User:Wjwalrus/Sandbox: Stevens article2

=Reliable sources/Perennial sources= (For List of Sources and Ratings

=Independent sources=

Press Releases
=Reliable sources=

Overview
Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. However, some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement.

Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

Definition of a source
The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:


 * The piece of work itself (the article, book)
 * The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
 * The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Definition of published
The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

Context matters

 * WP:CONTEXTMATTERS
 * WP:RSCONTEXT

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

Acceptable use of self-published works

 * 1) For certain claims by the author about themselves. (See )
 * 2) The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.
 * 3) A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself. For example, for the statement "The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control," the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published.

Unacceptable use of self-published works

 * 1) Claims by the author themselves don't meet the criteria in )
 * 2) Exceptional claims, even when the author is an established expert on the topic cited. (See exceptional sources).
 * 3) Third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

For claims about living people
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about any living people, except for claims by the author about themself. This holds even if the author of the source is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

✅ Acceptable: The website for a company to support claims about itself or its employees.

✅ Acceptable: The self-published autobiography to support claims about the author.

Unacceptable: Someone's personal blog about their neighbor, business partner, or friend.

For claims by self-published authors about themselves
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, even if the source is not a published expert in the field, so long as:
 * 1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor exceptional in nature;
 * 2) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
 * 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Self-published sources for notability
Self-published sources are seldom useful for demonstrating the notability of any subject.

=Verifiability= In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.

Access to sources

 * WP:PAYWALL
 * WP:SOURCEACCESS

See also: Offline sources, WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, and Reliable sources/Cost

Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).

= Reliable sources/Cost =

Reliable sources must be able to be verified. This does not mean that any particular person at any given moment must be capable of verifying them.


 * 1) Verifiable sources may have time restrictions (only accessible between 10am and 4pm in a particular time zone).
 * 2) Verifiable sources may have location restrictions (only available at one archive, museum, repository, or only available within a certain country or geographical area).
 * 3) Verifiable sources may have cost restrictions (the purchase of a book, journal article, magazine, newspaper, or the Interlibrary Loans or Document Delivery costs associated with them, access to a museum costs, costs of entry to paid archival services).
 * 4) Verifiable sources may have technical or personal restrictions (written in languages other than English, on websites that restrict access or require a certain software, available on a type of media that requires the reader to have a certain type of technological appliance to access it)

The costs or difficulties of verifying a source do not impact its reliability, so long as it is possible for someone to verify it within a reasonable time.

Where a source is difficult to verify, or in a language other than English, many editors appreciate the courtesy of supplying the relevant paragraph and ensuring it can be read by English language readers. When sources of equal quality are available, the ease of access may be preferred. But if sources of higher quality are difficult to verify, that difficulty alone is not a reason to disregard such sources or replace them with lower-quality ones.

Where a source is difficult to verify, and legal to duplicate or duplicate portions of, produce impressions of, or otherwise make a recording that will allow other editors to verify off the copy, it is a reasonable expectation, but not mandatory, that this be done to assist other Wikipedia editors in verification. Books in the public domain may be uploaded to Wikisource.

=Identifying and using primary sources= ‡ ^ A person's or an organization's website could contain some secondary material about itself, although this is not very common. Such material would still be self-published as well as first-party/affiliated/non-independent material, and thus would still be subject to restrictions in how you can use it.
 * An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements. Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name.

=You don't need to cite that the sky is blue=

Pedantry, and other didactic arguments
Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material simply because they dislike it or prefer some other material, not because the material in any way needs verification. For example, an editor may demand a citation for the fact that most people have five digits on each hand (yes, this really happened). Another may decide that the color of the sky is actually aqua rather than blue, pull out an assortment of verifiable spectrographic analyses and color charts to demonstrate that this position is actually correct, and follow that with a demand that other editors provide equivalent reliable sources for the original statement that the sky is in fact blue. While there are cases where this kind of pedantic insistence is useful and necessary, often it is simply disruptive, and can be countered simply by pointing out that there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious. If the alternative proposition merits inclusion in the article under other policies and guidelines it should of course be included, but it should in no way be given greater prominence because it is sourced.

