01:C22:C040:300:D4A8:F090:48D1:E54 (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Little Bill is based on Ennis Cosby

Little Bill is Loosely based on Bill Cosby's son who got shot in 1997 so can I please edit Little Bill because you guys have the wrong information Jereminx (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jereminx: 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. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Michael Coyne (photographer)

Hi just wondering how to go about creating a citation when the sources may be behind a paywall. I have been attempting to profile documentary photographer Michael Coyne, much of his contribution to photojournalism which I could reference is found at News Ltd or National Geographic photo archives. Any pointers to assist here would help please. DJB of Melb (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@DJB of Melb, WP:PAYWALLED sources are allowed. You can include url if you have it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@DJB of Melb: Cite the source in the normal way for the article concerned. If it doesn't use citation templates, add {{subscription required}} inside the <ref>...</ref> tags. If you're using a template like {{cite web}}, you can add a suitable |xxx-access=subscription parameter instead; so if you're putting the URL of a website in the |url= parameter, you would use |url-access=subscription. See Template:Cite web#Access indicators for url-holding parameters for more. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

News aggregators

Are news aggregators allowed to be used as sources in articles and do they count as reliable sources? WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Nope, but because they aggregate news stories, any of the relevant stories from RSes included in the aggregator can be used. Masem (t) 20:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an example of the instance you're looking at? News aggregators are not a monolith; some consist entirely of external links, such as Drudge Report, while others repost articles from other news sources, such as AllAfrica, while others like RealClearPolitics does a mix of the two while also writing original articles. Curbon7 (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

AllAfrica came up on one article of dispute and I have noticed it used on another article, the Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic article. Using AllAfrica seems very counter to the purpose of sourcing because it would imply that the article comes from AllAfrica when the article is from another source. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

When I have to use AllAfrica in instances where I am unable to locate the original online (for example as I do here), I like to use the via= parameter in the references to notate AA while crediting the original publisher in the publisher= parameter. Curbon7 (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

But won't it just be better to use the original source directly or the publication itself? Or it was unless you were unable to find that Ethiopian Herald article in the first place? Because if it's the latter then I think it's fine and using AllAfrica is fine. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. Right, you were unable to find that original article. Not sure why I didn't see that. So I guess using AllAfrica for the original articles you can't find is one thing and I think that is a logical solution. Thanks for the insight. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

"*Prefer* secondary sources" seems inaccurate

There may be instances where primary sources were acceptable. However in practice i observe that the applied rule is "primary sources are never acceptable". The wording "prefer" implies that the article writer gets to make a mostly autonomous choice on using primary sources, when that is unlikely to be permissible. The correct phrasing should be something like "Avoid primary sources almost always", and then be followed with documentation on when primary sources are even acceptable at all. Xenofur (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a myth that primary sources are forbidden. We should not strengthen the myth by further entrenching it in the policy. Zero^talk 01:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

In that case that also should be spelled out. Xenofur (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you seen the essay: WP:Identifying and using primary sources? It may help. Blueboar (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There are some case that primary source are reliable than secondary source. For example, Microsoft say about Windows support policy, or a User manual of a product, It is often more reliable than secondary sources. Joeccho (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Zenodo

Should Zenodo be listed alongside arXiv and others as a server of preprints / as a self-published source? (Or, if not, should it be mentioned in that section as not typical of that section?) —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I added Zenodo alongside arXiv and others. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there a method to search the sources here?

I want to search for something, but only get results from reliable sources listed here. Is that possible? QuicoleJR (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

start with Google Scholars at https://scholar.google.com/ It does a very good job and links to many online free sources for scholarly articles and books. Rjensen (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Problem is, I am working on more pop culture topics than scholarly ones. I was just wondering if I could filter out the garbage. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

There are none that I know of. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

OK. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Rjensen: @Quantling: I started a discussion here at the idea lab. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Commentary that calls out UGC in reliable sources

We know from WP:UGC (and by extension, MOS:FILMAUDIENCE) that user ratings published on sites like IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes are not considered reliable. That much is clear, and these guidelines date back as far as 2013. What isn't as clear is how we treat this data when a significant number of reliable sources pick up on the scores and discuss them in detail. This is becoming increasingly common with newer films, where the disparity between critics and audiences (when it occurs) is getting called out.

