Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 60

References citing wikipedia articles
I've undertaken a fool's errand; trying to ferret out all the unsourced material from Wormholes in fiction. The project has grown to looking at a bunch of related articles, most of which are a quagmire of WP:OR. I'm currently looking at Stargate (device), which has many instances of references that just cite other wikipedia articles. This fails WP:UGC. To my amazement, we have templates which encourage exactly this! Template:Sgcite has show=ref, and Template:Cite episode has episode-link, which leads to abuses like:

It's unclear what direction I should be moving. I've started tearing out those references manually. I'm going to continue doing that, but I'm working on some bits of automation to help find and destroy them. Should we also be looking at changing those templates to eliminate the ability (and thus the tempation) to generate references? Or are there legitimate uses for those capabilities? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not referencing the article, that's referencing the episode, with a link to the article for convenience. (I tear these out for other reasons--WP:WEIGHT/WP:TRIVIA/WP:PRIMARY kind of direction, but the cite template and its use here as a referencing item is fine.) --Izno (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not following you. For example, this edit which reverted one of my changes.  How is citing List of Andromeda episodes a valid reference which verifies the statement, Owing to organic "intuition", a living pilot has a 99.97% chance of guessing the correct route to take? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The link is not what is being cited--that link is a matter of convenience. The external work, is the citation, which is allowed in various forms per WP:WAF/WP:PRIMARY. --Izno (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The content in those ref tags reeeeeeeally should be a proper "cite episode", and if that can't be done, it is better to strip out the inter-wiki link and just state for the time being "Season X, episode X, "Title"". Ultimately, for quality, the cite episode should be used, but I'd rather not see the improper use of inter-wiki links in reference tags. --M asem (t) 22:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's one way to improve the situation (the use of cite episode), and would prevent another well-meaning editor like Roy from confusing the issue. I don't agree that we should remove the convenience links, so I would definitely prefer the use of cite episode to that of stripping down these references. The best correction of course is to come down on the side of WP:WEIGHT/WP:PRIMARY and say "this content is really inappropriate for Wikipedia unless it has some secondary sourcing (preferably sprinkled with some independence)", but that requires a bit more work than Roy has been putting into it, I imagine. --Izno (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like Template:Xsgcite can be used to fix that to some degree. I would recommend TFDing the Sgcite template on the grounds that it does not appropriately provide the parameters it should. --Izno (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nommed the template for deletion. --Izno (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should Template:Supplement be added to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources?
RfC: Should Template:Supplement be added to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, in place of Template:Essay? - MrX 🖋 12:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - The page mostly indexes previous discussions and reinforces the WP:RS guideline, thus it's a supplement. It would be inaccurate to refer to it as just an essay. For comparison, please see WP:EL/P. - MrX 🖋 12:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Three points: 1) ’Reinforces’ indicates to me a desire to grant higher status than this page warrants. This page is merely a collection of ‘advice or opinions’ —> See WP:ESSAYS: “Essays, as used by Wikipedia editors, typically contain advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors.” The same applies to WP:EL/P. 2) Both this page and WP:EL/P are misleadingly misnamed — they are not ‘Perennial’ websites or sources; they are ‘Perenially discussed’ websites or sources. See this comment from Sunrise  and my response. 3) Any change in status should come after title change to clarify the character of the page. Humanengr (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - The page is not an essay, since it does not provide "advice or opinions".  The page consists of two parts: an introductory text and a table.  The text is an English language description, hyperlinked, to several existing policies.  The table is a list of frequently discussed sources with links to existing discussions as well a a summary of the consensus in said discussions.Work permit (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Work permit - the whole table comments column seems to be opinion. And picking 'red' seems an informal opinion based on part of the archive items for a site.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Implementing this would save a lot of research time in AfD discussions. Consensus has already been established for the entries on the list, and this page is just a centralized repository that saves editors from having to use the search feature in WP:RSN. —  Newslinger  talk   22:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Useful page for tracking recurring source discussions. Alsee (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I guess this is due to this change by Moxy who changed from MrX's preference "Supplement" to "Essay". The page contains opinions, it does not meet the requirements for Template:Supplement. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Template:Supplement tells us to use this template "only when there is a well-established consensus at the relevant policy or guideline page to use this template on an essay that links from the relevant policy or guideline." That's the intention of this RfC. The section also links to WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, which states: "while not policies or guidelines themselves, they are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms." Since the page is a compilation of discussions at WP:RSN, I think the "supplement" classification would be appropriate for this page if this RfC passes. —  Newslinger  talk   17:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The distinguishing factor between an essay and a supplement, "essay+consensus=supplement", is disingenuous. If supplements truly have community-wide consensus, they need to be policies or guidelines. If they don't, they're essays. Middle ground "kinda-sorta-consensus" does not exist. Delete the "supplement" category and template, put all essays on equal footing, since they are without community-wide consensus. Bright☀ 15:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This page is an index that is continuously updated to factor in new discussions at WP:RSN. Since the page is dynamic, it wouldn't be practical to make it a policy or a guideline. The supplement tag is probably the strongest community endorsement available. —  Newslinger  talk   17:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear.....I do not oppose the use of the template in this case....just reverted till Rfc is over and page is stable . As for its usage pls review The difference between policies, guidelines and essays.....this is a great example of over info that simply does not need to be labeled a policy our guideline. Side note about layout.....not sure about others but there's got to be a better format to not have all the main text for each item squished into a column that makes accessibility a concern.--Moxy (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That note pretty much outright admits that "supplements" are instruction creep. If it's not a policy or guideline, it's an essay. Adding another "layer" of policies is indeed instruction creep. Bright☀ 11:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You sort of got it ..a bit backwards but close...yes only two types of pages those approved by the community at large and all the others. The point is to avoid instruction creep in policy pages by have some essays handle overly detailed or instructional material. All agree  "supplements" are just essays..... been this way for over a decade WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. --Moxy (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All agree "supplements" are just essays and yet there's this, so I guess when you say "all agree" you mean "I say that." Maybe you're the one who's not getting it. Bright☀ 14:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure I get it considering I am one of the ones that wrote all of it. So to be clear supplements are essays that link from a policy or guidelines...... we do this so random essays are not spanned all over our protocols without minor consideration. It's a way of indicating to the community that an essay is link from a policy or guideline and directly related to said protocol.  it's not a upgraded in status but an indicator of its usage aND purpose..  Perhaps  suggest some better wording to make this more clear for WP:Policies and or many others pages that metion the type of pages we have. See The difference between policies, guidelines and essays] as I explain more there. -Moxy (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on what you say, if this page is linked to the policy, it should be tagged a supplement. If it is not, it should be tagged an essay.  Is that correct? Work permit (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The tag is one of the various ways we control essay spam and determine if linking is valid.....there are many other ways. The main question is not if it links..... but does it further elaborate on Wikipedia's policies or guidelines in an impartial and informative manner?--Moxy (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This one and WP:EL/P are perhaps more properly characterized as ‘Summary of discussions’. Would it be useful to consider such a template? hth, Humanengr (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to anything that makes project pages more clear. We can also use something like notice or  similar parameter optional  template that we use on project pages that are unique like Principles.--Moxy (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure I get it Nah it seems you're contradicting yourself which is pretty much a surefire demonstration you're not getting it. If it's not an upgraded status then the difference between an essay and a supplement is merely technical and this entire discussion is redundant. If there is a consensus-level difference between an essay and a supplement then you have created another category of policies and guidelines that merely encumbers existing policies and guidelines with less-accepted worse-worded more-verbose documents. Either supplements are equal to essays and the difference is technical (supplements talk about a specific policy, essays are general) or they're not equal to essays and they require being "upgraded" to supplements through consensus. Bright☀ 12:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose for reasons stated here. I also note that WP:SUPPLEMENTAL repeats my point #1 there in this broader context: “Informative and instructional pages are typically edited by the community; while not policies or guidelines themselves, they are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms. Where essay pages offer advice or opinions through viewpoints, information pages should supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia in an impartial way. In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, as they have not been thoroughly vetted by the community. These pages are typically marked with the Information page, Wikipedia how-to, or Supplement template.” While I very much appreciate the efforts to collect these discussions, they are merely, again, ‘advice or opinions’ and should not be ‘reinforced’.Humanengr (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. While this isn't a binding document approved by the community, it is informational in nature, rather than merely opinion-based. This appears to be the appropriate categorization. Tamwin (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I Note that this speaks in terms of opinions: “Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus.” Is there anything ‘informational’ beyond presentation of opinions and current consensus re said opinions? Humanengr (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I sort of took it as a given that information about current consensus was information. I struggle to see a meaningful difference between this and, for instance, WP:Perennial proposals, which is marked as an information page (although it's cited and accepted as authoritative often enough that it could probably be a guideline if the community were less resistant to making guidelines). Tamwin (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:Perennial proposals is like WP:OUTCOMES and (ironically) WP:RS/P. All of these pages reflect past consensus, and all of these pages note that consensus can change. The results of this RfC will determine the current consensus. —  Newslinger  talk   20:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx Tamwin and  Newslinger . I still think there's an appropriate/helpful distinction to be made. WP:PERENNIAL PROPOSALS concerns proposals for WP policies; WP:OUTCOMES enumerates consensus of deletion decisions by category of page, which strikes me as very similar to policy. In contrast, PERENNIAL SOURCES and PERENNIAL WEBSITES cover discussions particular to specific external entities and are therefore, of this set, most subject to change. Above I made a suggestion for another template for the latter two. Would that, in your view, satisfy Moxy's criterion of making "project pages more clear"? Humanengr (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The idea of introducing a new categorization seems quite agreeable to me. This type of page has some common concerns, such as WP:CCC, and may be best addressed as a group. I'd tend to classify all four of the pages you mentioned as summaries of consensus, but that isn't something that needs to be worked out immediately. I'm for the below proposal to discuss this on WT:Project namespace. Thank you Humanengr for figuring out that we are all just looking for clarity. Tamwin (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We can easily make the info template say what is needed like below...or make a new....should talk about this at   main project namespace page...-Moxy (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, lets discuss it  there. Work permit (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've started a discussion on the subject there. Tamwin (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How about


