Wikipedia talk:Ye shall know them by their sources

using primary against secondary
There are times where this is true, that it is a sign or POV editing, but there also times where it is true where a reliable source is just wrong and we should try to avoid repeating that mistake in our articles. The couple of instances that come to mind, since I was involved in them and I am by wide acclaim not a POV-pusher, are this instance in which a number of sources said some city was the largest when it factually was not based on census data, or this example of a thoroughly reliable source making a mistake that all editors were able to agree was a mistake and a determination made not to include that mistake in our article. Verifiability not truth is all well and good when you arent sure that it is not true, but insisting on including something provably false, even if that proof is not in a secondary source, is likewise POV-pushing imo.  nableezy  - 20:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I thought about writing a third section called like "When it's NOT POV-pushing" saying something like... "using a substandard source on a talk page, e.g. using a primary source to show a mistake in a secondary source, is not a sign of non-neutral editing" and maybe "using an old source on a talk page in a discussion about the evolution of sources", but my thoughts didn't really "gel" on that. Funny you mention it. What do you think about adding such a section? Do you want to take a crack at it? (or anyone else) Levivich (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Or, alternatively, any suggestions for a better/more-specific way to phrase that bullet point? Levivich (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Idk honestly, because it can be as you say it is. If I am out here trying to prove that such and such country violated such and such international law by referencing primary sources and saying this that and that all meet these criteria, and the secondary sources that say as a whole this does not qualify are wrong then yes that is as you describe it to be, POV-pushing. But the obverse is true as well, insisting on including what is provably false from the primary sources, like some misquote or a factual mistake, is the same. The first example I am convinced is a result of news articles seeing "largest settlement" in their sources and thinking they should "neutralize" it to "largest town" without realizing there was a larger non-settlement town, and a user tried to change largest settlement in our article to largest town on that basis. I think that was the POV-pushing, but this would describe it as the opposite. You just need more nuance in that statement, but you should ask a more nuanced person how to do that.  nableezy  - 05:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I remember the exact thing you're talking about happened not long ago at Talk:Arrests of Ulysses S. Grant, where editors, who are more nuanced than both of us put together, I think looked at primary sources to figure out that secondary sources were incorrect. Maybe they'll have an idea.
 * This is about the bullet point in this essay that says an indicator of POV pushing is using . The question is: how do we distinguish that from when editors properly look at primary sources to determine if a secondary source is incorrect. Nableezy points to two examples of such, plus I remember the recent Grant one. Pinging you in case you had any thoughts about either how to rewrite that bullet point to be more nuanced, or maybe we should drop a footnote? Or maybe a new section should be added to the essay that talks about exceptions or "when it's not POV pushing"? Any thoughts welcome. Levivich (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I took a stab at adding some caveat language (along with another bullet). Levivich (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)