Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 00:46, 18 January 2025

YOU MIGHT BE ON THE WRONG PAGE.This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles. This page is only for discussions about the Misplaced Pages page Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Misplaced Pages, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ.

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

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.

To discuss changing the lead, please first read the 2012 request for comments and previous discussion about the first sentence.

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, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83

Archives by topic First sentence (Nov 2010–March 2011) First sentence (April–August 2011) 2012 RfC about the lead section

This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Reliability of sources

I've noticed that many right-wing sources on this site are considered unreliable; my question is: why? I'm politically neutral and, considering that the politics of Italy and the United States are different, I have asked myself this question. Thanks in advance. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not a question with a simple answer, but whether a source is perceived as right wing or left wing shouldn't be a consideration in questions of reliability. If you look into discussions about sources the issue are rarely ideological. Instead the cause is that media organisation have diverged since the days of print media, and that divergence has impacted media on different parts of the political spectrum differently. That change in the real world has then had an impact on Misplaced Pages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: the thing that seems strange to me is that extreme left-wing sources aren't banned (maybe I'm wrong), while extreme right-wing sources are.
I repeat: I don't know the political situation in the United States in detail. In Italy we have a right-wing government; it's a government that many Italians support, because Italy is quite conservative, which for the Italian context is a very good thing; for the US context, however, it seems not, since the American right has, for example, denied climate change, which unfortunately exists.

Returning to the main topic: the thing that seems strange to me is that extreme left-wing sources aren't banned (maybe I'm wrong), while extreme right-wing sources are. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

extreme left-wing sources aren't banned (maybe I'm wrong) yes you age +are+ wrong. Take for example in British news media The Canary and Skwarkbox are both considered unreliable, and are on the far left of politics. Also to be clear sources aren't banned so much as actively discouraged if the consensus is that they are unreliable.

Whether governments or voters are of a particular part of the political spectrum is also not a consideration in judging the reliability of sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: thank you very much for this detailed and very useful explanation. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The primary reason media sources get Deprecated (which is not quite a “ban”), is that they have repeatedly been shown to not fact check (or, in some cases, shown to completely invent “facts” which they report).

As to why right leaning sources seem to be more likely to be deprecated than left leaning ones… this is due to the fact that right wing sources tend to get more scrutiny. It’s no secret that Misplaced Pages attracts academics, who tend to be a somewhat left leaning group. They notice (and complain) when right-wing sources don’t fact check… and they tend to be a bit more forgiving when left-wing sources do the same.

That being said, we have deprecated a few left-wing sources when enough evidence has been presented to show they are not properly fact checking. It’s difficult, but possible. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Recognizing and admitting this problem is certainly a big step forward, but actions are more important than words; I would like neutrality not to be compromised in the encyclopedia. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

With respect, Blueboar’s comment is not an admission of any problem, it’s an example of the long debunked myth of the liberal media, which Blueboar evidently believes is true. Virtually every aspect of their comment is untrue, IMO. For example, the vast majority of US sources are center to center right, not "left", and the leading opposition party in the US (D) takes policy positions that are considered center to center right in the rest of the world. What I’ve found most interesting about this is to look closely at the history of CNN and MSNBC, two of the so-called "leftist" bugbears attacked by the right as communists. As it turns out, both networks take center to center right positions on most issues and are run by pro-corporate, pro-big business leaders. The idea that reality has a liberal bias began in the early 1970s as a right-wing libertarian call to arms, which has created an alternate reality where right is center and center is left. This was intentional. It began as a way to limit government regulation and undermine democracy. This is a good example of what happens when people lose touch with things like facts and become a post-truth society. And this is the true reason right wing sources tend to be highly deprecated. They don’t believe in things like facts. And when facts no longer matter, democracy ceases to function. Apologies if this offends anyone. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

User:JacktheBrown - Outside of politics the banning also happens. I think it is just the mechanics or effect of WP:RSP. For the UK it seems more an elitism thing than a political leaning -- for example it seems most British press by volume is excluded as low class. RSP seems to interpret 'reliable' to mean 'respected' or 'truth' to that WP editor, excluding consideration of 'available' or 'accurate' from 'verifiability'. (You can elsewhere see discussions on a paywalled source or remote paper being preferred despite readers generally not having access to such or WP:VNT) The terms RSP uses are "Blacklisted" meaning mechanically edits including that site are blocked, or "Deprecated" meaning the guidance includes "generally prohibited" by automatic warning of such an editor and removal of such edits by third parties, or "Generally unreliable" meaning outside "exceptional circumstances" not to be used with removal by third parties and pings in TALK. If you want to see what discussions on what to ban are like, they are mixed in at WP:RSN. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I'm not convinced that this isn't political. What's the percentage between left-wing and right-wing sources that can be used? Perhaps an 80/20? JacktheBrown (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying that banning sources via blacklisting and deprecated designations seems basically an elitism act, and that it exists in all venues or topics - so it's in effect at articles for sports or music or basically anything. I'm not talking politics, or whether some parties might exploit it for financial or personal reasons -- I'm saying it simply is always a direct issue to the policies for V and WEIGHT. You cannot have WEIGHT properly measured if you exclude considering any significant circulation because editors think those are labelled as lesser venues, and if you are selecting paywalled or tiny elite items as the one to cite, then it's preferring the not accessible ones which is contrary to it being V verifiable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Markbassett: very interesting discussion. So is Misplaced Pages making a mistake in rejecting certain sources or is it doing so in good faith? In my opinion the second option is correct, but I would like to read yours. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Well I tend to view RSP usage here as problematic, but my wider view is Misplaced Pages content is from editors that are just people - good people and bad people, informed one way among many, obsessive or ditzy, with good days and bad days, days they have time to be careful and days that are rushed. You can look over RS debates and RSP debates or just filter recent changes to the ones possibly vandalism and judge for yourself.