 * Support -- the information on the page supplements the guideline by identifying the discussions that already took place; it does not establish a new policy or guideline. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Re ‘supplement’, Template:Supplement says: “… The noun ‘supplement' does not mean an interpretation’ nor just ‘something added’. It means precisely ‘something added, especially to make up for a ’, in this case a lack or gap in an official Wikipedia's policy or guideline. …’. [emphasis in orig] Humanengr (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (summoned by ping) Support. The page is intended as a source of information that points to and summarizes existing discussions. Categorizing this as "advice or opinions" would improperly devalue existing consensus. It might be reasonable to make a new template to describe this type of information page, but not to apply to this page alone. Sunrise (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue perhaps is how to most appropriately and clearly indicate the value-add of 'existing consensus'. Re number of pages, it looks like the current count of candidate pages that summarize existing consensuses is between 2 and 4, where u|Tamwin made an RfC re the template. Humanengr (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - so long as the content continues to merely report the results of RfCs and other discussions, it is a supplement. "Categorizing this as "advice or opinions" would improperly devalue existing consensus.", as Sunrise says above, is correct. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, noting existing consensus does add value. In view of Template:Supplement as noted above, which ‘deficiency’ is being addressed? Humanengr (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it's opinions and too young a draft version.  Also I just think it's a bad idea to have something that looks like a censorship board or enemies list.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. For the reasons stated above, supplement is the best classification for this page. The gap is in the identification of whether specific sources are reliable. This is precisely one of the purposes of supplements. --Bsherr (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As this RfC has run for approximately 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure. —  Newslinger  talk   05:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose — I looked there and saw an unsigned essay. My main concern is that items on that page will immediately start to be cited by editors as if they are policy, despite it never have gone through the exhaustive evaluation process that policy pages go through. I'm not saying that it isn't a useful page, only that it shouldn't be promoted to official status. It should be labeled as an essay, with its authors listed. Zerotalk 01:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Requesting opinions for an edit filter on unreliable sources (Discogs, LastFm, RateYourMusic)
See: Edit filter/Requested/Archive_12 and Various metal/prog webzines --Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC for creating a featured quality source review process
Following discussions at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates about the process for source reviews of featured article candidates, a request for comment has been opened about creating a new "featured quality source review" process. Please check out the proposal at Featured article candidates/Featured quality source review RfC and add your feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

RFC:Should the wording of the "Context Matters" subsection be changed?
In light of WP:DAILYMAIL and Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources should it be changed to better explain current practice? This section has been directly cited or referred to in numerous discussions about the general reliability of a source perhaps, because it is not quite clear enough. Endercase (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support As nominator, I believe it should be changed to better convey that is is not just the context of any particular article but also the historical reliability of the publication that need to be taken into consideration. Personally, I suggest adding a couplet to 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. Something like "Whenever possible editors should not cite information contained in sources from a publisher that is historically unreliable even when the particular article being sourced may be reliable; often sources from more reputable publications can and should be found and used instead." It is possible that the perennial sources essay also should be directly referred to in this section. Conceivably it could be referred to as a living document that should hold the current consensus on the reliability of any particular, often discussed, publisher based on the previous discussions at RS/N (context).  Endercase (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You may want to insert an rfc tag to list your RfC in the issue categories. (See instructions at WP:RFCST.) This will draw attention from other editors. Be sure to reset the timestamp of your comments if you decide to do this. —  Newslinger  talk   04:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(What's with the voting here? This is a talk page.  Just talk.)

Having looked that section over for the first time in years, I think it needs a thorough re-write/re-organization. When people link that shortcut, they usually mean something like "Does this specific source match this specific sentence?" or "I know this isn't a great source in general, but is it okay for this particular claim?" The sentence about fact-checking and what makes a good source in general belongs in another section. (Ping me if you need a reply from me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Are liner notes a reliable source for non-credits-type info?
I'm asking specifically about the article for Five or Six - an obscure band for whom a "Best of" anthology was released in 2008. A significant portion of the article is dedicated to detailing what happened to various band members after they left the band. It's sourced to the liner notes of the equally obscure CD.

