Template talk:Unreliable source?/Archive 1

Proposed edit to point to current rather than superseded policy
editprotected This template currently points to Verifiability, which has been superseded by Attribution. --Yksin 23:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I think WP:ATT is a huge mistake, but it's allegedly policy now, so we should stick with it unless/until it gets reforked back into WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:COI. &lt;sigh&gt; &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! Proto   ►  18:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Cat. fix
Editprotected Need to add:, and change  to the more specific  (without the nowiki's of course). — SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 03:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * done. CMummert · talk 12:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

ATT no longer policy
editprotected

ATT is no longer policy. As such, the old reliable sources link should be put back. Miss Mondegreen | Talk  08:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * already done by Centrx. CMummert · talk 12:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Doc subpage
Hi, I've modified the template to include a documentation subpage (see WP:DOC). Please modify the template to:

&#91;''this source's reliability may need verification ''&#93;

Thanks! + m t  19:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like you missed the closing includeonly tag, but I believe I fixed that. Seems okay, otherwise. Done. Thanks. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed I missed it; thanks! + m t  20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem when adding category
In the Immanuel Velikovsky page, some time ago tagged some references by Leroy Ellenberger with " ". Just recently the page has appeared with an improperly formatted new category. Here is a snapshot by cut and paste. One of the lines, as edited.

How it appears:

The code for the category link appears as raw text in the article, and it only showed up after about 24 hours. Not sure why. I have replaced with for the time being. -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · contribs) 23:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge and cleanup.
We need to merge Verify credibility and Rs, with an eye to perhaps keeping both of the informative links in the former, but approaching the brevity of the latter. This template is one of the longest and most disruptive-to-the-reader of all the inline templates. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 18:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC) This is being discussed in more detail at Template talk:Rs. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 16:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge; the notability of a reliable source is covered by vc. + m t  19:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. "Reliable source?" clearly questions the credibility of the source, whereas "verification needed" implies that the statement in question needs to be verified. I use rs where I don't necessarily dispute the assertion but dispute the reliability of the source. I have no objection to merging their categories, however; indeed, merged categories but seperate templates would I think be the best outcome. --kingboyk 12:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The merge proposed is that of Template:Rs and Template:Verify credibility, not Template:Rs and Template:Verify source. I.e. the above "disagree" rationale is not actually applicable. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 20:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge the other way around: Yep, got confused because somebody replaced a rs with a Verify source which is what led me here. Basic rationale still applies: to my mind, "reliable source?" is succinct and on-target, "this source's reliability may need verification" isn't. Your mileage may vary, and I can't say I'm terribly fussed, but there we are. I don't see why this template is problematic and, yes, I like it! :) --kingboyk 21:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and clean up per kingboyk, with caveats: The real name of the template should be verify source (per general trend at WP:WPILT, best exemplified by the comments of The Cunctator at WT:WPILT), with the more succinct rs available as a redirect; the text should read "&#91;reliable source?&#93; instead of the way too long-winded version, and the mouse-over tooltip should be the longer of the two versions or a combination of them, whatever is more explanatory for the reader and editor. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 17:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't merge as the templates stand. I think "reliable source?" is too terse.  "Unreliable source?" would be better.  The Jade Knight 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply comment: That's a different matter entirely; please do not block merging to quibble over the wording; the wording can be subject to its own discussion and this will be easier to resolve if we have one template to reword, not two mutually redundant ones. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As it stands, I don't really feel that this template covers the same ground as the other. The Jade Knight 03:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Inline templates proposed
WikiProject Council/Proposals. I've been meaning to do this for a while. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Project now exists at Wikpedia:WikiProject Inline Templates, and has its own talk page for any further followup. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 04:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fix: Link, length, dbl.-neg., bad faith, redundancy, cat., jargon, metatemplate
Editprotected Replace "=WP:RS" with "=Wikipedia:Reliable sources". Don't abuse shortcuts, please. :-/

Change "unreliable source?" to "reliable source?" The first version, which was a change that did not have consensus, is redundant (the same message is conveyed with more brevity in the second version), and amounts to a double-negative, in that the questionability of the source is already a negative by its very nature, so we do not need to introduce an explicit one. Furthermore, the longer, more negative phrasing assumes bad faith on the part of the editor that provided the source, and we don't do that.

Restore some of previous wording: Change "may rely on" back to the original "may cite"; not only less ambiguous, but removes the redundant overuse of "rely" and "unreliable".