For RSP in particular, I was not a fan of the idea back when it started and events have not improved my views of it and the way mechanics of it work. It supposedly was meant to capture the RS conclusions from earlier "Perennial" RS questions, so it could help the RS consideration. But folks just propose and argue from whatever stance for banning - there is not necessarily prior RS considerations or policy criteria in play. And instead of informing a RS consideration it seems mainly a blanket forever judgement - or at least I have not seen any reversals up or down. My revision of your 80/20 question back to you would be more along the lines of if WP bans 80% of the UK press, then is it a 20% valid portrayal of views ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Markbassett: is it possible to have an accurate statistic of how many left-wing and right-wing sources are deprecated? JacktheBrown (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think one can only get a statistic of the simple sort and count by their status like 20 banned, 44 deprecated, 133 generally unreliable, 100 no consensus, 119 generally reliable. Anything else would need a chosen filtering and categorizing. But I think RSP counts is less a concern than percentage of external, or individual articles being totally dependent on limited source.

The first concern is more how large a percentage of the total WP:WEIGHT of coverage for a POV is being excluded by RSP, because it seems the largest or most known sources are the ones to get excluded, so a simple count such as '5' banned needs the context of is that 5 of only 6 or is it 5 of 100, and does the 5 constitute 95% of the WEIGHT or what ? For example again, almost all of major circulation UK newspapers are banned, and the banning for reason for banning for being 'sensationalist' or 'just sports' then means not having the best available data or best known portrayals on topics that were UK scandals or UK sports events.

The second concern is that at some articles the cites are too limited by selections which perhaps excludes what the most common view is outside of WP, or at least will not show all the common views so be a failure of NPOV. Again, this is all categories -- for example one cannot have a music article that only shows the academic views and think that reflects the world opinions and complete story. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources shouldn't have been created, perhaps Misplaced Pages is unnecessarily self-complicating. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to get such a count, because you'd have to first agree on where to draw the line between left and right. For example, CNN is most commonly described as centrist, but some editors think it's leftist. The New York Times seems to be considered center-left, except that there are complaints that it's right-wing on trans issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t heard the NYT described as center left in polite company. I think that’s a talking point on the right. If you followed the last presidential election, it appeared that the NYT was rooting for Trump on the regular and frequently pushes center to center right policy proposals. I think there’s this misunderstanding about the NYT that has persisted for decades, that because they cover a wide variety of topics that somehow makes them leftist. It doesn’t. If you recall, the NYT has been the subject of critiques from the left in the US since at least WWII, when they pretended Hitler wasn’t a problem and the Holocaust wasn’t newsworthy. Many controversies surrounding their conservative to right wing coverage in the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s, the NYT was frequently referred to by the left as Lies of our Times. In the 2000s, they were taken down a notch for supporting and promoting the Iraq War and for government stenography, failing to investigate the false claims of WMD. During the Trump, post-truth era, the NYT was described as giving Trump a free pass while also attacking Democrats who might have paid a parking ticket late, etc. One of the NYT’s lead reporters has been repeatedly accused of engaging in access journalism, replacing critical analysis with softball questions and empty analysis. I could go on. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

When I've seen people (usually inexperienced editors) complain about the New York Times (example), it's almost always because they think it's liberal/leftist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested 2401:E180:8800:1593:E41B:627B:1DD8:FCBE (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

editing the text of WP:SPS

The text of WP:SPS currently says (1) Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources, and (2) Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. Sentence (1) does not exist in the corresponding WP:RS/SPS text. Moreover, it implies that expert SPS cannot themselves be independent reliable sources, and it's not clear to me that the claim about probability is true. I propose deleting this sentence, or at least the portion of it that comes after the colon. Sentence (2) is a bit inconsistent with the corresponding text of WP:BLPSPS, which now includes the following exception: It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example. WP:NPROF has similar exceptions in various places on that page; I'm not sure about other subject-specific notability guidelines for people. Should a corresponding sentence be added to WP:SPS? (FWIW, since editors disagree about what SPS does/doesn't encompass, I will likely start an RfC about that after the closure of the RfC on grey literature mentioned above. We could wait til that's over, as it may have broader implications for the wording of WP:SPS.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