Please see the discussion at WT:FILM#Audience reception: additional considerations. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Question about how to cite Radio Free Europe

With regards to this article, should the publication parameter for the reference be Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty directly or should it be the name of the branch (in this case Radio Europa Liberă Moldova)? Curbon7 (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Since this question isn't about the reliability of a source, I think Wikipedia:Help desk would be a better place to ask it. However, my feeling is that you should probably use Radio Europa Liberă Moldova here (but I can't guarantee that this is right). C. Scheler (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources circular referencing

I was wondering how to notice or deal with reliable sources referencing each other? Oftentimes, to back certain controversial info in an article I add citations to back it. But how do I know if different sources are not using the same source instead of investigating themselves and reaching their own conclusions? Would that be an issue for the sources being independent? Here is a video that illustrates the issue (ignore the "mind control" caption). Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Showing your result in a search engine?

How would someone go about having their Wikipedia page show up in public search results on Google or others? Jerry Ferrone (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jerryferrone, hello. I assume you mean User:Jerryferrone. That is your userpage, it's meant for writing a little about what you do/want to do as a Wikipedian/on Wikipedia, and search engines like google generally don't look for those. An actual WP article about you is probably not doable per [4], but of course google doesn't know all. More on that at Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your information, it was very helpful- so if someone else wrote an article about me, it would be more doable, just experimenting at the moment. I will also check the other links you recommend- thank you again. Jerry Ferrone (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll reply at your talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine UAPs?

Before I edit the List of reported UFO sightings I would like to ask the experts here if the below mentioned study qualifies as (WP) "reliable source"?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.11215

》Conclusions

The Main Astronomical Observatory of NAS of Ukraine conducts a study of UAP. We used two meteor stations installed in Kyiv and in the Vinarivka village in the south of the Kyiv region. Observations were performed with colour video cameras in the daytime sky. A special observation technique had developed for detecting and evaluating UAP characteristics. There are two types of UAP, conventionally called Cosmics, and Phantoms. Cosmics are luminous objects, brighter than the background of the sky. Phantoms are dark objects, with contrast from several to about 50 per cent. We observed a broad range of UAPs everywhere. We state a significant number of objects whose nature is not clear. Flights of single, group and squadrons of the ships were detected, moving at speeds from 3 to 15 degrees per second. Some bright objects exhibit regular brightness variability in the range of 10 -20 Hz. Two-site observations of UAPs at a base of 120 km with two synchronised cameras allowed the detection of a variable object, at an altitude of 1170 km. It flashes for one hundredth of a second at an average of 20 Hz. Phantom shows the colur characteristics inherent in an object with zero albedos. We see an object because it shields radiation due to Rayleigh scattering. An object contrast made it possible to estimate the distance using colorimetric methods. Phantoms are observed in the troposphere at distances up to 10 -12 km. We estimate their size from 3 to 12 meters and speeds up to 15 km/s.《

and continuation:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.17085

》Conclusions

The Main Astronomical Observatory of NAS of Ukraine conducts a study of UAP. We used two meteor stations installed in Kyiv and in the Vinarivka village in the south of the Kyiv region. Observations were performed with color video cameras in the daytime sky. A special observation technique had developed for detecting and evaluating UAP characteristics. There are two types of UAP, conventionally called Cosmics, and Phantoms. Cosmics are luminous objects, brighter than the background of the sky. Phantoms are dark objects, with contrast from several to about 50 per cent. Two-site observations of UAPs at a base of 120 km with two synchronized cameras allowed the detection of two variable objects, at an altitude of 620 and 1130 km, moving at a speed of 256 and 78 km/s. Light curves of objects show a variability of about 10 Hz. Colorimetric analysis showed that the objects are dark: B -V = 1.35, V -R = 0.23. We demonstrate the properties of several phantoms that were observed in Kyiv and the Kyiv region in 2018-2022. Phantoms are observed in the troposphere at distances up to 10 -14 km. We estimate their size from 20 to about of 100 meters and speeds up to 30 km/s. Color properties of bright flying objects indicate that objects are perceived as very dark. Albedo less than 0.01 would seem to make them practically black bodies, not reflecting electromagnetic radiation. We can assume that a bright flying object, once in the troposphere, will be visible as a phantom. All we can say about phantoms is to repeat the famous quote: "Coming from the part of space, that lies outside Earth and its atmosphere. Means belonging or relating to the Universe".《