Only one of the supposed former members, John Yorke, has a Wikipedia article. I'm not even sure it's the same John Yorke, because I can't find anything online confirming that the TV producer was also in the band, and it's a common name. The rest are totally unverifiable online as well. What do we do in this case? Do we just take someone's word for it that says, "Trust me, I have the liner notes, and it's all in there"? Even if that's true, are liner notes on a best-of compilation considered a reliable source for this type of info? Amsgearing (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer, I have been improving the article in question since I am familiar with the band in question.
 * "unverifiable online as well"
 * It is perfectly acceptable to use print or otherwise unavailable on the Internet sources on Wikipedia. There is a specific guideline about this - WP:SOURCEACCESS.
 * "Do we just take someone's word for it that says, "Trust me, I have the liner notes, and it's all in there"?"
 * Per assuming good faith, yes. How is this fundamentally different from using any other reference not on the Internet? In addition to the editor who added it, I have confirmed it through a partial reprint I own. You first reverted the source with the odd comment "that is not a source", then "unsourced original research" twice. The reprint I own confirms it is the same person: "One became head of drama at the BCC [sic], John Yorke."
 * "Even if that's true, are liner notes on a best-of compilation considered a reliable source for this type of info?"
 * Yes, it's a perfectly fine primary source. If the record label published this information online for free, would you be against using it as a source for the band members further career? Your main issue seems not to be about the reliability of the source, but the fact that it's only available in libraries, retailers and personal CD collections instead free of charge on the Internet. RoseCherry64 (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm well aware of your opinion on the subject already, as you're waging a campaign to save the article on a non-notable band for reasons that are unclear to me. That's why I came here, to seek out the opinions of editors not so emotionally involved in the topic. Thanks for the redundant input, though. Amsgearing (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The above comment was replaced with by me, but Amsgearing put it back. I won't personally replace it again, but you should consider if the above is "my opinion" or multiple references to Wikipedia guidelines. RoseCherry64 (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You may want to take this question to the reliable sources noticeboard, which gets about 20 times the amount of traffic as this talk page does. —  Newslinger  talk   04:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, I'll do that. Amsgearing (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Uhhh, liner notes... I mean how rigorously are they fact-checked? If the liner note says "Smith went on to play bass for the Angry Young Popes", has the record company had someone call up Mit Youngman (manager of the Popes) to confirm? That is how actually reliable sources operate. Maybe the liner note writer just heard somewhere that Smith joined the Popes, and he heard wrong? Maybe Smith himself said so without mentioning that he was expelled from the Popes before playing a note, for the incident with the horse tranquilizers in the swimming pool? So....

Like everything else it depends I suppose. It depends on what facts you're verifying... I mean, if the liner notes say that Smith played bass on all tracks (except "Lobsters Everywhere") it's probably not the sort of thing they would likely get wrong or purposely lie about. Stuff not directly related to the production of the album, maybe not so much. I suppose also there's a difference between say Sony Records and Pup Gone Bad Records... the former has real staff and might care a bit about getting stuff correct, and they might well fact-check, while the latter is basically a one-man operation and that one man is, frankly, a drug addict. Herostratus (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to change WP policy on sources: Verifiable, not reliable
I hope this is the right place for such an endeavor.

Full disclosure: I am neither right-wing nor left-wing nor interested in any such ideological bickering. My goal is accuracy and, as much as possible, truth.

This issue has been on my mind for quite a while now. Often have I come across articles that include information that, with just a few minutes of research, can be shown to be false.

The current policy, as far as I understand it, creates a category of so-called "reliable sources" which do to not have to back up their claims because they are deemed trustworthy and reputable. While this is most likely done with good intentions it facilitates situations where "inconsistencies with the facts" (fact defined as 'a true statement about reality') easily remain undetected due to misplaced trust.

Nobody should be above scrutiny.

Point in case that I remember: Toronto Sun vs. Proud Boys

In this situation the "reliable sources" policy allowed the Toronto Sun, a "reliable source", to be used as "source" for claims about an entity that contradict the entity's own description. In the article, the Sun's journalist did not justify nor source anything of their claims. It is impossible to know where the journalist got their information from. Even worse: the journalist's name isn't even mentioned anywhere! (I know there is a journalist mentioned in the article, but that's not necessarily the person who wrote the TSun article) What if the journalist was wrong in any given claim? What if he, for whatever reason, was misstating or ommitting important information? What if no journalism occurred at all? We simply cannot know.

A reader of the WP article in question will see it sourced and think "Well, it has sources. It's probably true then." not realising that the so-called "sources" seem to be making up claims.

Given that even for the most trustworthy person or news outlet imaginable errare humanum est, and without even going into people's tendency to lie for profit, ideology or even mere convenience, we should want to at the very least be sceptical and able to verify. Just in case...

In order to determine the veracity of a given claim, what we have to do is compare that claim to observed reality, as best as we can. In this case that might be the BP website's own description, which according to WP policy is acceptable.

The example merely happens to be of bias towards the Right. That is irrelevant. I do not want this to happen to the Left or anyone else either.

Thus, I would like to propose this relatively basic change: that WP only use material from media "sources" that themselves list the source of their claims. This source in turn may not be another media "source".

I.e. using Guardian article without sources would not be valid. A HuffPo article that links to a WaPo article as its source wouldn't be acceptable either, unless the WaPo article itself had a valid source such as a scientific paper. A NYT article having as its source a WHO statistic would be ok.

Basically, at the end of the "source chain" there ultimately must be a non-media source given for it to be valid. One of the responses in the previously mentioned discussion seems to have put it very succinctly: The media are not sources. The media provide a connexion (mediate) between the source and the receiver. That's why they're called the media.

I fully understand that this would create quite a lot of work in the beginning, but apart from that see no other disadvantages. It seems to me that it will only make WP itself more accurate, and thus more trustworthy.