In regard to BLP, it seems like "It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example" is not saying that it is ok to use an SPS on a BLP, just that this does not count as an SPS. If that is the case does it provide a counter example to "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer"? - Bilby (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

No, the recent clarification at WP:BLPSPS is saying that your employer is not a "third-party" to you. A press release is always self-published. A press release or a social media post saying "Bob's Big Business, Inc. is delighted to announce that they have hired Sam Sales as the new Vice President of Global Sales" is:

• non-independent (of the business; of the new VP of sales),
• self-published (written by the business, published by the business),
• primary (very close to the event, based on no prior publications),
• reliable (for sentences such as "Sam Sales was hired as Vice President of Global Sales in 2024"), and
• acceptable under BLPSPS.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Bilby, people have varied views on what is/isn't self-published (see the SPS definition discussion above). AFAICT, everyone agrees that (a) things like personal blogs, wikis, and social media are SPS and (b) things like traditional newspapers and book publishers are not self-published, but people disagree about (c) whether publications from advocacy organizations, universities, companies, think tanks, museums, learned societies, governments, etc. are SPS. The community needs to come to some consensus about (c), and that's why I'm thinking of creating an RfC about it. Depending on one's view about what is/isn't self-published, the BLPSPS sentence might mean that those publications are not self-published (and so don't fall under BLPSPS) or that they're self-published but are exempt from BLPSPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

No, "a press release is always self-published" is only true if the press release is published by a natural person, not an organization. It is, however, a primary source. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You made the argument above that a natural person (e.g., me) can self-publish something, but that when an organization (e.g., "WhatamIdoing, Inc.") does exactly the same thing, it's magically not self-published. I'm still not buying it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, rather than trying to keep everything perfectly in sync across multiple pages, maybe we should point to BLPSPS. That might involve adding works like "Per WP:BLPSPS," but would not necessarily involve removing any existing text.

About your (1): "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources".

The change I'd suggest here is to change "published it in independent, reliable sources" to "published it in a non-self-published reliable source". The non-self-published part is the part that matters. That source will be independent 99% of the time, but it's technically not the problem we're talking about here.

About your (2): "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

What we're trying to say is that even if the author is amazing, and even if the author has written a dozen non-self-published books on this exact subject, it's still 100% not okay to use their self-published works for BLPSPS purposes.

Imagine, e.g., that Gene Genealogist has written hundreds of articles and several books on genealogy. Gene has even written a whole book (HarperCollins, 2021, good reviews, decent sales) specifically on the subject of birthdates and is considered an expert in the field. Gene self-publishes this on social media: "Here's a fun fact: Paul Politician, Joe Film, and I all share exactly the same birthday. We were all born on the 32nd of Octember in 1960, making us all Baby Boomers. We are all 64 years old right now."

Using the list above, this post is:

• non-independent of self, but independent of the others,
• self-published,
• primary,
• reliable, and
• acceptable only for statements about Gene's own birthday/age/generation. It is unacceptable for statements about Paul or Joe.

The problem isn't that Gene isn't independent or reliable. The problem is that there was nobody to stop Gene if publishing this were a bad idea for some reason. And rather than say "Oh, it's never a bad idea" or "Do this only if it's a good idea" – and then have fights over whether this is a good or bad idea, then editors voluntarily placed a blanket restriction on ourselves: Don't use even independent expert SPS sources about other people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Re: (1), why do you believe that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in a non-self-published reliable source" is true? How would one even go about testing that?

Re: (2), you quoted a different sentence, one that I'm not questioning. I understand the BLPSPS condition. I also understand that there's significant disagreement about what is/isn't considered self-published. But my question was whether something like It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example, which is currently in the text of WP:BLPSPS, should be added to the text of WP:SPS. Instead of your Gene Genealogist example, it's instead something like Notable Academic got a Notable Award from Learned Society, as published in Learned Society's newsletter. If one considers a newsletter to be self-published (and you do, though some others might not), then that sentence is saying that it's still OK to cite the newsletter for text on the academic's BLP re: the academic having gotten the award. And the BLPSPS text makes that clear, but the SPS text doesn't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

(1) I don't think it's universally true, because "the information in question" could be basic information about the subject (e.g., all biographies should identify when and where the person lived; all articles about books should say what the book was about; all articles about species should say what kind of an organism it is), and sometimes part of that information might not be available anywhere else (e.g., a birthdate or birthplace; the author's explanation of what the book is "really" about; a scientific monograph from previous centuries).

However, outside of such basic information, if it isn't available in a non-self-published reliable source, it's unlikely to be WP:DUE for inclusion. Remember that this is an information statement rather than a rule (i.e., it does not tell you what to do), and it is not absolute, since it says this is only "probably" the case.