wikt:ELI5

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E2ZSlLH0TzE Foerdi (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The paper is a "preprint" uploaded to a database, meaning it hasn't actually been published in any scientific journal, so no, not a WP:RS. (Neither is the UFOlogist at the YouTube link). Even if it was reliably sourced, I'm not sure what text you'd propose adding to List of reported UFO sightings. The paper concludes that "We observe a significant number of objects whose nature is not clear". That's way too vague for a "UFO sighting" entry. Also, seeing unidentified stuff in the air is not surprising in a country that is currently a target for Russian missiles, drones, planes, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Crypto Sources as reliable sources

some "crypto sources" should be considered reliable sources. For instance, Coindesk was cited numerous times in the US Treasury's report "Illicit Finance Risk Assesment of Decentralized https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/DeFi-Risk-Full-Review.pdf highlights:

https://twitter.com/inthepixels/status/1663835533682900996 Bidofthis (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSN is the place for a discussion on this. One previous archived discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_395#Time_to_reconsider_CoinDesk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

depotem

is the word depotem used for a phrase in czech language or is it used as a name of a water tank cleaning and disinfection which means su deposu temizliği, a company Depotem Ltd, in Turkey, more commonly in the web. i will try to make disambiguation Sudeposutemizligi (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2023

Can You Add a Profile On the ANthony Davis wiki page. Include aspects of his game. JwillWiki454 (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@JwillWiki454 I'm not sure what you want, but you're in the wrong place. Try WP:TEAHOUSE. And if you post there, tell people which Anthony Davis (disambiguation) you are talking about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we cite author bios from opinion articles?

Opinion and editorial articles in respectable news outlets typically feature a bio section describing the author(s) and their occupations and credentials that are not part of the article's body. I know that it is not typically appropriate to use the body of such articles for statements of fact, but is it acceptable to cite the bio section of that article for articles concerning the author(s) in question? Dankmemes2 (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dankmemes2, if that's the only place you can find information about the author, then yes, it's usable, but with caution. See WP:ABOUTSELF for advice on how to handle such situations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Republishing

I’m curious whether Wikipedia has any policy or guideline that covers republication. For example, suppose an unreliable source like Blaze Media republishes an article from a reliable source like Associated Press. Or a reliable source like CBS republishes an article from an unreliable source like CNET. Does the involvement of the reliable source make it usable by Wikipedia? Or does the involvement of the unreliable source make it unusable? It seems to me that the former should be true, because a reliable source is vouching that the content is reliable. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant, if a reliable outlet publishes it, then that's okay. We wouldn't want Wikipedia to be constrained by what some troll site does ("Oh, they cited that? Well, I'll copyvio it onto my website and magically make it 'unreliable', so they won't be able to cite that any longer!"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources of financial information

I believe it would merit to define what sources can be used for financial information. I noted that some editors are fine to accept financial information provided by newspapers, but do not accept audited financial statements and other documents approved by regulatory bodies as a source for financial information on the basis that the documents have been prepared by the target itself. I maintain that financial information about a company can ultimately only stem from the company itself and that once verified by independent bodies (e.g. auditors) is the best information we can have about the financial situation of a company. On the other hand, I further believe that financial information from newspapers should only be regarded as a source for financial information if the newspaper itself discloses its sources. Summing up, I would suggest to extend this policy with a section on what sources are suitable for financial information and I would list as preferred sources a) audited financial statements (but not annual reports!), b) debt issuance documents if cleared by a reputable regulatory body, c) documents published by company regularly engaged in documenting financial data (e.g. auditing companies, accounting companies). Thoughts? Jaeljojo (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