I would like to hear others' views on the matter, preferably more than just an opinionated no or not possible/feasible. Why not? Is there a better way? Please, relevant and constructive ideas and/or criticism. Thank you. 191.114.178.27 (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * First, please answer a question: Are you a sockpuppet of a blocked user?- MrX 🖋 10:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A what? 191.114.178.27 (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SOCK.— Mythdon ( トーク ) 10:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have an account. Nor am I trying to manipulate if that's what you want to imply. What a warm welcome... 191.114.178.27 (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The only edits I have done are small corrections in orthography or grammar. 191.114.178.27 (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion would basically eliminate every source, whatsoever. So, basically, it's not possible/feasible. --Izno (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be true temporarily until better sources are found. But even now a lot of material on WP is still unsourced and nobody seems to mind. 191.114.19.122 (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Many people mind, it's just that we don't have time to fix it because there are not so many of us. Don't let the clearly-bad (unsourced articles) be the enemy of the okay (sourced articles that don't meet your particular arbitrary standard). Your concern has a WP:NOTNEWS aspect to it that has been beaten over and over that might reasonably need fixing, here and elsewhere, but that's not what you're proposing to fix anyway, so your proposal has 0 chance of being implemented. --Izno (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess "nobody seems to mind" might not be the case. I don't know. Point is, it's not an arbitrary standard. It's not based on either opinion or consensus. It is the most objective way of sourcing that I find possible. I do not see the "WP:NOTNEWS aspect" since non of what that section contains is what I'm proposing. Please enlighten me. 191.114.222.82 (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem with proposals like these (aside from being obviously motivated by a desire to push a political spin on a WP article) is that the proposers inevitably forget than when one gazes into the naval, the naval gazes back. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Obvious political motivation? How does wanting greater verifiability push a political spin? I honestly do not see the connexion. It seems to me a Non Sequitur at best and an Ad Hominem at worst. And I don't see what navelgazing has to do with anything I'm proposing either. Do you actually have any constructive criticism? I would love to hear it. 191.114.19.122 (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I see you misusing "strawman" below. Do you know what any of these terms you are throwing around mean? I mean, I linked to the precise definition of "naval gazing" I was referring to, and you still had to ask what I meant? Okay, I'll bite: I meant to suggest that you've spent so much time thinking about how to suggest this that you completely lost track of any context, and completely forgot to stop and ask yourself what the potential drawbacks are. So to put it bluntly: No, this is an incredibly stupid suggestion that would inevitably harm this project were it implemented, possibly fatally so. And yeah, your political motivations are completely fucking obvious to anyone capable of remembering the last time this was brought up, or who has ever watchlisted the talk page of anything to do with white supremacy. [[User:MPants at work|ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants ]] [[User_talk:MPants at work| Tell me all about it. ]] 13:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a misuse. I am doing here exactly what you acuse me of not having done. That's the sole purpose of me posting my proposal. I am stopping and asking as to what criticism other people might have. Unfortunately, so far there's not been a lot of on-topic discussion going on though. Of course my political motivations are obvious... You think I'm a white supremacist? Lol... I do not believe in the superiority of any race above another. Racism is irrational and immoral. 191.114.39.251 (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How one would get from me wanting to achieve more objectivity through verifiability to calling me a white supremacist is beyond me. 191.114.135.66 (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This issue was beat to death last fall and summer with regard to people having a cow over WP summarizing reliable sources that say that white nationalists/supremacists/whatever are indeed white nationalists/supremacists/whatever, even though said white nationalists/supremacists/whatever have said "i am not a white nationalist/supremacist/whatever". (e.g here is one of the several). What the community has decided over and over (and over and over and over) is that No. We will not remove reliably sourced content about a subject because said subject doesn't like it.  Big shocker that we are having this conversation again, over the same issue, about the same kind of subjects. Jytdog (talk)
 * Great job strawmanning my proposal. If you compare with my original post you should notice that what you think I'm proposing (removing reliably sourced content about a subject because said subject doesn't like it) is not what I'm actually proposing (changing the standards as to what sources are deemed valid). I couldn't care less who doesn't like what. What I worry about is media publishing non-factual statements when the contrary is clearly visible. As was the case in the example I mentioned above where a TSun reporter invented tenets that the PB did not hold as their own. How is that not a problem? The least WP could do is not use such sources. 191.114.222.82 (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * hm. Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's neither an argument nor is it correctly applied in this case anyway. I explained the strawman quite plainly in my last post to you. Answering with an unrelated joke is not constructive at all. I try to be respectful and respond as honestly and frankly as I can. It would be nice if you showed me the same respect. Btw, is there no policy that requires for constructive and relevant posts concerning serious topics? There should be one... 191.114.148.13 (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Professional journalists and their organizations are paid to vet and fact check the stories they publish. If they don't do this with regularity, then they're not a reliable source. This solves the problem this proposal is intended to address.  G M G  talk  01:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that they should be doing this but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon... Which is why I'm proposing a change in WP policy, because the media likely won't change. 191.114.148.13 (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In other words, your motivation for doing this is your firm conviction that the mainstream media can't be trusted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't misquote me. I'm saying that individuals who naturally act in their own self-interest should not be trusted to use the power to influence public opinion objectively when given it because they will use it to their own self-interest. That's not an outlandish or "conspiratorial" claim. Non-mainstream sources are not excluded from this. That's why we developed concepts such as defamation, burden of proof and presumption of innocence. I don't think it's preferable to elevate a group of entities (the "reliable sources") above that standard. 191.114.39.251 (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: unrealistic, impractical, questionable. — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why should media sources be given extra scrutiny, as opposed to any other type of secondary source? All secondary sources "mediate" information between a primary source and the audience. The principle being proposed here would seem to also exclude all other types of secondary sources, such as encyclopedias, treatises, literature reviews, and so on. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I think those should be included under the new policy. I think the misunderstanding might have ocurred because I don't know the WP use of the terms primary and secondary source and as such did not express my ideas as precisely as I might have. 191.114.135.66 (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Those aren't WP exclusive terms, a basic fact I would expect anyone able to converse intelligently on the subject of media bias and epistemology (or a half dozen other subjects) to know. But then, this is a remarkably poorly thought-out proposal, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
 * For your edification:
 * When I post to my blog that I've done experiments proving that a teapot orbits the earth and present my results: That is a primary source.
 * When a newspaper writes a story about my blog post and experiments; That is a secondary source.
 * When Encyclopedia Britannica uses that news story and a dozen others to put together an entry on the "Earth-Orbiting Teapot"; That is a tertiary source.
 * I hope this helps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I actually am familiar the distinction you present, I just haven't been associating those specific terms with it. What you call primary source I would simply call a source (where the information comes from). Secondary and tertiary source would both be a medium (only transmits information, does not discover or discern it). On a purely epistemological level, I don't think the latter two differ. Only in terms of organising and presenting information. Anyways, I will try and add them to my vocabulary. Using them probably would have made my proposal a bit clearer. About the second part of your comment, simply stating that it's poorly thought-out is not very helpful. It would be very kind of you if you could detail what it lacks, why and how one might go about improving it. 191.114.136.128 (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are butchering your use of those terms. "Medium" refers to... Well, the medium. Perodicals, books, documentaries, radio broadcasts and podcasts are all examples of mediums. And you are wrong to insist the secondary and tertiary sources are no different: they certainly are, as anyone who is willing to give the matter more than a few seconds of serious thought can attest. As to how you could improve this proposal: You can't. There's nothing worth salvaging here. Just let it sink. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, at least the proposal acknowledges that wp:RS and an actually reliable source are often not the same thing. But a retreat that simply acknowledges that isn't enough....Wikipedia needs actually reliable sources. IMO the Rosetta stone is a three part fix. First add that that expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it are additional measures of degree of reliability and strength of sourcing. Next is to acknowledge that reliability / strength of sourcing is a matter of degree, not some simpleton black/white ("RS or not") situation. Finally, modify wp:ver to say that the more contentious the claim, the stronger the souring needs to be. And vice versa. North8000 (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking to your final point WP:V already says exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Perhaps that's not quite what you had in mind; if so, please elaborate. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: a non-starter. The situation of "claims about an entity that contradict the entity's own description" happens often since what an entity says about itself can be dissembling, lying, exaggerations, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Please read through the Source (journalism) article to see why anonymous, unattributable, and off-the-record sources are essential to journalism, particularly to coverage of topics involving sensitive or confidential information. —  Newslinger  talk   09:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The reason that the name of the Sun journalist is not mentioned is that the article was not written by a Sun journalist but taken from The Canadian Press wire service. I disagree with the proposal because I believe the expectation is that Wikipedia articles will summarize what is found in reliable sources. There are corrections, compaints procedures and fact-checking for news media, and articles should be corrected when errors are found. I would point out too that news media are designed to report current events and we should always use better sources, such as academic textbooks, when they become available. TFD (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why has this not been closed?  G M G  talk  19:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on Interviews
There is a request for comment on the Interviews essay:


 * 1) Should Interviews be designated as an explanatory supplement?
 * 2) Should Interviews be linked from the verifiability policy?
 * 3) Should Interviews be linked from the no original research policy?
 * 4) Should Interviews be linked from the identifying reliable sources guideline?
 * 5) Should Interviews be linked from the notability guideline?

