Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:33, 7 November 2015 editEdgar181 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users196,325 editsm Reverted edits by 2.222.46.161 (talk) to last version by TransporterMan← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:49, 18 November 2015 edit undoSlawekb (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users11,467 edits →NEWSORG and science: new sectionNext edit →
Line 96:		Line 96:
	“Enjoy the journey, the destination looks after itself ” <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		“Enjoy the journey, the destination looks after itself ” <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	{{collapse bottom}}		{{collapse bottom}}

			== NEWSORG and science ==

			Recently, news reports have come out declaring that a Nigerian mathematician has proved the ]. For example, the , , . It's blatantly clear that these stories are unsubstantiated nonsense. (At worst, this entire affair is an obvious hoax.) Aside from pointing to ] and ], is there some bright line that we can point to regarding the unreliability of such otherwise well-regarded "news" outlets on scientific matters?

			I've seen my fair share of news sources getting science just completely wrong (in some cases, just outright fabrication). In such cases, it's pretty clear to reasonably scientifically literate editors that this is the case. However, the trouble with news media is that it tends to bring a different crowd of editors to scientific pages: those that have had no exposure to the subject, apart from the news source that they read. In some cases, when a news outlet picks up a story, that story is immediately and uncritically copied by every other news source, without performing any additional fact-checking. So, we often get a situation where there is an overwhelming number of "reliable" sources, and editors without much scientific literacy lobbying for inclusion of content like this based on prevalence in those "reliable" sources. ⇔

			For this reason, it seems like we need to firm up some guideline to clarify our collective position on using such sources. Editors without much scientific literacy tend not to be big on nuances, like: "The BBC is not reliable for scientific matters." Or, "That's a redflag claim. We need high-quality scholarly sources." I think some bright-line rule, to which we can refer such editors, would helpfully clarify our position and put an end to unproductive time-wasting. <small><span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-.3em;line-height:.8em;text-align:right;text-shadow:black 1pt 1pt 1pt">]<br/><font color="red">]</font></span></small> 14:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:49, 18 November 2015

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:IRS

To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Questions

Where should I ask whether this source supports this statement in an article?: At Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Don't forget to tell the editors the full name of the source and the exact sentence it is supposed to support.
Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me?: No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/cost. If you need help verifying that a source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange or a relevant WikiProject.
Do sources have to be in English?: No. Sources can be written in any language. However, if equally good sources in English exist, they will be more useful to our readers. If you need help verifying that a non-English source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Misplaced Pages:Translators available.
I personally know that this information is true. Isn't that good enough to include it?: No. Misplaced Pages includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or belief is not enough.
I personally know that this information is false. Isn't that good enough to remove it?: Your personal belief or knowledge that the information is false is not sufficient for removal of verifiable and well-sourced material.
Is personal communication from an expert a reliable source?: No. It is not good enough for you to talk to an expert in person or by telephone, or to have a written letter, e-mail message, or text message from a source. Reliable sources must be published.
Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?: No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual.
What if the source is biased?: Sources are allowed to be biased or non-neutral; sometimes these are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a controversial subject. However, the resulting Misplaced Pages articles must maintain a neutral point of view.
Does every single sentence need to be followed by an inline citation?: No. Only four broad categories of material need to be supported by inline citations. Editors need not supply citations for perfectly obvious material. However, it must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source for all material.
Are sources required in all articles?: Adding sources is the best practice, but prior efforts to officially require at least one source have been rejected by the community. See, e.g., discussions in January 2024 and March 2024.
Are reliable sources required to name the author?: No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement.
Are reliable sources required to provide a list of references?: No. Misplaced Pages editors should list any required sources in a references or notes section. However, the sources you are using to write the Misplaced Pages article do not need to provide a bibliography. Most reliable sources, such as newspaper and magazine articles, do not provide a bibliography.
Does anyone read the sources?: Readers do not use the reference list extensively. This research indicates that readers click somewhere in the list of references approximately three times out of every 1,000 page views.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.

Can a specific Topic Wiki become a reliable source?

Hi Guys, I'm interested in learning more about reliable sources on Misplaced Pages. My question is about public Wiki-systems based on a specific topic, are there samples and how could a community of a specific topic become a reliable source. It's a general question, so I don't wanna provide the topic as it should be a neutral discussion. The community uses a current MediaWiki and is open to develop editing standards which would be required to make the system a reliable source. At the moment the Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ is in place. But this could also be changed. Thanks for the feedback! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Since you're asking a general question, I'll give you a general answer: no, usually not. The license is completely unrelated afaik. If the wiki is "public", which means "anyone can edit", it would be self-published which would mean it can usually not be used as a reliable source in Misplaced Pages. How to enhance your own reliability by whatever standards you choose, that's your choice, and I can't see how Misplaced Pages could be of much assistance there. Specifics may apply, but we weren't talking specifics, were we? --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me add to that: There are some truly terrific special-purpose wikis out there. While Francis is absolutely right that they cannot be directly used as reliable sources, if they were to adopt and enforce the same reliable sources standard as English Misplaced Pages uses, then the sources given for particular bits of information on that wiki could often be used to verify the same information here on Misplaced Pages even though the wiki could not be directly used as a source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