Over-tagging
Wikipedia has several templates for tagging material that needs verification: inline templates for particular lines, section templates, and article templates. See Template messages. Sometimes editors will go through an article and add dozens of the inline tags, along with several section and article tags, making the article essentially unreadable (see WP:TAGBOMBING). As a rule, if there are more than 2 or 3 inline tags they should be removed and replaced with a section tag; if there are more than 2 section tags in a section they should be removed and replaced with a single 'Multiple issues' tag. If there are more than two or three sections tagged, those tags should be removed, and the entire article should be tagged.

Verification tags should not be used in a POINTed fashion. Use only those tags necessary to illustrate the problem, and discuss the matter in detail on the talk page.

Over-citing
Further information: Citation overkill and Wikipedia:Citation underkill § Overciting content

Citations should be evaluated on the qualities they bring to the article, not on the quantity of citations available. The first 1 or 2 citations supporting a given point are informative; extra citations after that begin to be argumentative. Keep in mind that the purpose of a citation is to guide the reader to external sources where the reader can verify the idea presented, not to prove to other editors the strength of the idea. Extra sources for the same idea should be added to 'Further Reading', 'See Also', or 'External Sources' sections at the bottom of the page, without explicitly being cited in the text.

Citing everything
A common misconception when improving an article, particularly towards Good Article status, is that everything must be cited to an inline source, which leads to comments such as "the end of paragraph 3 is uncited", without specifying why that is an issue. In fact, the Good Article criteria merely state that inline citations are required for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". While that covers much, most, or possibly even (in the case of biographies of living people) all content in an article, it does not imply that you must cite everything everywhere for every single article, period.

=Editing policy= Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.

Neutrality in articles of living or recently deceased persons
Further information: Biographies of living persons Although perfection is not required, extra care should be taken on articles that mention living persons. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should either be verified immediately, with one or more reliable sources and presented in a neutral manner without undue weight, or be removed immediately, without waiting for discussion.

Try to fix problems
Shortcuts


 * WP:PRESERVE
 * WP:HANDLE
 * WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM

Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research.

Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts.

Instead of removing content from an article, consider:


 * Rephrasing or copy-editing to improve grammar or more accurately represent the sources
 * Correcting inaccuracies, while keeping the rest of the content intact
 * Merging or moving the content to a more relevant existing article, or splitting the content to an entirely new article
 * Adding another point of view to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced
 * Requesting a citation by adding the tag, or adding any other Template:Inline cleanup tags as appropriate
 * Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself
 * Adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you cannot fix yourself
 * Repair a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located
 * Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge
 * Fixing errors in wikitext or formatting

Otherwise, if you think the content could provide the seed of a new sub-article, or if you are just unsure about removing it from the project entirely, consider copying the information to the article's talk page for further discussion. If you think the content might find a better home elsewhere, consider moving the content to a talk page of any article you think might be more relevant, so that editors there can decide how it might be properly included in our encyclopedia.

Problems that may justify removal
Shortcuts


 * WP:CANTFIX
 * WP:WONTWORK
 * WP:DON'T PRESERVE

Several of our core policies discuss situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than preserve it. Verifiability discusses handling unsourced and contentious material; No original research discusses the need to remove original research; What Wikipedia is not describes material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia; and WP:UNDUE discusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal of trivia, tiny minority viewpoints, or material that cannot be supported with high-quality sources. Also, redundancy within an article should be kept to a minimum (excepting the lead, which is meant to be a summary of the entire article, and so is intentionally duplicative).

Libel, nonsense, and vandalism should be completely removed, as should material that violates copyright and material for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been published.

Special care needs to be taken with biographies of living people, especially when it comes to handling unsourced or poorly sourced claims about the subject. Editors working on such articles need to know and understand the extra restrictions that are laid out at Biographies of living persons.