It isn't a good look to be proposing a major change to Wikipedia policy while actively debating the question with multiple other contributors with regard to one specific article. [5] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I am not proposing a change, but a clarification. The current policy already accounts for peer-reviewed documents to be used as a source. I would argue that audited financial accounts are at least of the standard of a peer-reviewed document, but apparently people see this differently. In order to clarify this point, I suggest to add a section to illustrate what financial information (which by definition in its original source has to come from the target company) is valid. Allowing newspaper articles as such a source while not allowing audited accounts is not logical in my view. Jaeljojo (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Given that policy as it stands isn't interpreted that way (as has been made clear by the discussion you have been having at the talk page I linked), you are clearly not 'clarifying' anything. You are proposing a change of policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I beg to see this differently, but would you mind commenting on content rather than process? Thanks Jaeljojo (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

What 'content'? All I can see is a vague proposal to rewrite a core Wikipedia policy, coming from a contributor with very limited experience who who clearly doesn't understand said policy and the reasons behind it. It has absolutely no chance of going anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind note.

I obviously have not laid out my proposal clearly enough. Let me try one more time: 1) If you want discuss the performance of a company, it helps to know some key metrics, such as revenue, EBITDA, capital expenditures, debt, interest payments, etc. 2) The only one who has this data available is the company itself - no one from the outside can know these numbers. 3) the standard process for companies above a certain size is to write down what these numbers are and for independent auditors to check them. 4) The resulting product is called audited accounts and is the basis for close to everything the company intends to do externally, i.e. towards banks, trade creditors, regulators etc., all of which rely on the audited accounts being reliable and accurate. 5) having mistakes in these audited accounts can have grave legal consequences for the company and for the auditors. 7) if newspapers want to report about a company, they can ask the company, ask brokers, ask analysts, do company visits, check company presentations and many more things, but when it comes to numbers of the company, the most reliable data they can get ultimately stems from the audited accounts. Newspapers can of course also make their own estimates and believe estimates of other people, but why should those be more reliable than audited accounts where the auditors had a) full access to the company and its bookings and b) vouch for the accuracy of the numbers, 8) For all these reasons, I believe it is sensible to allow the audited accounts of a company as a source for the financial information in a Wikipedia article.

In the discussion you referred to, it was mentioned that audited accounts are not independent as they are published by the company itself. Firstly, however, they are audited by independent auditors who vouch for the accuracy of these numbers and who face grave consequences if they do a mistake. Secondly, without actually checking the bookings of the company and doing a full blown Due Diligence, there is no more independent source of financial information than the audited accounts itself.

It was also mentioned that audited accounts cannot be used as there are many cases of fraud with wrong audited accounts. While it is certainly true that there are such cases: 1) also peer-reviewed documents have a long list of scandals, 2) if not audited accounts, what source is generally more reliable for financial information (again noting that journalist cannot invent these numbers but need to ask someone who eventually will rely on audited accounts or has made own estimates with much less access to the company than the auditors)?

As I also mentioned, in my view, the process to arrive at audited accounts is much more rigorous than the one of peer-reviewed documents which already are allowed as a source.

However, as you so subtly note, I have limited experience and clearly do not understand the policy and the reasons behind it so if you could kindly explain where you disagree with above, that would be great. If you disagree, it would also be terrific if you could explain what other source of financial information one can (even conceptually) use if not the company and its audited accounts. Many thanks Jaeljojo (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Jaeljojo, the editor who's arguing with you at Talk:Thames Water is wrong: We do not require "each fact" in an article to be supported by Wikipedia:Independent sources. We only require the articles to be primarily Wikipedia:Based upon independent sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi - I have just come across this...it would have been helpful if I had been alerted to this earlier. The wording in WP:RS is "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." While accept that it does not say that "every fact" has to come from independent sources, I have always interpreted the wording as a requirement that, at the very least, the vast majority of facts will come from independent sources. The proportion that has to come from independent sources is not defined. Indeed, I cannot see where it says, as WhatamIdoing has suggested, "We only require the articles to be primarily Wikipedia:Based upon independent sources." If WhatamIdoing is right...and that my interpretation is wrong...then there is a huge amount of "waffle" that many editors including myself have removed from company articles which possibly ought to be restored. Dormskirk (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you've been indiscriminately blanking cited content because it used non-independent sources, then some of that content probably does need to be restored. (Maybe not all of it, though, because some of it might have been worth removing for other reasons: WP:UNDUE emphasis, unencyclopedic content, doesn't fit with WP:ABOUTSELF, etc.)