... and/or webpages on some of these websites can be used as convenience links for free content: this happens a lot, even semi-integrated in Misplaced Pages, e.g. scores:Main Page (for the IMSLP website), choralwiki:Main Page (for the CPDL website), etc. Note however that these websites do use the MediaWiki software, but are not fully "public" (can't edit without registering). Didn't mention at first while there are a lot of specifics (including which content it is about) that need to mentioned for such websites. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Determining sources for article titles

In light of discussions, like Talk:Hurts Like Heaven and WT:manual of Style/Capital letters, how do we determine which sources are reliable? In this case, "like" as a preposition has been uppercased by many sources. Then users disregard existing MOS:CT and WP:NCCAPS in favour of sources. Or maybe "like" is not a preposition at all? --George Ho (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

We determine reliability for article titles the same way we determine reliability for everything else - Generally, we deem "reliable" any source that is written by an author who is respected in his/her field, and published by a reputable publishing outlet, and edited by a staff with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. So... I would say that if a source is reliable for article content, it would be reliable for article title determination.

Of course, reliability is not an "on/off" switch... there are degrees of reliability (with some sources being more reliable than others). We can and do give more weight to higher quality sources than we do to sources of lesser quality. And there is a huge amount of wiggle room depending on context and topic.

Ultimately, reliability is determined through consensus... those sources that we (as a community) agree are reliable are deemed reliable, and those sources we agree are unreliable are deemed unreliable.

On the broader issue of conflicts between source usage and MOS guidance... I will just note two things: a) The main MOS itself notes that exceptions can be made to it's guidance (something that is often forgotten about in debates) b) WP:Ignore all rules is policy. So... (again)... Ultimately, if there is consensus that a specific word should be capitalized in a specific article title ... we can do so - even if MOS tells us that normally we shouldn't. Making an exception in a few articles does not negate the guidance for other articles. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Source

When it says that "other wiki's, and this one or not considered a reliable source" does it mean the Misplaced Pages in general? Or does it take into account with other things like the Minecraft Wiki. RMS52 06:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It is taking into account other things like the Minecraft Wiki. Basically, things that let random people contribute are not reliable sources. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 17:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong information!!!

To whom it may concern my name is Eva D.Jones Young in my bio you have me as being KO in a fight with one of the female fighters from Germany I was never KO we fought to a decision please correct your mistake!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C04C:8970:E8DE:9637:D583:8C78 (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

→ Wrong venue. Post at Talk:Eva Jones. Put {{Request edit}} above your request. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment: Are "in popular culture" entries "self-sourcing" or do they require a reference under Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources?

I have started an RfC on whether "in popular culture" entries are "self-sourcing" or, conversely, require a reference under Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources.

The RfC is at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability, so discussion is centralized there. Comments are welcome. Neutrality 23:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Comicbookmovie.com

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film#Comicbookmovie.com. A WP:Permalink for it is here. This source has affected a lot of articles, and this discussion is important. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Dave mattocks Drummer

Hi Just want to point out in your article about Dave mattocks there"s no mention in the article that he Played and recorded with Bill Nelson"s Red noise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.190.214 (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: What does Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) cover?

There is a request for comments at .

At issue is whether the lead paragraph OF WP:MEDRS should remain...

"Misplaced Pages's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

...or whether it should be changed to...

"Misplaced Pages's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical and health information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

This has the potential to change the sourcing policy from WP:RS to WP:MEDRS on a large number of Misplaced Pages pages, so please help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Updated Bio for Denis Ryan

This is not the place to request article creation. Please follow the instructions in the first paragraph of Articles for Creation — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
DENIS RYAN Born in Newport, County Tipperary, Ireland, Denis immigrated to Toronto in 1969. He formed the critically acclaimed Irish- Canadian folk group Ryan’s Fancy in 1970 with Fergus O’Byrne and late Dermot O’Reilly and moved to St. John’s Newfoundland in 1971 to attend Memorial University where he graduated with a degree in Folklore. Denis and his family moved to Halifax, Nova Scotia in 1980 and have been residing there ever since. Denis Ryan’s career has spanned more than 40 years. He has performed all over the world, appearing in over two hundred television shows in both Ireland, USA and Canada , including 78 TV shows with the Ryan’s Fancy Tommy Makem syndicated series. The group also had a national TV series on CBC in 1976. Other TV shows included Ryan’s Fancy on Campus in the late 70’s and early 80’s, also on the CBC. They recorded 13 albums. In early 2011, Ryan’s Fancy released their 40th Anniversary Collection. Songs that Denis made popular in Ireland and Canada in the 70s and 80’s include, Newport Town, Mulchair River, Logy Bay, Sweet Forget Me Not and Now I’m Sixty Four. Denis’s version of Dark Island and Let me Fish off Cape St. Mary’s were to many the group’s most popular songs, and became Denis’s signature pieces. As a singer, he has performed for former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, US president Ronald Reagan, Queen Elizabeth, and has sung with former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. In 1983, Ryan’s Fancy disbanded and Denis has since been working in the Investment Management business. He is involved with numerous community projects including serving as the national chairman of the fundraising committee of the Darcy McGee Chair of Irish Studies at St. Mary’s University, and was also on the Board of Governors for St. FX University. In 1994 he received an honorary degree, Doctor of Letters from St. Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Denis was the founder of Nova Scotian Crystal, Canada’s only hand cut mouth-blown crystal manufacturer. Denis recorded various solo CD projects, including Mist Covered Mountains, Newport Town, Here and There, and Cape St. Marys. In the mid 1990’s, Denis hosted the CBC TV Series “Up on the Roof”. Recently, Denis played the role of a Judge in the Trailer Park Boys movie “Live in Ireland” In October 2015, he hosted a TV documentary about the well known Canadian painter Tom Forrestall. His youtube commentary of the Irish banking debacle “ Irish Wanking Bankers” has gained millions of views worldwide https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2nA2szz8dY “Enjoy the journey, the destination looks after itself ” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.65.224 (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to request article creation. Please follow the instructions in the first paragraph of Articles for Creation — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

