Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

Capital of Free India

Is this [1] a reliable source for the idea that Port Blair was the "provisional capital of Free India", as used in the Azad Hind article? I'm not sure whether it is user created or an advertisement for the courses or what, exactly. Britmax (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't believe this is a reliable source. It seems very preliminary as a source, and the page does not include any reference citations. Seems kind of questionable Sruthijayanti (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022

Some sources use another sources. So we should clearly outline that if a source 1 reference use some questionable source 2 to confirm the fact that is about to be stated in an article then the source 1 must be treated as questionable as well to state the fact. InventingNames (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit requests should only be used for edits where there is a consensus. Please show a consensus for this and if there is not one already, please start a discussion without an edit request template. Thank you. --Ferien (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION and clearly indicating when the reader is reading an opinion.

RSOPINION says that For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says...." and that When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion. But the problem is that we often also use that exact style of qualifier to indicate high-quality academic sources, or when citing an expert who is attributed in another source. And that sort of framing is often also used for citing experts in other writing, or is used casually in a way that doesn't indicate the sometimes vast distinction we are making here. This can lead to confusion for the reader - "[name they've never heard of] says that 56% of the people in the crowd were criminals" still gives the impression that this is a statement that has seen some degree of fact-checking, which is usually not the case for opinion pieces. So I feel we should recommend more clear indicators for things that are published in an opinion section - eg. "in an opinion piece, Y said..." or some other framing that makes it completely clear, especially when citing an opinion by someone with no formal expertise. Perhaps it should also caution against using opinion pieces for things that are clearly trying to convey factual statements to the reader, even with attribution. eg. "Politician X ought to resign" is an opinion; "Politician X has resigned" is fact and shouldn't be cited to an opinion piece even with attribution. Similarly, a general statement like "society is declining" could be attributed to an opinion-piece, but something like "crime has spiked sharply in the last year" shouldn't be, since even with attribution it's a specific statement of (relatively) objective fact, which inherently implies that anyone it's attributed to knows what they're talking about. --Aquillion (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Can you think of a way other than in-text attribution to indicate opinion? I can’t. Blueboar (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• We can change the way we attribute it, that is. In an opinion piece [possibly for publisher X], [name] says... Another option would be to change WP:SAY to prefer terms that clearly indicate that something is an opinion when citing an opinion piece, eg. x believes, holds the opinion that..., expresses the opinion that... etc. These wouldn't necessarily be needed when the statement is manifestly opinion, but should be used whenever there is possible for confusion, especially when it could be taken as a statement of objective fact. --Aquillion (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  These approaches (e.g., "holds the opinion that…") work for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  I see nothing wrong with going at things with this approach either. Although I feel like most people are probably smart enough to figure out for themselves if it is a fact, or just an opinion from the references we provide if they care that much about it, and if they don't care that much about it, then they will just say, "It was something I read on Wikipedia", and if whoever hears about it does care about it, they can check the references. Otherwise, it will just remain "something somebody read on Wikipedia". Huggums537 (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• What about trying to fix the reverse, how to phrase statements from academic peer-reviewed sources in a manner that they are to be taken not as opinions? Of course, in such cases, this is usually accompanied already by langugage like "in a YYYY study" or the like, which helps to differentiate already. --Masem (t) 23:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Or just state the fact as fact… in Wikipedia’s voice. If it is accepted fact, there is no need to hedge it with attribution. Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think what OP is getting at is that we often cite "primary" peer-review papers, such as results of surveys or data analysis, and in such cases, we do usually want to say "According to (study or person that did the study), (factoid)". We're not necessary treating it as absolute fact because its a primary source and not necessarily a widely accepted stat, even though it has the weight of peer-review. --Masem (t) 01:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes, it's just puffery. We see a fair bit of "According to a 2018 systematic review from the Cochrane Library..." or "According to a 2018 review by Prof. I.M. Portant of Big University..."

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Cite sources, don't describe them discourages this, but practice creeps the other direction. I think that some editors feel this verbose approach is more "neutral". I'm not telling you that you should wash your hands, which might indicate that I have a biased viewpoint on the subject; I'm just telling you that it's a fact that Alice Expert published the results of an uncontrolled survey involving 132 experienced long-distance backpackers on the Appalachian trail in a peer-reviewed journal in 1997 that concluded that washing hands after defecating reduces the incidence of diarrhea in the wilderness, and now that I've told you this fact, I'm letting you make up your own mind about it.

In terms of opinions, I don't think that it's always unclear. "Alice Expert said that Un bel dì, vedremo is one of the finest arias in all of 20th century opera" is something that people will recognize as an opinion no matter how you phrase it. We only need to be concerned when there is a realistic question about whether this is an opinion or a fact (e.g., "Ed Economist said that the economic outlook will improve next quarter"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

What to do when the primary source for something is on a website considered an unreliable source?

In this specific case, the founder of a movement posted the ideals of the movement on tumblr, would this be considered unreliable as it is from a user generated content site, or would this be an acceptable source as it is the founder publicly stating the ideals of the movement (there is no dispute that this user is the founder of the movement, which personally pushes me to it being an acceptable source, however others editing the article have disagreed, and i would like to understand how this works in this edge case?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeeTheFae (talk • contribs) 09:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_that_are_usually_not_reliable.