If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:Interviews. Thanks. —  Newslinger  talk   18:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This request for comment has been withdrawn. Thank you for your feedback. —  Newslinger  talk   07:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Designating web content by non-staff contributors as questionable
Should the following section be included in ? {{tq2|

Web content by non-staff contributors
On news websites, periodical websites (excluding academic journals), and blogs, web content authored by non-staff contributors is questionable, even if it is published in a source that is otherwise reliable. Compared to staff writers, contributors are subject to reduced editorial oversight and have a lesser reputation for fact-checking and error correction. Reliable publications distinguish articles written by staff writers from ones written by contributors by indicating the author's job title in the byline. Less reputable sources only display the author's job title on their profile page or the website's masthead.

Examples of sources that publish content from non-staff contributors include Forbes.com and HuffPost.

Opinion pieces in reliable sources have their own guideline, which applies in addition to this one. }} —  Newslinger  talk   18:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. The inclusion of this section would designate low-quality contributor content from Forbes.com contributors and HuffPost contributors as questionable. The WP:RSP entries for contributors of these sites reference 23 discussions over the past 10 years that show strong editor consensus for designating non-staff contributors as generally unreliable, and for treating their articles as opinion pieces or self-published sources. —  Newslinger  talk   18:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For clarification, this is in contrast to staff-written articles by Forbes and HuffPost, both of which are considered "generally reliable" with 20 discussions on WP:RSN in the last 10 years. —  Newslinger  talk   19:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. This will help distinguish blog-like stuff from from reliable articles, even if both are published on the same site. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. If a source mixes quality reporting from staff members with low-quality articles from outside contributors, that is a problem with that individual source, not with the concept of accepting outside contributions. Quality sources can control the quality of articles from outsiders by fact-checking the articles, vetting the qualifications of the contributor, or both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs) 19:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. It is very situational. I would only support this if it was less restrictive. We should obviously be restrictive with regards to notability, but WP:V is a lower threshold than WP:N. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) w umbolo   ^^^  19:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes but adding the cavaet that editors should check the site's policies on how they handle contributor content and if the site does any type of editorial control on that content. By default, most sites that I know using the contributor model (this would include Forbes and Medium) do not have editorial, so we should be wary of these pieces in general, and hence why I'd support this. Where there is editorial control by the website over contributor contributions, those should be allowed, but I'm not aware of sites that have this as a routine policy. --M asem (t) 19:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes with two caveats. First, I think instead of "contributors are subject to reduced editorial oversight" we should say "contributors are generally subject to reduced editorial oversight." This is similar, I think, to 's point. Second, instead of saying "Opinion pieces in reliable sources have their own guideline, which applies in addition to this one" I would say "Opinion pieces in reliable sources have their own guideline, which applies instead of this one." Neutralitytalk 20:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, on the first point: a site should be clear they have editorial control on non-staff, contributors content that would allow that to be used as a reliable source as if they were staff of that source. If there's no clear statement to that point, then we should assume no editorial control and treat the contribotrs' content as (generally) unreliable. --M asem (t) 20:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources do not read this guideline. It is unrealistic for us to pronounce what policies sources should post on their websites. Like any other question of reliability, editors observe the quality of articles that appear in a source. If outside articles generally appear accurate compared to other reliable sources covering the same material, and if many of the articles are by known people with appropriate expertise, we infer the source exercises adequate control over outside contributions. Just as we infer that if staff-written articles are generally of high quality, we infer there is adequate control over staff, even though we don't get to install cameras and microphones in the editorial offices and eavesdrop on the control being exercised. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Even for the general question of what is an RS (contributor or not), we have to evaluate what a website posts about its editorial process; if they show no evidence of editorial control, we deem it unreliable. And I'm presuming this is still a IAR approach: if we have a known expert in a topic area posting over at Medium (for example) and providing nothing that is overt contentious, it would still make sense to include it, with cautions as if it were a SPS. --M asem  (t) 00:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A quick note: experts are explicitly excluded from WP:QUESTIONABLE in WP:EXPERTSOURCE, so WP:IAR wouldn't even be needed. —  Newslinger  talk   01:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No Should make clearer that if they do editorial control over non-staff then that is considered reliable, otherwise not. (Fine if the default is, assume no editorial control over non-staff.) -Obsidi (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, per the clarifications on WP:EXPERTSOURCE below. This has addressed my concerns; Forbes.com/sites is a perennial issue at AfD, so would be good to have this codified. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

 * Comment - A lot would depend on exactly who the non-staff contributor actually is. Is it a known expert, I would say reliable... otherwise questionable. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * At the moment, WP:EXPERTSOURCE excludes content by experts from WP:QUESTIONABLE (which includes both this new section and WP:SPS). —  Newslinger  talk   01:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So the real issue isn’t just staff vs non-staff, but also expert vs non-expert. Blueboar (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, both are under consideration. This new section targets contributors who are both non-expert and non-staff. —  Newslinger  talk   02:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm a bit concerned that the proposal, if implemented, would exclude expert contributions by non-staff. See for example these two articles published in The Washington Post:
 * : by Waitman Wade Beorn who is a "Holocaust and genocide studies historian and lecturer at the University of Virginia"
 * by Karen L. Cox, who is "Professor of History at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and the founding director of the graduate public history program."
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on and, WaPost's PostEverything is curated and editorially controlled by Adam Kushner. That would fall within my cavaet to show editorical control over contributors that are non-staffers, so both would be good to go. --M asem  (t) 00:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:EXPERTSOURCE explicitly excludes experts from WP:QUESTIONABLE, so this new section would not affect experts at all. WP:RSOPINION still applies, of course. —  Newslinger  talk   01:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would think that expert non-staff contributors would be considered expert SPS and thus still reliable for non-BLP content under this proposal. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Version 3 only applies this new section if the contributors are subject to reduced editorial oversight. This section incorporates feedback from, , and . The text in the RfC can't be changed, since other editors have already discussed it. The guideline has been updated to this version. —  Newslinger  talk   02:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Could we please explicitly include something on sponsored supplements to academic journals? These look like journal articles, but often have no independent editorial oversight (the sponsor, often an industry lobby group, picks the "guest editor"). I wrote some related material in response to some ads disguised as academic papers which were mistakenly cited as MEDRS in an article averaging 2800 hits a day. There are a lot of sources from sponsored supplements cited on Wikipedia, and in this discussion I write about attempting to fix it, then looking for a semi-automated solution (I've since worked on metadata for identifying sources as sponsored). HLHJ (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think WP:SPONSORED covers sponsored supplements in academic journals. If it doesn't, or if the wording isn't clear enough, would you consider amending that section to include them in its scope? —  Newslinger  talk   06:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. I've withdrawn this RfC, and I'm going to start a new RfC with the Version 3 text, per advice from . —  Newslinger  talk   07:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Designating non-staff contributors and sponsored content as questionable
I've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard regarding my recent additions of the Non-staff contributors and Sponsored content sections to this guideline. If you are interested, please participate at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. —  Newslinger  talk   03:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I won't consider those other discussions. Changes to this guideline must be discussed on this talk page. The noticeboard is for discussions that only affect particular articles. Changes to this guideline affect all articles, so are not eligible for discussion at the noticeboard. I will now view the changes to this guideline, and revert them if need be, without viewing noticeboard discussions. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the new "Non-staff contributions" section because what we generally regard as the best sources, academic journal articles, would be treated as questionable sources by the new section. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, the "Non-staff contributors" section (reproduced below) is targeted at website content, not academic journals. Please see the linked discussions for Forbes.com contributors and HuffPost contributors for examples of the type of articles this section is intended to affect.