(2) My suggestion is that we solve the mismatch by having a single copy of the full BLP rules at BLPSPS (=not here) and that we indicate that WP:V does not have a complete copy of the full BLP rules. The alternative is that we have duplicated text, which will inevitably diverge over time. The available choices are:

• a single "official" text, and everything else points to it, or
• the maintenance hassle of resolving contradictions that arise between multiple copies.

The first approach is recommended in Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#Content ("minimize redundancy"), but if you prefer ongoing maintenance hassles and the periodic need to de-conflict policies, then we could do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to address your Learned Society example before I posted this. It's the same as the employer press release:

The Learned Society publishes a newsletter. The things we call newsletters are usually self-published, because they are usually being written and published by the organization; however, in some cases, the organization only sponsors the publication, and the publication's staff has editorial independence similar to a magazine (e.g., Newsletters on Stratigraphy). For simplicity, I'm going to stipulate that this is a self-published newsletter.

One of their self-published newsletters says that Prof. Notable Academic got a Notable Award from the Learned Society. This newsletter item is:

• non-independent (of Learned Society; of Notable Award; of Prof. Notable Academic ),
• self-published (written by the org, published by the org),
• primary (very close to the event, based on no prior publications),
• reliable (for sentences such as "Learned Society awarded the Notable Award to Notable Academic in 2024"), and
• acceptable under BLPSPS.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Re: (1), I still don't understand where you're getting the data from that allow you to conclude that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in a non-self-published reliable source." To me, it seems like a case where some editors believe this but don't have data to back it up and where it's unclear how one could gather such data. (Arguably, the vast majority of RS information isn't DUE, but that's a different issue, and is the case regardless of whether the source is SPS or non-SPS.)

Re: (2), your comment reminded me that there has been a similar conversation about the parallel texts in WP:SELFSOURCE, WP:ABOUTSELF, and WP:BLPSELFBUB. The people involved in that conversation decided that the best solution was "Remove the SELFSOURCE material in RS ; retarget that shortcut to ABOUTSELF's location in V, and "advertise" the shortcut at that place instead; in RS , summarize ABOUTSELF in a sentence and cross-reference it, without an unnecessary and potentially confusing devoted section."

Re: the Learned Society example, the only reason that it's acceptable under BLPSPS is because the exception is specified. It would not be acceptable under the current text of SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

For (1), this is not a statement about collected data. This is a statement about editors' collective experience.

For (1), there are two classes of information that are suitable for inclusion. Those two kinds are:

1. Basic information about a subject, which belongs in an encyclopedia article because of the requirements of the genre. This includes, for example, writing boring information like "George IV (George Augustus Frederick; 12 August 1762 – 26 June 1830) was King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and King of Hanover from 29 January 1820 until his death in 1830" instead of jumping straight into the subjectively attention-catching content, e.g., "King George IV, nicknamed Prinny, was known for being obese, profligate, prodigal, and promiscuous."
2. Non-basic information about a subject, which belongs in an encyclopedia article because it is in desirable sources.

For the second category, the existence of suitable sources is definitional.

For the first category, the "probable" existence of suitable sources is the collective experience of editors. You might not be able to find every common detail (e.g., a complete birthdate may be unknown, or it may only be available in a self-published source) but if the subject actually qualifies for a Misplaced Pages:Separate, stand-alone article, you will be able to find enough non-self-published sources to meet the requirements of the encyclopedic genre, e.g., to place the subject in the encyclopedic context of time and place.

In re the Learned Society example, it was accepted in many thousands of articles before the exception was specified. The exception was written down to make the written rules more accurately reflect the community's actual practices. Per WP:NOTLAW, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. The accepted practice was set by the community for more than a decade. Recently, we updated the written rules to document the already-existing community consensus that an employer is not a True™ third-party from its employees (for the purposes of this policy) and that an award giver is not a True™ third-party from its awardees (for the purposes of this policy) and that therefore self-published statements from these sources are not excluded by BLPSPS.

Perhaps this is the fundamental misconception. The written rules follow the community practice. The written rules document the community practice. The written rules are not supreme. The community is supreme. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for having pointed out WP:NOTLAW. As much as I try to be familiar with (and abide by) the PAGs, I don't know that I've read all of them in their entirety, and I don't remember all that I've read.

Re: (1), I'd say that editors' experiences are a form of data, but it's unclear to me how the community determines what the collective experience is. There are ways to determine the consensus of a small number of editors (e.g., in an RfC), where those editors may make arguments based on what they believe about the behavior of editors not involved in the RfC, but that's still a tiny fraction of editors. I don't know how anyone could confirm in any reasonable timeframe that "In re the Learned Society example, it was accepted in many thousands of articles before the exception was specified." (You can't confirm it with any kind of straightforward search; instead, you'd have to individually look at the sources for that kind of info on many thousands of articles, and you also have no way of knowing how many editors left that kind of info out of yet other articles because they thought that the employer, awarder, ..., wasn't an acceptable source.)