DENIS RYAN

Born in Newport, County Tipperary, Ireland, Denis immigrated to Toronto in 1969. He formed the critically acclaimed Irish- Canadian folk group Ryan’s Fancy in 1970 with Fergus O’Byrne and late Dermot O’Reilly and moved to St. John’s Newfoundland in 1971 to attend Memorial University where he graduated with a degree in Folklore. Denis and his family moved to Halifax, Nova Scotia in 1980 and have been residing there ever since.

Denis Ryan’s career has spanned more than 40 years. He has performed all over the world, appearing in over two hundred television shows in both Ireland, USA and Canada , including 78 TV shows with the Ryan’s Fancy Tommy Makem syndicated series. The group also had a national TV series on CBC in 1976. Other TV shows included Ryan’s Fancy on Campus in the late 70’s and early 80’s, also on the CBC. They recorded 13 albums. In early 2011, Ryan’s Fancy released their 40th Anniversary Collection.

Songs that Denis made popular in Ireland and Canada in the 70s and 80’s include, Newport Town, Mulchair River, Logy Bay, Sweet Forget Me Not and Now I’m Sixty Four. Denis’s version of Dark Island and Let me Fish off Cape St. Mary’s were to many the group’s most popular songs, and became Denis’s signature pieces. As a singer, he has performed for former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, US president Ronald Reagan, Queen Elizabeth, and has sung with former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

In 1983, Ryan’s Fancy disbanded and Denis has since been working in the Investment Management business. He is involved with numerous community projects including serving as the national chairman of the fundraising committee of the Darcy McGee Chair of Irish Studies at St. Mary’s University, and was also on the Board of Governors for St. FX University. In 1994 he received an honorary degree, Doctor of Letters from St. Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Denis was the founder of Nova Scotian Crystal, Canada’s only hand cut mouth-blown crystal manufacturer. Denis recorded various solo CD projects, including Mist Covered Mountains, Newport Town, Here and There, and Cape St. Marys.

In the mid 1990’s, Denis hosted the CBC TV Series “Up on the Roof”. Recently, Denis played the role of a Judge in the Trailer Park Boys movie “Live in Ireland” In October 2015, he hosted a TV documentary about the well known Canadian painter Tom Forrestall.

His youtube commentary of the Irish banking debacle “ Irish Wanking Bankers” has gained millions of views worldwide https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2nA2szz8dY

“Enjoy the journey, the destination looks after itself ” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.65.224 (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

NEWSORG and science

Recently, news reports have come out declaring that a Nigerian mathematician has proved the Riemann hypothesis. For example, the BBC, The Telegraph, The Independent. It's blatantly clear that these stories are unsubstantiated nonsense. (At worst, this entire affair is an obvious hoax.) Aside from pointing to WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:REDFLAG, is there some bright line that we can point to regarding the unreliability of such otherwise well-regarded "news" outlets on scientific matters?

I've seen my fair share of news sources getting science just completely wrong (in some cases, just outright fabrication). In such cases, it's pretty clear to reasonably scientifically literate editors that this is the case. However, the trouble with news media is that it tends to bring a different crowd of editors to scientific pages: those that have had no exposure to the subject, apart from the news source that they read. In some cases, when a news outlet picks up a story, that story is immediately and uncritically copied by every other news source, without performing any additional fact-checking. So, we often get a situation where there is an overwhelming number of "reliable" sources, and editors without much scientific literacy lobbying for inclusion of content like this based on prevalence in those "reliable" sources. ⇔

For this reason, it seems like we need to firm up some guideline to clarify our collective position on using such sources. Editors without much scientific literacy tend not to be big on nuances, like: "The BBC is not reliable for scientific matters." Or, "That's a redflag claim. We need high-quality scholarly sources." I think some bright-line rule, to which we can refer such editors, would helpfully clarify our position and put an end to unproductive time-wasting. Sławomir
Biały 14:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)