{{tq2|

Non-staff contributors
Website content authored by non-staff contributors is questionable, even if it is published in a source that is otherwise reliable. Compared to staff writers, contributors are subject to reduced editorial oversight and have a lesser reputation for fact-checking and error correction. Reliable publications distinguish articles written by staff writers from ones written by contributors by indicating the author's job title in the byline. Less reputable sources only display the author's job title on their profile page or the website's masthead.

Examples of sources that publish content from non-staff contributors include Forbes.com and HuffPost.

Opinion pieces in reliable sources have their own guideline, which applies in addition to this one. }}
 * Would you agree to the addition of this section if academic journals were specifically excluded here? A sentence like "Contributors to academic journals are not affected by this guideline." would leave academic journals unaffected. —  Newslinger  talk   16:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would rather limit the scope of the guideline to "news reporting", which I think is the intent. --Izno (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Would the term "news reporting" cover Forbes.com, since Forbes is a magazine? The ideal language would cover freelance contributors on the websites of publications such as Forbes.com, HuffPost, and Business Insider, but exclude everything else. —  Newslinger  talk   16:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Version 2
{{tq2|

Web content by non-staff contributors
On news websites, periodical websites (excluding academic journals), and blogs, web content authored by non-staff contributors is questionable, even if it is published in a source that is otherwise reliable. Compared to staff writers, contributors are subject to reduced editorial oversight and have a lesser reputation for fact-checking and error correction. Reliable publications distinguish articles written by staff writers from ones written by contributors by indicating the author's job title in the byline. Less reputable sources only display the author's job title on their profile page or the website's masthead.

Examples of sources that publish content from non-staff contributors include Forbes.com and HuffPost.

Opinion pieces in reliable sources have their own guideline, which applies in addition to this one. }} I've added version 2 of this section to the guideline. If there are any issues with these additions, please feel free to discuss and improve them. —  Newslinger  talk   17:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I feel this change was pushed through with hardly any discussion. More time should be allowed for editors used to reading a variety of sources to comment. These days, almost every print publication has a web counterpart, so making a distinction between web and print doesn't help. Also, there a wide range of weekly or monthly publications that are not quite news, but do emphasize current events. Many magazines, print and web, rely heavily on contributors. Although most of these magazines don't qualify as academic journals, they rely heavily on contributors. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Since these additions appear to be controversial, I'm going to solicit more opinions through a RfC. This section is only meant to target sites like Forbes.com and HuffPost, which publish a large amount of web-only articles from freelance contributors in a blog format with minimal editorial oversight. Finding language that is both precise and concise is challenging, and additional input would be very helpful. —  Newslinger  talk   18:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Version 3
{{tq2|

Web content by non-staff contributors
On news websites, periodical websites (excluding academic journals), and blogs, web content authored by non-staff contributors is questionable if the contributors are subject to reduced editorial oversight, even if it is published in a source that is otherwise reliable. Compared to staff writers, contributors generally have a lesser reputation for fact-checking and error correction. Reliable publications distinguish articles written by staff writers from ones written by contributors by indicating the author's job title in the byline. Less reputable sources only display the author's job title on their profile page or the website's masthead.

Examples of sources that publish content from non-staff contributors include Forbes.com and HuffPost.

Opinion pieces in reliable sources have their own guideline, which applies instead of this one. }} This version only applies the section if the contributors are subject to reduced editorial oversight, per comments in the RfC below from, , and. The text in the RfC can't be changed, since other editors have already discussed it. The guideline has been updated to this version. —  Newslinger  talk   02:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, you shouldn't be making substantive changes to guideline text without getting approval through an RfC per WP:TALKFIRST, but that is not required. If necessary, I would withdraw your proposal, close the RfC and open a new one. Per WP:RFCEND The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the rfc template. -Obsidi (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I'll be taking your advice. —  Newslinger  talk   03:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Note
There is a discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard which may be of interest to people watching this page. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Biased sources can be independent
Just a quick note about this: "Many high-quality, independent, third-party sources that address a subject from a particular point of view – for example, academic journal articles in the areas of feminist or women's studies, ethnic studies, LGBT studies, and academic sources that investigate geopolitical conflicts or climate change – may be considered 'biased' by editors who hold other opinions. These sources are generally not considered biased by Wikipedia's standards, and even if editors agree that the source is biased, they remain independent and reliable for relevant statements."

The regulars here know that I'm opposed to WP:CREEP, but it appears that a few editors are taking the idea of a biased source as meaning that it stops being independent, which is nonsensical. A drug company's biased and non-independent when it says that its drugs are great; I'm biased and totally independent when I tell you that chocolate is better than coffee. (Also, I'm right!) I think these two sentences should address the problem narrowly, without ending up with someone trying to claim that tabloid journalism is "high-quality" or "academic". Please ping if you want to talk about how to improve it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Typically I would agree with this, but when it comes to fringe topics, that's often not tenable. For example, parapsychologists never really have anything critical to say of other parapsychologists because that would "weaken" their already weak position among the more mainstream psychologists. So I think it's perfectly reasonable to view sources that are biased in favor of parapsychology as not being independent sources on parapsychology. The same goes for other WP:FRINGE fields.
 * With that being said, applying this same logic to things like political views. Fox News is definitely an independent source about Trump, no matter how much they like him, though not all of their talking heads necessarily are. Nor would I apply this to other broad societal divides, like religiosity, subcultures, etc.
 * Finally, for the record, you absolutely are right about chocolate. No question. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This needs reworking at best and removal at worst (which I've done the latter for now). It looks to me to be duplicating the content in the section also; maybe the section that was there prior needs to be jiggered to stress that bias != unusability, but even that is already present in the section in question. Maybe a single sentence of "Bias does not mean the source is not independent", which is what you are trying to say here, is missing, but I didn't see it when I hit the revert button just now. --Izno (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Izno, perhaps you'd like to add the smallest sentence that you think would be sufficient. My main goal was indeed "Biased does not mean that the source is not independent", and I thought that scholarly journal articles in hot-button areas would be a helpful clarification (e.g., that we're not talking about websites with no reputation for fact-checking), but I'd be happy to see something more concise.
 * (We seem to need a long series of these things: Biased ≠ unusable; biased ≠ non-independent; biased ≠ primary; biased ≠ self-published...  And then we go back to the other pages and say the same thing about each of them:  Primary ≠ unusable or biased or non-independent or self-published; Self-published ≠ unusable [sometimes] or non-independent or primary or biased; and so forth, until people quit saying that a source is X when it is actually Y and Z.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I added it to the list of things to consider in the second paragraph. Does that look okay to you? It's a little subtle to be in the list, but it should make editors assess "oh, is there a question of independence here, or is it just that the source looks biased to me?". --Izno (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good place to start. If we really need to have more, then we can always add more later.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"Exceptions" subsection removed (WP:EXPERTSOURCE)
The "Exceptions" subsection you removed was originally added in March 2016. However, the subsection was originally under the "Self-published sources (online and paper)" section, and not directly under the "Questionable and self-published sources" section. This is just a note, since you described the subsection as a recent "addition". —  Newslinger  talk   00:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Still, it ought not contradict the policy involved, no matter what. Policies rank higher.   Collect (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Collect, I'm confused. Are you saying that the section contradicted WP:Verifiability? If so, how? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, we need to have an explanation. If there is a conflict with WP:V, correcting it might be a better option. Zerotalk 02:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The policy is much more accepting of experts writing in a blog within their recognized area of expertise.   This strange section appears to deprecate such writing within their area of expertise unless other experts agree in normal reliable sources as I read it.  I suggest that this requirement of near-unanimity  with other sources basically rules out what is explicitly suggested in the policy. The correct wording here should be that experts in a given field, are reliable for their own blogs within that same field.   An expert on Chinese history, for example, writing their own blog on Chinese history, should be citable, even if the blog shows an insight not found in the published articles, mainly because they remain an expert in that field.  Their comments on German history, in which they are not a "recognized expert'' would fall into a different character. The policy appeas to recognize this. Collect (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)  Collect (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Collect is correct as to the intent... when an expert comments on something related to their subject of expertises in a blog, that comment is self published, but can still be considered reliable (at a minimum it is reliable for an attributed statement as to that expert’s opinion). Obviously, an expert’s comments on topics outside their area of expertise would be both self published and unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Designating web content by non-staff contributors as questionable (revised)
Should the following section be included in ? {{tq2|