It seems to me that in discussions, there's sometimes a tension between what PAGs say and what collective experience might be ("might" because I'm not sure how to determine "is"); that arose in the discussion about whether learned societies that are highly regarded within an academic field are wiki-notable, and is in play in the dispute about what is/isn't an SPS.

Re: your 1. and 2., I'd interpreted "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in a non-self-published reliable source" as addressing both. And I've probably worked more on academic BLPs than other BLPs, which likely affects how I view all of this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Widely advertised discussions, including but not limited to RFCs, are assumed to represent the view of the whole community unless and until disproven, or at least seriously challenged.

Every decision is made by a tiny percentage of editors. Even if we had a thousand editors respond to a question, which almost never happens, that's still only 0.12% of last year's registered editors. But it's enough; we don't need large numbers of editors to make the right decision. If the first decision is wrong, we'll discover that over time and adjust.

In many cases, editors are learning by watching. They see that he cited the Oscars website, and didn't get reverted; she cited the Emmys website and didn't get reverted; they cited the Nobel website and didn't get reverted; and then rationally conclude that award websites must be okay. They will also see the Oscars website sometimes get replaced by a book, the Emmys website sometimes get replaced by a music magazine, and the Nobel website sometimes get replaced by a newspaper article. This means that when a single experienced editor shows up for a discussion, they're describing what they have seen get accepted (or rejected) by dozens or hundreds of editors across many articles.

Academic BLPs are challenging, because the accepted criteria give little consideration to why we require significant coverage in independent sources in the first place. I would expect it to be difficult to much past the stub stage for many academic BLPs without veering into OR territory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, thank you for your responses. You are helpful and extremely patient with all of my questions. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to adjust policy on self-published sources

Hi folks, I just wanted to discuss WP:SELFPUBLISH as I think it needs to be tweaked.

The proposed change

I propose that the current wording: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. be changed to:

Self-published sources may be considered reliable when they are either:

• Produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
• When an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, uses the self-published source as a reliable source in a publication.
• When the source's claims can be clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable.

Why make this change? Currently we allow a wide range of sources without decent review standards. I'd be surprised if we've not all come across books containing claims that make us wonder if an editor ever held the book, seen podcasts given as sources, etc. This isn't to say that we shouldn't be highly suspicious of self-published sources, that I do not question, but there are other ways of determining a book's reliability than just checking if it was published by a third party.

As the policy currently stands, it does not matter how reliable a self-published book is. This is an issue as not only is this standard far above what we expect from other forms of media, it ignores the reality that book-editors often don't fact-check, and (most importantly) it limits us from using potential sources that can be demonstrated to be otherwise very reliable (even more reliable than other books published by a third-party, as I hope to demonstrate).

Why would this policy change lead to an improvement in Misplaced Pages? I raise this is as I've been working on Daisy Bates (author) and I've found that two of the recent biographies, often disagree with one another on very simple facts about Daisy Bates's life. My suspicion is that they both read autobiographical work written by Bates ("The passing of the Aborigines " (1936)), as well as a biography by Elizabeth Salter (titled "Daisy Bates: Queen of the Never Never" (1972)), and that they didn't do their due diligence in checking other primary sources. I'll give some examples in the collapsible table below:

To summarise the reliability of de Vries and Reece, who are both published by a third party and have gone through some kind of review process:

• They both are often lacking in giving citations, this makes their reliability hard to judge.
• They both contain the errors that could have been avoided if they (or an editor) had read other primary sources.

This is not to say that they should not be used; I note all of this to contrast them with Lomas's book, which is self-published.

Coming to Brain D Lomas's "Queen of Deception" (2015):

Conclusion To summarise: Lomas is used as a source by an award winning non-fiction biographer, has done a ton of original research that involved reading through archived material, provides quotations from primary sources, and gives consistent and reliable citations. This results in Lomas being an arguably more reliable source on the topic than both de Vries and Reece. However, according to current policy, he cannot be used as a source alongside de Vries and Reece. I argue that current policy should be amended in the given or similar form. I am not arguing that self-published sources be allowed to be used without their reliability being demonstrated.

Happy to answer any questions, clarify any statements, provide quotations, etc. if people wish.

1. Susanna de Vries's "Desert Queen: The many lives and loves of Daisy Bates" (2008) and Bob Reece's "Daisy Bates: Grand dame of the desert"

FropFrop (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@FropFrop to clarify, Lomas has never had any work published elsewhere?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, no. The author never states it explicitly but my judgment is that it was a retirement project. However, he does also speak French (and maybe dutch?) so he could have published somewhere that I haven't found.