Restore correct category: Change "=Category:Articles with unsourced statements", which is outright wrong, back to "=Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification".

Don't use wikijargon unnecessarily; not all editors are old hands: Change "vicinity of this tag" to "vicinity of this template".

Restore the use of fix as the metatemplate; fix-inline is a subcomponent of that metatemplate, not intended to be used alone (cf. code of fact, etc.)

—  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 04:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's wait a little bit for people to comment on this, so we only have to commit changes once. Also, since this is such a long list of changes, why not make them yourself to a copy of the template and then post a link to it? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Problem with 2-column text not being correctly wrapped.
Example: Kate Moss

NevilleDNZ 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Has this issue been resolved yet? —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 04:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a non-issue. the wrapping problem occurs when there are few or no spaces in a long text string (e.g.   - this will happen in any part of the browser, not just in references) but that only becomes a problem when (as in the above case) a link is malformed.  I went through Kate Moss, for instance, and fixed the links, and the wrapping problem has disappeared.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Language link
Please link to corresponding template in other languages, for example sv:template:Verifiera trovärdighet. Mange01 (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

How to mark that a source is non-scientific?
Many sources are non-scientific but are necessary anyway, for example to show a certain controversy. For example literature from publishing houses with a political or religious agenda. What's the procedure to inform the reader about this, without questioning if the source should be included? Can I write for example "(evangelical publishing house)" after the publishers name in the reference, or after the reference mark? Mange01 (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Request change from WP:RS to Reliable sources
I think this page should link to Reliable sources instead of WP:RS so that when one hovers over the link they have a better idea of where their going. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I agree with you. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Date parameter
It might be nice to have a date parameter, so that we could see for how long a source's reliability has been in question. That would facilitate waiting -- but then replacing unreliable sources, and the juxtaposed tags, with  templates. -- Rico  18:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

adding a parameter to signify failed verification
per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Inline_Templates could we change the 'text' line to read as follows: |text=unreliable source This will allow editors to add a parameter which removes the question mark from the text, thus signifying that the verification has failed. -- Ludwigs 2 00:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Could you document this new parameter? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * will do. -- Ludwigs 2  07:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Link change
Please change  to   to avoid a redirect, as the page moved. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  02:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request involving this template
This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"X says Y" sourced to X
We just had this discussion at WP:VPP, but I guess it needs to be rehashed here.