Web content by non-staff contributors
On news websites, periodical websites (excluding academic journals), and blogs, web content authored by non-staff contributors is questionable if the contributors are subject to reduced editorial oversight, even if the web content is published in a source that is otherwise reliable. Compared to staff writers, contributors generally have a lesser reputation for fact-checking and error correction. Reliable publications distinguish articles written by staff writers from ones written by contributors by indicating the author's job title in the byline. Less reputable sources only display the author's job title on their profile page or the website's masthead.

Examples of sources that publish content from non-staff contributors include Forbes.com and HuffPost.

Opinion pieces in reliable sources have their own guideline, which applies instead of this one. }} —  Newslinger  talk   08:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. The inclusion of this section would designate low-quality contributor content from Forbes.com contributors and HuffPost contributors as questionable. The WP:RSP entries for contributors of these sites reference 23 discussions over the past 10 years that show strong editor consensus for designating non-staff contributors as generally unreliable, and for treating their articles as opinion pieces or self-published sources.
 * This is in contrast to staff-written articles from Forbes and HuffPost, both of which are considered "generally reliable" with 20 discussions over the past 10 years indexed in WP:RSP.
 * For avoidance of doubt, expert sources are not affected by this new section, because WP:EXPERTSOURCE excludes experts from WP:QUESTIONABLE (which contains both WP:SPS and this new section). This section only applies to non-staff contributors who are also not experts.
 * I'm sorry for starting a new RfC, but I couldn't change the text in the previous RfC (now withdrawn) because editors have already expressed their opinions on it. If there are issues with this version, I will not withdraw this RfC to start another one. All editors who commented in the last RfC have been invited to participate in this one:, , , , , , , , and.
 * —  Newslinger  talk   08:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To illustrate the type of article this section would mark as questionable, here are examples of staff and contributor articles at Forbes.com and HuffPost:
 * Forbes.com staff: "As Saudi Summit Shrinks, Capitalists Have Good Reason To Shun Riyadh"
 * Forbes.com contributor: "The Number One Tool To Transform A Woman's Career"
 * HuffPost staff: "Dana Rohrabacher Vowed To Protect Constituents From The Homeless. His Opponent Harley Rouda Opened A Homeless Shelter."
 * HuffPost contributor: "Stephen Redhead - The Master Behind The Music"
 * Currently, Wikipedia's existing policy doesn't comment on non-staff contributor articles. These articles aren't mentioned in existing guidelines (WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:QUESTIONABLE), since they're presented alongside the publication's staff articles in a form that is indistinguishable from staff articles (except for the byline). Forbes.com's and HuffPost 's contributor platforms have been discussed by Columbia Journalism Review, the Poynter Institute, BuzzFeed News, and The Outline. HuffPost shut down its contributor platform in January of this year (press release, New York Times article), but previous articles from their contributors are still online. —  Newslinger  talk   23:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, this isn't just about Forbes.com and HuffPost. Other publications, including Business Insider, Entrepreneur, Inc., and Fast Company also publish articles from contributors with reduced editorial oversight. —  Newslinger  talk   00:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. That's the long-standing consensus for verifiability and also notability to an extent. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) w umbolo   ^^^  10:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * While I understand that you are primarily concerned about web content, I think this all applies to other forms of media (paper, video and radio) as well. Blueboar (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No need for yet another section. This kind of thing is already covered by WP:Questionable sources and WP:NEWSBLOG. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am also unconvinced we need more, see WP:CREEP, the more we write the more confusing/wikilawyering things can become, better to address particular publications, a la, Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources (HuffPost and Forbes contributors are already addressed there.). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC) So, No. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Many unreliable publications have some accurate stories, even the National Enquirer. Publications that don't insure quality of both staff articles and articles from outside contributors are unreliable. No need for a special section. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong yes, there is a need to have this. I have seen many times when a new user goes "But it is Forbes!" No, it is not Forbes. It is Forbes blog. Having something "official" to link to would be very helpful. Renata (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. the ideas behind this are good but WP:NEWSBLOG already says basically the same thing, so adding another section to say the same thing will only result in confusion, what would be helpful is to say that NEWSBLOGs that lack editorial oversight are SPS (including expert NEWSBLOG contributors, who are expert SPS) and may not be used in any way that SPS may not be used (BPLs, ect). Tornado chaser (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: I don't see WP:NEWSBLOG already covering this issue. This is basically user-submitted areas on seemingly reputable news websites. For example, Forbes.com/sites is a perennial issue at AfD, so it would be good to clarify the matter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh This seems to be related to the notability question, which it really shouldn't be. The key question as to if something is reliable in terms of WP:N is editorial control and intellectual independence: contributor sources generally do not establish this, though, in some circumstances they may (i.e. if a former U.S. Secretary of State or British Foreign Secretary writes an op-ed it will certainly count, but if some rando from the street contributes to Forbes it won't.)On the flip side, these sources can be reliable for the purposes of WP:V. I really don't think this RfC is necessary. Like most things on Wikipedia, we evaluate individually and then over time develop a best practice. The best practices here are contained in other relevant guidelines which are more specific to each situation. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I have seen this come up from time to time and it would be nice to point somewhere on explaining the issue. PackMecEng (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as proposed. The distinction is worthwhile, but I think it would be better handled by making WP:NEWSBLOG more general. This has to do with content that is hosted on the same website as a RS but with reduced editorial oversight. It may or may not be called a blog. Eperoton (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as proposed per and .  I believe a short expansion in WP:NEWSBLOG to cover this unique kind of "blog" with at most one or two sentences should cover it.  Oppose specifically naming Forbes and HuffPost.
 * I would support a footnote to WP:RS (or a Wiki article) that speaks to this subject in more depth. Based on the OP's comment "[C]ontributor platforms have been discussed by Columbia Journalism Review, the Poynter Institute, BuzzFeed News, and The Outline", and two I found, it appears to me there is sufficient WP:RS to pass notability and create and article on this important subject.  I would much rather see it described in a separate article in detail than at WP:RS, which is one of our most important guidelines and needs to stay concise.  In fact, if no one else does, I might create that article--I am welcome to suggested titles.  --David Tornheim (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - this is incorrectly portraying any non-staff contributor as automatically untrustworthy in with "poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight" when what it really means is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS that different kinds of article might have differing levels of oversight, or that the reputation of a source for things it creates does not extend to those where it is acting as a publisher or venue.  It's also far too big -- it would become the larger part of the section message -- and is inappropriate in vaguely naming two publishers as if they're the only ones.  Work the wording a bit, make it into a short WP:POLICY guide instead of a hate rant, and fine.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
Newslinger, I reverted all of that. This RfC is still going on. And we can see in a previous RfC that an editor told you that "you shouldn't be making substantive changes to guideline text without getting approval through an RfC per WP:TALKFIRST, but that is not required." But as for "required," the top of the guideline does state "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And that is why usually I would go through an RfC for substantive changes to guidelines/policy. Although going through an RfC is not required, anyone who thinks you are wrong will revert you at the drop of a hat for such pages. RfC is then the only way to really change such pages (unless the changes are extremely uncontroversial). -Obsidi (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a full timeline of events related to this section, which can be verified in the history of this talk page:
 * On October 18, I added both the section under discussion and WP:SPONSORED to this guideline.
 * On October 19, I disclosed the additions at this discussion of WP:RSN and this section of this talk page.
 * disagreed with the section under discussion because it would affect academic journals, and removed it from the guideline.
 * I amended the section to form version 2, which narrowed its scope and explicitly excluded academic journals, and added it to the guideline.
 * commented that there wasn't enough discussion, so I started the first RfC.
 * In the first RfC, many editors stated that the section should only exclude contributors if they were subject to reduced editorial oversight.
 * On October 20, I amended the section to form version 3, which narrowed its scope to only affect contributors subject to reduced editorial oversight, and changed the guideline to this version.
 * commented, mentioning WP:TALKFIRST and advising me to start a new RfC for version 3.
 * I withdrew the first RfC and posted this revised RfC.
 * disagreed with the section and removed it from the guideline.
 * The result of this revised RfC will determine whether the guideline includes this new section. —  Newslinger  talk   22:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please take the RFC as also good for inputs that may change the wording or location, not just an up or down vote. Frankly, I'm seeing this one as a desireable point but being phrased a bit as a hate rant rather than a WP:POLICY of things to seek.  (It's too ranty-long, too hate-negative, and is calling out a couple names.)  Phrasing in negatives is also functionally an issue, because trying to say things not to do leads to trying to say ALL the things not to do, and is not really helping an editor find what TO do.  Speaking instead about qualities can more simply identify some top values and still be helpful in pointing towards WP:BESTSOURCES, giving general principle rather than instance-by-instance.
 * So I'll suggest definitely drop the names and to consider shortening it to a general case (e.g. 'WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and sections of a RS publication or different kinds of article should be valued by the qualities desired for RS such as editorial oversight, being staff writers, and having peer review.'  Or 'The reputation of an otherwise RS source is not granted to a guest columnist.')
 * And I'll offer the thought that this might better fit as an effort to clarify or extend IRS # Statements of Opinion WP:RSOPINION, adding mods among the section "A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.  Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format. "  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Producer of Aayiram roobai
The name of the producer of the Tamil movie Aayiram roobai is mentioned as Chinna Arunachalam. The name of the individual is Chinna Annamalai. The poster attached to the Wikipedia page itself shows his correct name. Please correct the error Chandru60 (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