My main concern is that you've unwittingly been telling people the wrong "rules". WP:Nobody reads the directions, and Wikipedia's rules end up being a version of the Telephone game: Someone likely told you, maybe years ago, that independent sources were required, and you believed them, so you repeated that to others, and they repeated it to even more people, and the end result is that we have a rumor going around about non-independent sources being banned. In this case, it would only take one quick look at Wikipedia:Today's featured article to prove it wrong (today's has half a dozen non-independent sources, which is not unusual), but when the made-up rule lets editors reject content that they are uncomfortable with (e.g., anything positive about a commercial business is "spammy"), then they have no incentive to try to find out whether the rumor is correct.

What I'd like to know is how we could update this guideline to help editors like you discover that this rumor overstates the situation. Maybe we could add something like "Non-independent sources may be used, but should not dominate the article" to that paragraph? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

"Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Seems clear enough to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Independent does not mean secondary, and this question is about independent sources, not primary ones. Non-independent sources are often easy to use appropriately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Looking at the actual text under dispute, it appears that the point of contention isn't so much the citation of primary sources as the the weight and interpretation being put on them. WP:OR is a frequent issue when citing such primary sources, and one reason they are discouraged. In any case, this isn't, unless and until a specific change in policy is proposed, an issue for this talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for the now reasonable discussion - earlier, it did feel to me to as being yelled at. Can I anyway ask the question whether it would make sense to define audited annual accounts as secondary source for the reasons mentioned above? I understand the scepticism when a company tells its own numbers, but once they are audited, should we not consider them secondary sources? I want to also make clear that we should absolutely do this only for the audited part of the annual report, so only the financial statements and not the general company overview and annual report that is written by the company itself without proper external scrutiny. Thanks. Jaeljojo (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Audited annual accounts are not secondary sources. In Wikipedia's terms, a secondary source takes information from (usually multiple) other published sources, and re-analyzes or re-combines those sources into something that is intellectually new and distinct. The auditing process does not do that.

They are also not independent sources. Auditors look over the information they're given, and they ask questions and make recommendations about how to present it, but they do not have enough access to the underlying financial transactions to detect problems like intentional fraud. The auditors are a bit more like a newspaper editor than a completely independent actor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I would disagree with the level of access auditors have as they can withhold their confirmation until they are satisfied with the numbers. But I certainly agree that they have more access than newspaper editors so in my opinion, financial data sourced from audited annual accounts should be more reliable than those taken from newspapers. Would you agree? Jaeljojo (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

They "can" withhold their confirmation, but if you're old enough to remember how the Big Five became the Big Four, then you'll know that they "don't".

Auditors don't have more access than newspaper editors. A newspaper editor can – and sometimes does – demand to see the original hand-written notes and to listen to the original tape recordings. The work is sufficiently close at hand that the editor knows what must be standing behind it, and if the journalist can't produce the receipts for a quotation, then they pull that part. Auditing firms can't even reliably predict whether specific documents will exist. There's no way for them to magically know if you're secretly transferring debt off your balance sheet or fraudulently inflating earnings. They can say "show me the receipt for this expense that you voluntarily disclosed to me", but they can't usefully say "show me everything you're refusing to show me". WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I am old enough to remember and I still see this very differently. Of course auditors have more access than newspaper editors - the company is obliged to give them anything they ask for. On what basis on the other hand can a newspaper editor demand a company to shown anything at all? In all my investing career, I would have been thrown out the investment committees if I had presented numbers based on newspaper articles. We would have completed no investment without having seen the audited accounts and seeing the stamp of the auditors. I am not disputing that investigative journalists sometimes uncover things auditors should have found, but as a general rule why would I possibly check the BBC or the FT for the revenue, EBITDA, debt and interest payment of a company if I can look at the audited accounts instead? But we just seem to see this very differently, so I guess this is the end of the discussion for now. Thank you for engaging with me on this. Jaeljojo (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Reporters are obliged to give their editors anything they ask for, and it is much easier to replace a reporter (or kill the story) than to replace your auditing company. The newspaper editor isn't requiring "the company" (what company?) to show anything; the editor is requiring the reporter to show the editor the reporter's sources.