There is basically no way that source X is not a credible source for the statement "Source X says Y". For example, if we have the statement "The New York Times says Bob Famousguy is good" in Bob Famousguy, sourced to a New York Times article which contains the statement "Bob Famousguy is good", there is no way that the source does not support that. Similarly, if we have the statement "Joe of Joe's Blog says Bob Famousguy is evil" in Bob Famousguy, sourced to a post on Joe's Blog which contains the statement "Bob Famousguy is evil", there is no way that the source does not support that. It may be that neither of these statements belong in the article due to WP:WEIGHT or WP:BLP, but the problem is not credibility of the sources for the statements. Anomie⚔ 10:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually, in some cases it is the credibility that's a problem. Your first example is fine, because NYT is considered a reliable source. However, what makes Joe a reliable source for information about Bob Famousguy? Who the heck is Joe? If Joe is a well-known commentator in the area for which Bob Famousguy is famous, maybe; if Joe is some schmuck no one's ever heard of who put up a Wordpress site to rant about Famousguy, Joe is not a reliable source. This isn't a weight issue: if Joe the commentator says Famousguy is evil, we might include that with the appropriate weight, but we have no reason to give any credence to a completely unreliable source. It also isn't only a BLP issue. Your example runs afoul of WP:BLPSPS, certainly, but Joe the Wordpress writer would be equally unreliable when talking about tuberculosis or William the Conqueror or Renaissance art - even if his statements are attributed to him. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you really are confusing "X says Y" with "Y".
 * I agree, Joe is probably not a reliable source for Bob Famousguy. But Joe is a reliable source for what Joe says, and that is the statement being sourced in this hypothetical situation. Whether what Joe says is at all relevant to the article is not for this tag, it is for relevance inline or something similar. Anomie⚔ 15:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. If you have a statement like "Mr. X says Y.[1]", there are two credibility issues: whether source 1 is reliable for what Mr. X says, and whether Mr. X is a reliable source on Y. In both cases, this tag may be appropriate. The details of this situation will of course vary, but you can't argue that the tag would not ever be appropriate, because that just doesn't make sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:RSOPINION (part of WP:RS, which is the target of this tag) specifically states that a source X might be reliable for "X says Y" but not for the bare statement "Y". Trying use this tag on a statement "X says Y" because X is not 'reliable' to say Y is counter to the very guideline this tag exists to support. Your second "credibility" issue is a matter of WP:WEIGHT and possibly WP:BLP, not WP:RS. Anomie⚔ 17:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Check again: it says some sources may be considered reliable for their author's opinion. This would disallow your first example entirely, and would allow for your second example to be questioned using this tag (depending on the specific case). WP:RSOPINION also includes a very important exception that you are completely ignoring, as well as all the rest of WP:RS. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see an example of a source that is not considered reliable for its own opinion. Even The Onion, widely known for publishing false news stories, is reliable to support a sentence beginning "According to The Onion, ...". The entire sentence you partially quoted reads "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier"; it seems to me that that sentence exists to specifically point out that source X can be used to support "X says Y", not to claim that only certain (unspecified) sources can be used in that way.
 * And your important exception is called WP:BLP, which is repeated everywhere explicitly just to make sure people don't overlook it. If you've been paying attention, you'll notice I've included that qualification every step of the way. Anomie⚔ 17:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the page you point to disallows "According to The Onion" (and "According to the NYT") because it requires author attribution, not publication. Either way, there's no reason to restrict the use of this tag in this way. It exists to question the credibility of a source, which is perfectly appropriate for some subset of all "X says Y" statements. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you're nitpicking. And you still haven't given an example of a source X that is not reliable for a statement "X says Y". Anomie⚔ 17:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, just answering your question: a New York Times op-ed is not a reliable source for "The New York Times says Y". Another example would be this for "Putin says Y". Or this for Thatcher or Streep or YouTube. Or this for Picasso. Or this for Gannon/Guckert. Or this for Hughes. Lots of examples available. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * These are bad examples, because those are actually cases of X(1) saying that X(2) said Y. If you get my point. :) Debresser (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of them are, yes, but for most of those that isn't readily apparent. A different type of example would be this. Even better, was Obama born in Africa? According to him, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Make "reason" parameter show up in tooltip
In this template's sandbox I implemented a change that would show contents of reason parameter in a tooltip. I belive this change is not controversial, because this is the way most inline templates operate for quite some time. (See citation needed or according to whom for examples.) The result of the change may be examined at this template's testcases page. Any objections? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ This by User:Trappist the monk on 18 January 2015‎ and appears to be working correctly. See Template:Unreliable source?/testcases. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

move to "Unreliable source?"
This page, Verify credibility, was created on 15 February 2006‎ and has basically just said "unreliable source?" since it was made an inline tag after the Rs template merge back in 13 September 2007‎. There are currently two particular redirects, Unreliable source? and Unreliable source (created afterwards on 7 January 2009‎ and 11 June 2008‎, respectively) that point here and closely match the template's text. I suggest we move this template to "Unreliable source?" so that the text matches the template name. This eliminates the question as to whether the template's name means the same thing as what the template is asking. It would also be in concordance with the naming scheme generally used by WikiProject Inline Templates. (In particular, the question mark is often included by templates asking a question so "Unreliable source?" is preferable to "Unreliable source".) In general, I think this kind of renaming is wise. Wikipedia's inline tags have more or less settled down now. The Wild West days are gone. Now that we know through hindsight how templates "should have been" named to begin with, it is wise to "untangle" redirect knots created by the whirlwinds of history past. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I second your proposal. I have had similar thoughts more than once. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've gone ahead and did it. It was a move over a redirect so it was fairly simple. For some reason the subpages did not move with the page despite the fact that I am very sure I had that option enabled. I moved them individually instead. I did the initial cleanup of the documentation. Still need to do some cleanup of the Template:Unreliable source?/testcases page, of some double redirects, and miscellaneous stuff here and there (like checking WikiProject Inline Templates to make sure its info matches). I'll wait to see if any major issues are caused by the move and slowly ensure the rest of that stuff is done. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now fixed the double redirects (about 6 or 7). So things should be working more or less as they should. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Have Twinkle and bot operators been informed? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Does Twinkle use this template at all? I started the thread Inline template "Verify credibility" moved to "Unreliable source?" on the Bot owners' noticeboard to give them a heads-up. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't remember which bot adds the "date=" field to tags, but it also Standardizes the name.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)