Using it as a source would likely fall under WP:SOAP without a supporting independent source to provide the necessary encyclopedic context and show that mention is due. --Hipal (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2022

Date Of Birth 09/27/71 I appear on non dungeon Family records frequently not rarely. BigRube (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Using a MA thesis

I think MA theses from accredited universities should be considered reliable sources in the same manner as dissertations. They are both supervised and edited by full-time faculty members. While the guideline rightfully says that dissertations should be cautiously accepted, I see no reason my Master's theses should be treated differently.--User:Namiba 13:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The appropriateness of any source depends on that source's reputation in the greater world; a frequently cited Master's Thesis would, hypothetically, be more "reliable" than a Doctoral Thesis which is ignored and never further cited. Reliability is not a checklist, and it is not a set of binary conditions. We can't say "all X are reliable". We can only say "What makes this one X here reliable or unreliable" by applying principles of WP:RS to assessing the source. --Jayron32 15:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It's really hard to imagine any content that would be WP:DUE for inclusion, but could only be sourced to a master's thesis. Levivich 16:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Not RS. Way too broad a category. Way too many institutions and supervisors, and the standard for acceptance of an MA paper varies widely among the institutions, departments, and supervisors. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Masters' theses are unreliable by default because they don't meet our standard for "published." Any source, of course, can theoretically have exceptional extenuating circumstances that make it usable despite falling into a category like that that would normally not be usable, but you will have to ask about the specific master's thesis you are interested in to find out if it is such an exception. --Aquillion (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Khwezi Lomso Comprehensive School

It was created in 1983 and is situated in Zwide 105.248.206.61 (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not what this page is for. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Should primary sources be used for whole sections like these?

Example: Gillingham railway station (Kent)#Services, with the only source being a National Rail timetable (a primary source). SK2242 (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say that regardless of the source, it doesn't belong in the article, per WP:NOTGUIDE, though no doubt Wikiproject Trainspotters or whatever they call themselves would argue otherwise. Note that there are already external links for train times, making it all rather redundant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Leaving the debate about if this type of thing belongs in the article aside, why wouldn't a primary source be used if it is just verifying simple straightforward factual descriptions of the timetable that don't require any interpretation? What possible use is there for any author's personal analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts on this simple timetable from any secondary sources? Huggums537 (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I just realized my answer to the OP is just only questions. The answer is Yes. You should absolutely use the primary source in this case since a secondary source offers nothing of any real value for this purpose. What I would usually do in cases like this is back up the primary source with a secondary source (if there is one) just in case you have some kind of paranoid secondary sourcing Nazi that wants to have a heart attack about it. Huggums537 (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The answer is **No** and Andy's answer is the correct one. There is no reasonable answer to the OP's question, because it can't be answered: "The typical off-peak service in trains per hour" is not encyclopedic content IF no secondary source has written about the the typical off-peak service of Gillingham railway station. --Mvbaron (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That is only your opinion while I have linked to policy that says otherwise. Also your opinion about anything not being encyclopedic content if no secondary source has written about it can easily be proven as an uneducated interpretation about sourcing by referring to WP:PRIMARYNEWS, where it clearly explains that encyclopedic content about current events is added without secondary sources fairly often with the support of primary news sources. WhatamIdoing gives a good example of this here. Huggums537 (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

what? where is the policy that says we can add information about the typical off-peak service of Gillingham railway station (and related non-notable things)? Mvbaron (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Where is the policy that says we can't?

Without some kind of information on how busy it is, readers will not understand the subject properly. Imagine someone saying that we shouldn't mention passenger volumes at airports, because it's not "encyclopedic" to notice that ATL is much busier than a dirt airstrip in the middle of nowhere. They'd get laughed at. I have some doubts that this current draft is the ideal way to go about it, but there is no rule against providing some notion of whether a train station is a central hub, or a nearly unused wide spot, or somewhere in between.

@Mvbaron, the question I have for you is whether you are really looking for a secondary source or an independent one. Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, to answer your question, the policy [guidance] that says you can add "non-notable" things to articles and lists can be found at WP:NNC, where it says that notability guidelines don't apply to content within articles. It sounds to me like you are regurgitating bad ideas you heard from some other morons on Wikipedia, but I would stop listening to other people if they are not linking to anything to support their ideas if I were you. Huggums537 (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• I just want to note that the “section” in question really consists of three sentences. Having three sentences that are supported by a primary source is hardly outrageous. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• This is more of a question of WP:DUE / WP:NOTGUIDE than WP:RS. Uncontroversial factual details which don't carry any interpretive implications or the like are the sorts of things we can cite to primary sources... but that doesn't mean we should, per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. This is the sort of thing where it would make sense to ask for an independent secondary source not because it's strictly necessary but because it helps establish due weight and provides the necessary interpretive context for what this means. --Aquillion (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Splitting hairs, National Rail technically isn't a primary source, The primary source would the train operator. National Rail is owned by the Rail Delivery Group, of which the train operators are shareholders, but they would not directly be in the actual publication of a national timetable. Reality is that for any service information on a transport operator or piece of transport infrastructure, the cites almost always will be primary. As long as they are being used to confirm basic facts, then primary cites such as this are not bad per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. 03:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kremorne (talk • contribs)

I will say that’s an essay, not a guideline. SK2242 (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Being an essay does not mean you should do the opposite. Insofar as it does a really good job of clarifying the status of primary sources at Wikipedia, which it does, then it is a quite apt thing for someone to have you read in this discussion. --Jayron32 13:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Did WP:RS or WP:VERIFY ever have a note about the use of religious texts

I'm sure I remember a note about this or something similar. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller WP:RSPSCRIPTURE? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång not sure I see the point of the redirect. In any case. It was a note on one of the above pages. Thanks though. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The point of the redirect is to easily show someone what religious texts are good for on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång sorry, for some reason I missed that. The note I recall was something like that, and I'm not sure why it was removed. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:RNPOV is somewhat related, but probably not what you're after. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)