Talking and editing
Shortcut


 * WP:EPTALK

Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is called for, however, if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page). The "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" (BRD) is often used when changes might be contentious.

Boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus or in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by their having already been carried out, are inappropriate.

Be helpful: explain
Shortcut


 * WP:UNRESPONSIVE

Be helpful: explain your changes. When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it. Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary. For larger or more significant changes, the edit summary may not give you enough space to fully explain the edit; in this case, you may leave a note on the article's talk page as well. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely and encourage discussion rather than edit warring.

Be cautious with major changes: discuss
Shortcut


 * WP:CAUTIOUS

Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. One editor's idea of an improvement may be another editor's idea of a desecration. If you choose to be bold, try to justify your change in detail on the article talk page, so as to avoid an edit war. Before making a major change, consider first creating a new draft on a subpage of your own user page and then link to it on the article's talk page so as to facilitate a new discussion.

= Wikipedia:Notability = Main page: Notability

The essence of notability under Wikipedia's notability guideline is a more technical definition than in common language, and is the evidence that the subject has attracted sufficiently significant attention from the world at large over a period of time.

Within the broad concept of notability is the general notability guideline and several sub-guidelines. There we have a specific definition requiring that others not connected with the subject take note and that they do so by offering their own secondary thoughts in reliable sources. Under this definition, anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent. If it is primary or non-independent, it does not contribute to notability.

A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability. Elements of interviews include selecting the subject, contacting the subject, preparation of questions, and writing supplemental material such as a biography. At one extreme, a subject may approach a niche magazine and succeed in getting an interview published, which is marginal and only barely more than self published, and may even be discounted under WP:NOTPROMOTION. Some are just softball Q&A allowing the interviewee to say anything they like. An example would be a fan magazine interview with a celebrity about their new movie or new child. They're not likely to question them sharply on whether the movie is any good or whether motherhood is really a joyful experience. The interviewer is there just to keep the individual talking, not to introduce their own thoughts. These kinds of interviews are broadly unhelpful in establishing notability.

At the other end are interviews that show a depth of preparation, such as those that include a biography. An interview presented as investigative journalism of the sort we associate with 60 Minutes can be helpful. In these interviews, the interview material is often interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts. The interviewer may even present their own evidence challenging claims the interviewee makes and offering their own conclusions in their summary, perhaps calling for action of some kind. Any of the content merely quoting the interviewee should be treated as primary. But if the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent, contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline.

General notability guideline
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,


 * "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
 * The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
 * Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
 * "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
For a full list of subject-specific notability guidelines, see Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines.

In some topic areas, consensus-derived subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs) have been written to help clarify when a standalone article can or should be written. The currently accepted subject guidelines are listed in the box at the top of this page and at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions relating to independence. The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia.

Notability_(music)
Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials. It is extremely common for aspiring musicians who want a Wikipedia article for the publicity to make inflated or false notability claims, such as charting hits that did not really chart (or which charted only on a non-notable WP:BADCHART) or nominations for awards that are not prominent enough to pass criteria number 8 (below). Thus, notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources.


 * 1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
 * 2) * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following:
 * 3) ** Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.
 * 4) ** Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
 * 5) ** Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.
 * 6) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
 * 7) Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
 * 8) Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
 * 9) Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
 * 10) Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)
 * 11) Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
 * 12) Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
 * 13) Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.
 * 14) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).
 * 15) Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
 * 16) Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.

=Interviews= Interviews highlight an interesting tension in Wikipedia policy. On the one hand, interviews can be published in reliable publications; they are regularly found in highly respected news sources such as The New York Times and BBC News. On the other hand, the material in an interview comes directly from whomever is being interviewed, and those people can say whatever they like. At first glance, it can be difficult to see where interviews fall with respect to Wikipedia's sourcing policies. Are they primary or secondary sources? Do they count as reliable sources, or not? This essay addresses the issues involved.