I think you have misunderstood what I'm saying. Consider this scenario:

• Reporter investigates something and gets a scandalous quote: "I am not a crook".
• Editor says "This is a scandalous quote from a specific person. When and were did you hear this, were there any other witnesses, and where are your notes proving that?"
• Reporter produces a calendar entry for the interview, some hand-written notes taken at the time, and a tape recording (or doesn't, and the quote never gets printed).

This kind of scenario is easy to check, because the editor is looking into a very specific detail. The editor knows what kind of evidence is required to support such a claim.

Contrast that with the auditors' job:

• Company produces some financial reports. The CFO "forgot" to include the financial information for a secret, wholly owned offshore subsidiary in these reports.
• The auditor says "Prove to me that the information on this page is correct."
• Company says "No problem! I'd be happy to substantiate any number on this page."
• ...but the auditor doesn't know to ask about the information that is not on the page, and even if they said "Please tell me about any criminal frauds you're engaged in, such as transferring your company's debts to a secret offshore company", they can't, in practice, compel the CFO to be honest.

Audited accounts basically mean that someone convinced the auditors to trust them. It doesn't prove that they didn't deceive the auditors. An actually independent investigation (e.g., give all the passwords to external forensic accountants) would produce an independent source, but a self-chosen auditor looking over the information that's handed to them is not independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Separation of fact and opinion as a key element of an WP:RS.

This came up in a discussion elsewhere, and while I think it's already inherent in WP:QUESTIONABLE discouraging sources that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, I think it could be more clearly-stated here. A longstanding practice on WP:RSN is that a news source that fails to clearly distinguish between news and opinion is unlikely to be reliable. Should making a clear distinction between news and opinion be included somewhere on this page as an important feature of WP:RS news sources, or something of that nature? --Aquillion (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that if the does not routine distinguish factual reporting from opinion then such works should not be considered reliable for sourcing fact, but does not eliminate them from RSOPINION pieces. For example Salon's articles tend to be more op ed than factual, so I would not use them for sourcing facts, but are still useful in their commentary. Masem (t) 15:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

No. WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:NEWSORG. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be more practical to say we editors need to be more careful about the mix of facts and opinions in what are often viewed as factual articles. Even some at the NYT are worried about this [6]. Springee (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Cable News Shows and Networks Ranked For Bias and Accuracy

Interesting coverage of Ad Fontes Media's chart and methods:

• Cable News Shows and Networks Ranked For Bias and Accuracy

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Citing master's thesis for its primary sources

Can a master's thesis be used as a primary source in certain circumstances? While they obviously can't in cases like medicine or science, would a master's thesis which has access to primary sourced material be acceptable for claims you may find in a ordinary newspaper? (eg. descriptions of an organization, basic dates and years, historical facts, etc.)

For example, would this master's thesis be acceptable for this basic level information? (Its analysis and other synthesized claims obviously would not be acceptable) :3 F4U (they/it) 02:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you follow the citations in the thesis. As a general rule claims should be cited to the original work, not a work that repeats the claim. Thus anything that the thesis credits to someone else we should follow the links. Anything original to the thesis is almost certainly not due. Note: this assumes the thesis isn't otherwise widely cited. Springee (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that the source is reporting this information from the farm itself (see pages 87-91, for example). Would it not make sense to treat this as you would any other primary source? :3 F4U (they/it) 03:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As a general rule claims should be cited to the original work, not a work that repeats the claim. @Springee: This is a form of academic plagiarism, according to most scholars -- although if the editor reviews the original work in full, it is impossible to police, and in most cases would not be considered plagiarism). It will also in many cases force the user to choose between citing WP:PRIMARY sources or else a less-than-optimal source, like a master's thesis (which may well be perfectly fine -- it's vetted by subject-matter experts after all). Between those options, I would choose the correct option: an internal-external citation such as "A (200x), citing B (199y)." SamuelRiv (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we agree or disagree. It's not uncommon to use citations in a paper to hunt for the source information. I learn about the Marching Cubes algorithm from paper A. It appears to be the answer to my need. I follow the citation from paper A to the actual MC paper and cite it directly. Paper A was a pointer to my answer but nothing in my paper was actually original to A so I don't need to cite the paper that pointed me to the original. In my personal case the issue I had with the paper that cited me is the claim I made was not original to me or reinterpreted by me, it was original to the paper I cited. I used the cited claim to justify the need for a solution I was suggesting in my work (Because A is expensive [cite Bob], we should develop B). My original contribution was "B" and that the cost of A justifies B. The person who cited me only said "A is expensive". That was a concept that was wholly original to the author I cited and would pass verification without citing me (assuming you have access to Bob's paper). In Wikipedia terms, if the WashPo cites the NTY saying there was a fire on 5th street, and we want to say "fire on 5th street" we should follow the WashPo to the original NYT article and cite it rather than citing the WashPo citing the NYT. Back to the thesis question, if the thesis interprets the idea or information in a way that is unique to the thesis then we should cite the thesis. However, if the the thesis is simply repeating an idea that can be completely cited to the original work, we should cite the original work, not the thesis. Note, in all cases I'm presuming the original work is published, not say a raw data set that requires interpretation. Springee (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to bring your attention to this quote from the thesis:

The first thing necessary after the purchase was site remediation. The site, a former railroad yard, was a brownfield. In addition to the dumping, there was creosote in the soil. A cap had to be installed (fig. 30). It is unclear who made the decision on this cap with four inches of top soil. What is obvious is that crop production is challenging in that depth of soil. There was a donation of fruit trees that had to be planted on berms to get their roots completely covered by soil above the cap. Because of the lack top soil, for this reason and to be able to build up raised beds, the cap made top soil investments, provided by Fernbrook Farm and some composting on site, necessary. After this, the farm needed water, a greenhouse, a cooler, and storage. This infrastructure investment was funded by neighborhood revitalization credits.

Now there is no reference for this in the thesis and its implicit that the information comes directly from the farm. There is no "primary source" per se for me to cite here. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 01:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Is this work the author of the thesis did themselves? Are they describing the tasks they undertook? They are making at least a few claims that I would want some evidence for such as the evidence of the soil condition. Did they test it themselves or do they have the paper work from a testing organization? What fact are you trying to cite from the paper? The paper as a whole does have a large number of citations but few/none in that section. Unless you were making a specific claim about what was done to that property why would you be referencing that text? Springee (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Springee The claims I believe you should reasonably be able to use from that paragraph are: (1) The site used to be a railway yard and topsoil was laid on the site; (2) Fruit trees were planted on berms to get the roots properly covered; (3) The farm built water infrastructure, a greenhouse, a cooler, and storage infrastructure using neighborhood revitalization credits. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

So long as those aren't controversial claims I don't see an issue citing them to the masters thesis. However, if this same author published this material in a conference or journal I would cite that instead. While I do know from first hand experience that thesis/dissertations are reviewed, the review process isn't independent. I have no idea who reviewed my conference/journal work and presume I wasn't identified to any of the subjects of my reviews. Still, sometimes we forget that RS says that context matters[7]. These claims don't appear to be controversial and I presume the article content they mean to support is also not controversial. If both are true I don't see this as an issue. Springee (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Presumably, though, the academics reviewing the thesis have no conflict of interest with the subject of the article. When we say that we want Wikipedia:Independent sources, we mean that we want sources independent of the subject. If the authors, editors, and publishers are independent of the subject, it doesn't matter if they're truly independent of each other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Can listening to a radio broadcast be a RS?

There's a discussion going on at WT:DYK#Template:Did you know nominations/Feel It (MJ Cole song) regarding using something somebody heard on a radio broadcast, but for which there's no durable media, as a RS. Additional opinions would be welcome. RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I've replied there, but if anyone's interested, see Wikipedia:Published#Accessible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Vanguard

I don't Vanguard should be removed as a reliable source. Sponsored post is advertorial and it is usually paid for. There are contents in Vanguard that are good reference point — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krownade (talk • contribs) 16:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Krownade, can you provide a link to this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

😇😇Www.🤑nasılsın.com1. 78.190.8.136 (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)