'Generally' speaking
While many assertions have been made in these talk pages that mainstream news sources are "generally considered to be reliable", no support is provided for those assertions. (See discussions on A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H.) Likewise, no support is provided in relevant edits (here, here, and here).

The responses to Gallup asking: "In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media -- such as newspapers, T.V. and radio -- when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly -- a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?"ª don't support 'generally' even with a liberal understanding of 'generally' to mean only 'more than half' rather than a greater fraction.

The results from Sep 4-14, 2018 were 'great deal' 14; 'fair amount' 31; 'not very much' 30; 'none at all' 24.ª The first two were summed to 45%. 45% < half; that total has been under 50% since 2005.

By what measure is that WP policy claim not a mis-statement?

ª Gallup asks re 'none at all', but not 'completely'; so the questioning was biased.

Humanengr (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "considered" here is not the results of polling, it's the general consensus of Wiki(p|m)edians, whom are probably and broadly not representative of the same set of people Gallup reaches. --Izno (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No such qualification is provided; the statement as it stands misleads readers and editors alike. Humanengr (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No such qualification is necessary--it's assumed by the environment you're editing in. English Wikipedia policies and guidelines are for Wikipedians contributing to the English Wikipedia and those policies and guidelines are going to reflect that point of view. You claim that it misleads editors (without qualification as to which); do you really mean it misleads ? Or have you seen multiple other editors confused by that statement? --Izno (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Humanengr. Very interesting trend. I think Izno is right about the context. I think Wikipedia policies and guidelines are generally read as if every statement therein is prefaced by "The consensus on Wikipedia is…", and that such a statement therefore is impliedly set forth as true only in the context of editing and using Wikipedia. Thus, here, "generally considered to be reliable" really means "generally considered to be reliable within the meaning of Verifiability". One could change it to say the latter, but since we use the term "reliable" about six dozen times on this page, and all are susceptible to this slight ambiguity, there would be a strong argument that it would become tiresome very quickly.
 * That being said, academically, the Gallup poll is interesting. But I would suggest that, since all we have to go on for verifiability are "reliable sources", how trustworthy the "mainstream media" is to the American—and that's another issue we need to consider since English Wikipedia has an international audience—public is largely valuable only in comparison to how the public feels about other sources. Meaning if the public doesn't trust the news media but also doesn't trust books, journals, Wikipedia, etc., we might still validly claim that the news media is reliable, at least relative to the alternatives, in the public's view. --Bsherr (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx, . Allow me to first ask re "No such qualification is necessary": What -harm- would there be in providing such qualification? (aside from Bsherr's remarks relevant to that) Humanengr (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You do have to answer my question too. You need to provide substantial evidence that supports your position that anyone is confused by the statement. Do you have that? Furthermore, you need to show where has ensured as a result of that confusion. Does that exist? I see little reason to entertain any innocently phrased questions otherwise. --Izno (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if you'll indulge me some more, I don't mind answering both of your questions from my perspective. Humanengr, if you add this qualification only there, one might mistakenly assign significance to its absence in the other places the term "reliable" appears on the page without the qualification. One way to avoid this might be to drop a footnote at the first mention of "reliable" on the page, and leave it at that. In my opinion, that would be relatively harmless. But harmless doesn't mean better.
 * Izno, I think there is such a thing as wording being objectively ambiguous or misleading. If it is, then showing whether someone else is actually confused isn't important. Likewise, changes can be proactive, not just reactive. If Humanengr thinks he can improve the wording of the guideline, and there is consensus that the proposal is an improvement, I think we'd all agree that's a good thing. --Bsherr (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No support is required. It is an editorial decision that articles use the facts found in mainstream sources. So instead of for example reading through all the news reports about the Me Too movement or Black Lives Matter, readers can find all the information in one place. Inevitably that will mean that many things in articles about current events will turn out to be wrong. There are competitors to Wikipedia that have different editorial policies, but they have attracted relatively few readers and editors in comparison. TFD (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Reliability
I've just reactivated WikiProject Reliability, and amended its scope to include three main goals: If you're interested, please feel free to add yourself as a participant of WikiProject Reliability. Thanks! —  Newslinger  talk   18:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Improving the reliability of sources cited in articles
 * 2) Contributing to discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard
 * 3) Maintaining the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page