Generally speaking, it is okay to sparingly use interviews to source some facts, so long as the article is also using a good mixture of other types of reliable sources — for instance, if an interview happens to be the clearest available source for where a person who is already properly established as notable was born, or for where they attended university, or for the fact that they identify as LGBTQ, then the interview can be used to source a statement of that fact. However, the existence of interviews should not generally be taken as the crux of an argument that the person has passed WP:GNG per se: if the person is not the subject of sufficient third-party analysis of their significance, then the existence of one or more interview pieces does not clinch them as notable all by itself.

Who, what, where
Anyone can be interviewed by anyone and about anything. It's helpful to figure out four things before you try to analyze whether the source is useful on Wikipedia:


 * The interviewer: Is this a recognized journalist?
 * The interviewee: Is this person an expert, a celebrity, a man on the street?
 * The subject: Is the main subject of the interview the interviewee's own life or activities (e.g., a film critic interviews a dancer about their upcoming performance) or something else (e.g., a radio host interviews a physician about the advantages of flu shots)?
 * The publication: Is this a reliable source such as a broadsheet newspaper, respected magazine, reliable broadcaster or news outlet that specializes in interviews, like Fresh Air with Terry Gross or The Andrew Marr Show?  Is it a personal blog?  Was it published by the subject or the interviewer? Is it real editorial content genuinely created by that source, or is it a sponsored advertising link that the subject purchased in order to self-publish their own press release?

Primary or secondary?
Main page: Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

If it comes straight from the horse's mouth, it's a primary source.

Certain types of sources are easy to classify as primary or secondary. A newspaper article written by an eyewitness to an event represents a primary news source about that event, and a book about the event written by someone who did not witness it that combines the article with many other sources is a secondary source about the event. Some interviews combine both primary and secondary material, very similar to a book that contains well-researched content in addition to autobiographical material. In general, written interviews published by reliable sources are not simple transcripts, but are edited by the publishing organization, and this may qualify them as secondary.

The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary-source and is non-independent material. With the exception of comments by experts in the relevant field, Wikipedia cannot use comments made by an interviewee to cite claims that would normally require either secondary or third-party independent sources (though primary sources are sometimes considered acceptable within an article for supporting uncontroversial claims by the interviewee about themself).

Sometimes, publications may include a short bio or other commentary about an interviewee. That content may or may not be secondary or even written by them. It's common for publications to request a short bio from an interviewee. It’s common for a short bio to match one from their website or from here on Wikipedia, and for it to be republished uncritically, edited only for space. To be secondary, the source has to contain transformative thoughts, which that sort of uncritical parroting of what someone else said clearly lacks.

Independence
If it came from the horse’s mouth, it is not independent.

Main page: Identifying and using independent sources

Further information: Party and person

The interviewee may or may not be independent of the subject matter. In some cases, the interviewer is also not independent.

Independent sources are more generally reliable than sources that have a conflict of interest or are otherwise involved in the subject. However, non-independent sources can be the most reliable source possible, depending upon the material to be supported. An artist stating their motivation is more reliable than an independent person speculating upon it.

Reliability
Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said. The publications are merely repeating their comments, typically with minimal editing. No matter how highly respected a publication is, it does not present interviewee responses as having been checked for accuracy. In this sense, interviews should be treated like self-published material.

Two steps are necessary to determine the reliability of material in an interview. First, we must determine whether the material is primary or secondary as described above, and then the reliability of the publication.

If the material is primary, then it is treated as if the interviewee had written the same content on their website or Twitter. As long as we can be reasonably certain that the material was written by them, then the Wikipedia policy on primary sources applies. Such material can be used, but needs to be used with care, and only to cite facts that can be verified from the source itself.