FropFrop (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• I haven't heard the other side of this argument (if there is one other than Misplaced Pages:Status quo stonewalling) but, so far, I find FropFrop's presentation well-written and convincing. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused by "When the source's claims can be clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable." If the source's claims can be clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable, then why wouldn't you instead use the sources that reliably verify the information? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  In practice, that line amounts to "whenever we want to". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think that we're capable of taking due diligence when it comes to these things, but would a narrower wording help? Perhaps changing that line to "When the source's claims can be clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable. This is to be done by the editor/s providing quotations and the source's citations so that other editors can discuss the content and form consensus on its reliability." or something to that effect? FropFrop (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Sources aren't required to include citations, and most of them don't. If the source does have (good) citations, then why not find, read, and cite those sources instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  I could do that, but then I'd be relying on primary material (which I want to avoid) and it would require a lot more work on my part. A lot of this archived material only has physical copies available. I've verified some of it, particularly at the beginning when I was judging how reliable Lomas was but this was quite time consuming.

  FropFrop (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  I could do that, but then I'd be relying on primary material (which I want to avoid) and it would require a lot more work on my part. A lot of this archived material only has physical copies available. I've verified some of it, particularly at the beginning when I was judging how reliable Lomas was. FropFrop (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  I too think this would be a bad proposal since it would effectively open the door wide for OR. What FropFrop seems to argue for here (and as they are constantly arguing on Talk:Daisy Bates (author)) is essentially: "I did the OR, following up those sources and so I consider this credible." But for good reasons we don't allow OR here, because such judgements are better left to the subject-matter experts at hand. Without OR, "clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable" simply means: There's another reliable source that says so. But if that's the case, then we can just cite that source and no change to SELFPUB is needed. Gawaon (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  That's not OR. If a source has WP:Published something, and an editor checks the source's footnotes just to be sure, then that's not an editor making up stuff that isn't in any published source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  But if the editor decided based on this check that a self-published source is reliable and should be admitted, then surely it is OR – what else could it be? It's not something that could be decided on the base of the source alone. Gawaon (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Gawaon, the definition of OR, from the first sentence of that policy, is:

  On Misplaced Pages, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.

  So:

  • The word material means "stuff we put in articles". If it's not going in the article, then it's not OR.
  • If a published source says ____, and editors deem that published source reliable for saying ____, then saying ____ in the Misplaced Pages article is not OR.
  • Checking whether a source (self-published or otherwise) is reliable and should be admitted is required of all editors, every single time they cite a source. Sometimes this is quite easy (e.g., a newspaper you know is widely cited, a book you happen to know is reputable), and sometimes it requires effort or a trip to RSN, but determining for yourself whether the source is reliable is normal, expected, and desirable behavior.

  On a separate, related note, you might be interested in the old concept of source-based research, about which the NOR policy used to say Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

  Source-based research is not about determining whether a source is reliable, but it does involve determining the strengths and weaknesses of sources, and sorting out contradictions, such as why some sources give −1.592 × 10 coulomb as the charge of an electron and others give −1.602 x 10 coulomb instead (e.g., different POVs? Different time periods? Different circumstances? One of them's just wrong?). If an editor decides that the best way to settle the question is to find and read the published+reliable+primary sources that the cited source names, then that's okay. We don't ban editors from reading the sources cited by our sources. Sometimes it even helps us get article content right (e.g., by figuring out whether our source's claim about "the average" should be linked to Mean or Median). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, but can an editor's own research promote a non-reliable (e.g. self-published by an unknown person) work into a reliable one? That's what we're discussing here, right? Gawaon (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  A source is reliable if there's a consensus among editors that it's reliable. I've told this joke many times, but here it is again:

  • Three baseball umpires are talking about their profession and the difficulty of making accurate calls in borderline cases. One says: "Some are strikes, and some are balls, and I call them as they are." The next feels a little professional humility is in order and says: "Some are strikes, and some are balls, and I call them as I see them." The third thinks for a moment and says: "Some are strikes, and some are balls, but they ain't nothing until I call them."

  This is how Misplaced Pages works: A source isn't "non-reliable" until editors make the call. Editors might well decide that Lomas is reliable for a given bit of article content. They also might decide that it's not. But nobody's "promoting a non-reliable source into a reliable one", either through their own hard work to establish whether the source is one that we should rely upon or through any other means, because it's the community that ultimately makes the call, not just one editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  Agree. All of the criteria in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources are based on characteristics commonly found in sources the community has deemed reliable, and therefore help in predicting whether a given source will be deemed reliable. Editors may differ on the details of what makes a source reliable, but the arbitor of reliability is a consensus of whatever part of the community is paying attention at the moment. And, as always, a consensus of a wider part of the community will trump a local consensus or individual opinion. Donald Albury 15:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's also essentially impossible for other editors to verify, without repeating all the research by themselves. Gawaon (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  So? See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Cost.

  But: It doesn't matter. If one editor decides that they want to make sure that a source is really, truly, absolutely backed up by the sources that it cites, then they're allowed to do that. You can decide whether you trust them; you can decide for yourself whether you think they're lying; you can decide whether you think their evaluation is incompetent. But you can't say "You did a lot of work, but I'm unwilling/unable to replicate it, so we have to ignore that". Some people spent a lot of time learning other languages or studying advanced math or obsessing about the reputation of academic journals. I can't verify their conclusions without repeating all that work myself, but that's okay. I don't have to. They are not limited or restricted to the level of work that I choose to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

if there is one other than Misplaced Pages:Status quo stonewalling Thank you for that! Another editor has been quite frustrating and has been citing WP:SELFPUB and has not engaged with any of my requests or offers of broader discussion. Going so far as to remove all citations of Lomas (white not editing the content to remove information I gathered from him, saying that it'll be done later).

FropFrop (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Same here. In particular, I find the “Indicators that Lomas is reliable” convincing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@FropFrop, I don't think your second point ("When an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, uses the self-published source as a reliable source in a publication") will work.

Imagine that someone self-publishes (e.g., posts on social media) a manifesto for some obviously wrong view (e.g., Flat Earth, tinfoil hats, coffee tastes good, whatever you want). Alice Expert cites this manifesto in a high-quality reliable source as evidence that this view exists (e.g., "These views appear to be genuinely held by some people. The 'None of This Nonsense' Manifesto, which went viral in 2023, lays out four primary reasons for believing in magical dragons, including...").

That would be an instance of an expert who "uses the self-published source as a reliable source in a publication", and we still don't want editors to use the self-published manifesto directly themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of manifestos, imagine this being applied to murder/suicide notes. The UK news yesterday had a story about someone sending a scheduled social media post announcing his suicide. So: the self-published announcement got "used" as "a reliable source in a publication" (several, actually), and this would therefore make the self-published announcement 100% okay to use in articles (except that to the extent that it would violate MOS:SUICIDE). That's what we don't want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a very fair point.

To avoid such potential scenarios, what do you think of the following:

• When an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, uses the self-published secondary source as a reliable source in a publication.

Would the addition of "secondary" and the (already included) "as a reliable source" be sufficient? Or would the latter need greater specificity?

FropFrop (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem I have with this proposal it that it would mean that a single mention in a reliable source would be enough to promote all of a self-published work as "reliable/useable" for us, including (and especially) the parts what weren't mentioned in the reliable source. Specifically, in this case: the only real argument (besides OR) I have read from you re Lomas's reliability is that he's cited in Eleanor Hogan, Into the Loneliness (NewSouth, 2021) which is indeed a reliable source. But in that whole book Lomas is cited just once, with two sentences sourced to him (for a full quote, see Talk:Daisy Bates (author), my comment from 09:35, 23 December 2024). Based on that his work is mentioned just this single time in her whole book on Bates I'd rather conclude that she doesn't consider him particularly credible, otherwise she would certainly have cited him more often. By contrast, de Vries and Reece are both cited more than a dozen times – clearly they are more reliable sources for her. In our article on Bates, largely rewritten by you, Lomas is cited about 35 times, and you want to keep all those references based on this single mention by Hogan. However, if we want to cite the single fact which Hogan attributes to Lomas, we can just cite her book without having to mention him at all. As for the other 35 facts you would like to cite, there's no evidence that Hogan considers any of them credible, and so I don't see how this single mention by her could be a basis for the extensive use of his book which our article currently makes (in clear violation of SELFPUB as it currently stands). Gawaon (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is only once. I made this point as part of a larger argument. If this were the only point that support's Lomas's reliability, then I wouldn't make the larger argument.

Perhaps then the amendment could be worded like so (taking some of the adjustments made by @FactOrOpinion):

When assessing reliability, be especially wary when the source is self-published, and doubly so if it's being used as a source about a living person. Self-published sources are more likely than non-self-published sources to be unreliable sources for WP content, though there may be mitigating considerations, for example:

• If the content comes from a reputable organization and involves information such as who works for them or who they gave an award to.
• The content falls under ABOUTSELF.
• The content is produced by a subject-matter expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
• When the source's claims can be clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable. Editors should provide sources' quotations and sources citations so that other editors can discuss the content and form consensus on its verifiability.
• When an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, uses the self-published secondary source as a reliable source in a publication.

If a self-published source meets one or more of the above examples, that does not automatically warrant its use as a reliable source; careful consideration of its reliability should still be made. Keep in mind that if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in a non-self-published reliable source.

FropFrop (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Your points 1+2 essentially seem to describe or refer to WP:ABOUTSELF, since that already exists as an independent section, there's no reason to repeat it here. About your points 4+5 I have already explained in other comments here why I think they would be unworkable and weaken the basis of reliability at which the aim. Nothing has changed in that regard. Gawaon (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

When the source's claims can be clearly and ... If a self-published claims can be verified using other reliable sources, use those sources instead.

...uses the self-published secondary source as a reliable source in a publication This is treading on the toes of WP:USEBYOTHERS. If a source is widely cited in other high quality sources it could be considered reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Overall, looking at the specific situation, I wonder whether WP:IAR might be a better solution. We generally try to avoid changing overall rules just to deal with a situation at a single article. Perhaps an RFC explaining the situation? Or just asking "Is Lomas' book reliable for <this exact sentence>?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Most of what I posted originally I took from an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. An editor has been very firm on this being a gross violation of WP:SELFPUB and does not take WP:IAR or WP:ADHERENCE seriously. Neither have they engaged with my arguments for why Lomas should be an exception to WP:SELFPUB. They've been editing the article to remove all citations of Lomas (white not editing the content to remove information I gathered from him, saying that it'll be done later). FropFrop (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like it's time for Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedures. Maybe an RFC? I think I'd pick something small, like "Can we cite this book for this one sentence?" If you get agreement for the simplest/strongest single instance, then it will be easier to expand from there.