While primary-source material from interviews is treated the same as other primary-source materials, it is necessary to verify that the comments attributed to the interviewee were actually made by them. Publications with a reputation for reliability can usually be trusted to report their interviewees' words accurately and without embellishment, but there is no guarantee that other publications will do the same. For example, an interview posted on a blog could have altered the interviewee's words, or even be completely fictitious. If there is any uncertainty about whether a particular interview is a reliable and accurate depiction of what the subject said, then it should not be used and until it can be resolved.

If the material is secondary, and if it is published in a reliable publication, then it can sometimes be used to cite facts about third parties, and to cite opinions. However, care must be taken to ensure that normal editorial standards have been applied to the material (also, note WP:BLPSPS does not usually allow such sources to be used for claims about other living people). Depending on the publication, such material may not undergo the same level of fact-checking as other types of articles. For example, the introduction to an interview may rely entirely on facts provided by the interviewee. In general, the longer and more detailed the material, and the more reliable the publication, the more likely secondary-source material in an interview is to have undergone proper fact-checking.

Check for clarifications and corrections
Due to the "off the cuff" nature of interviews, fact checking by the interviewee is not as rigorous as it would be if they were submitting a written reply to the same set of questions. Interviewees often say things in interviews that they later realize were inaccurate or incomplete. It is therefore necessary to check whether the interviewee issues a clarification or correction to their remarks.

= Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion = Shortcuts


 * WP:NOTADVOCACY
 * WP:NOTOPINION
 * WP:NOTSCANDAL
 * WP:PROMO
 * WP:SOAPBOX
 * WP:PROMOTION
 * WP:SOAP

"WP:PROMOTION" redirects here. For other pages about advertising and promotion, see Advertising.

"WP:SOAP" redirects here. For the Soap Operas WikiProject, see WikiProject Soap Operas.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:


 * 1) Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.
 * 2) Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.
 * 3) Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
 * 4) Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources, such as your résumé or curriculum vitae, is unacceptable. See Autobiography, Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
 * 5) Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Contributors must disclose any payments they receive for editing Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. However, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject (see Talk page guidelines).

=Help:Notifications=

Help:Notifications/Thanks
= User Page Removal of comments, notices, and warnings =

See also: Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments, § Deleting your user page or subpages, and § Deletion of user talk pages

Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters.

A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block. Shortcut WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK Miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress). Speedy deletion tags and requests for uninvolved administrator help (an administrator will quickly determine if these are valid or not; use the link embedded in the notice to object and post a comment, do not just remove the tag). For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address. This includes schools, military installations, WiFi hotspots, and other shared IP addresses, but not dynamic IP addresses. Very old content on these pages may be removed.

Note: Restoring talk page notices, even if they should not be removed, is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule.

Deleting your user page or subpages
You can freely blank any pages in your user space yourself (other than the few items that must not be removed) and request the deletion of your user page or subpages, by adding to the top of the page. Alternatively, you might consider simply making the page redirect to your user page. This is normally sufficient for most people's needs. Subpages tagged for deletion will be deleted if there is no overriding reason the page must be kept.

Blanking of user subpages is not interpreted as a deletion request, see criteria for speedy deletion G7. If you want it deleted completely then use.

Your talk page, pages which were moved into your user space from somewhere else, and user talk archives created by page move, may not be deleted in this way. These must be listed at Articles for deletion if they originated as articles, or Miscellany for deletion for anything else. To move them back where they came from, ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Deletion of user talk pages

See also: Help:Archiving a talk page and Wikipedia:Blanking Further information: Wikipedia:Oversight, Wikipedia:Criteria for redaction, and Wikipedia:Speedy deletion "WP:DELTALK" redirects here. For the speedy deletion policy for a talk page with no corresponding subject page, see WP:G8.

User talk pages and user talk archives created by page move are generally not deleted; they are usually needed for reference by other users. Individual revisions, log entries, and other user space material may be deleted or redacted for privacy reasons or because of harassment, threats, gross offensiveness, and other serious violations. Exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason. In addition, nonpublic personal information and potentially libelous information posted to your talk page may be removed as described above.