There have been several questions about self-published sources recently, including the one from Void if removed at #SPS definition and from 3family6 at #Are articles written by a publication owner/publisher reliable secondary sources, or are they self-published sources? and from FactOrOpinion at #editing the text of WP:SPS. The volume of questions, plus the rise of more "respectable" self-published works (this one, but also things like established fiction authors self-publishing books they like but their publisher didn't want to bother with) makes me wonder whether we need to re-think this concept entirely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, FWIW, I've been trying to come up with wording for an RfC on the definition of SPS (checking the consensus on what people consider self-published, and whether the current definition and examples communicate that well). I think I understand the main views (I'm in the midst of rereading the discussions to check), but so far, I haven't been able to come up with something short; maybe there's just no way to make a short RfC about what I think is important to get at, or maybe it's a problem with how I'm thinking about it. I've also been waiting to see what the closer of the grey literature RfC says, though I gather that the timeline for that is open.

A couple of questions that came up for me vis-a-vis your view (I feel like I'm a font of never-ending questions; feel free to ignore them):

• You've said that you sometimes put governments in the traditional publishers category. For example, you've called the Census Bureau a traditional publisher and wrote "little-g government(s) ... are, in some respect, traditional publishers (e.g., of laws and reports)." I'm curious what guides your view about when the government is a traditional publisher vs. when it isn't.
• Both you and Void if removed have said that you think of traditional publishers in terms of the business model. Void if removed elaborated one traditional model: "an arrangement with a separate publisher is a business setup where both parties bring something (marketable content vs marketing infrastructure, connections, brand recognition etc)," where the publisher pays the author (content creator) and "If the publisher rejects the , then the author is free to sell it to a different publisher." That more or less works for books, freelance journalism, peer-reviewed journals, and probably movie documentaries. But it doesn't capture the structure of most print, electronic, radio, and TV journalism publishers, and probably not TV documentaries (assuming that you consider radio and TV journalism to fall in the traditional publisher category). How would you describe their business model(s)? And would you say that a business model is simply irrelevant to governments as traditional publishers?

As for FropFrop's proposal, it strikes me as more about who counts as an expert than about what counts as self-published. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think "free to sell it to a different publisher" is a given. 3rd party publishing can still prevent the author from self-publishing or selling it on to another publisher. This is pretty much standard practice in music publishing, with all sorts of high profile cases of artists contractually unable to release their own material, while the publisher refuses to publish finished work.

The thing about traditional publishing is that it encompasses more than just "making material available", but for sourcing purposes, we consider "making material available" to be all that really matters to be "published". So the distinction is sometimes unclear - its on a website either way, so what's the difference? But a publisher will invariably be responsible for matters like advertising, promotion, legal due diligence, complaints, distribution in physical media, and so on.

And really, the only reason it matters is because of WP:BLPSPS.

So after all this I think the real question is: what level of sourcing do we need for contentious claims about 3rd party BLPs?

Much of this debate around the edges of what is or is not an SPS has that goal in mind. Being traditionally published (ie a book, newspaper, magazine or journal) is to my mind a reasonable proxy for "you can use this to make a contentious claim about a 3rd party BLP, if its due", because a publisher is on the hook for defamation as much as the author. And that is probably the extent to which I care about whether a source is SPS or not. Void if removed (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your "free to sell it to a different publisher" point, agreed, though I don't think the SPS restriction matters much for something like music, since I don't see that being used for fact or opinion content, only for content that falls under ABOUTSELF. Ditto for things like TV dramas/comedies and non-documentary movies, though I'm still unclear about whether you'd say those are published by traditional publishers. Although you and What am I doing have highlighted business models, I don't recall others doing so, so that's why I'm trying to understand how you describe traditional publisher business models. Re: the other things that a publisher is responsible for, don't they also apply to publishers that you consider non-traditional (e.g., if GLAAD publishes something defamatory, isn't it on the hook too)?

I think your description of the "real question" is a significant part of the real question, but not all of it, as FropFrop's proposed change shows. (And I've encountered similar questions on RSN.) Also, right now, SPSs can't be used as BLP sources even if the claim is non-contentious.

As best I can tell, SPSs are singled out because editors think SPSs are much less likely to be RSs. For example, the WP:SPS section appears in a larger section titled "Sources that are usually not reliable," the current definition refers to the lack of an independent editor "validating the reliability of the content," and an early ArbCom conclusion (referred to by What am I doing above) said "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking ..." (That text was introduced into WP:RS in 2006, and although there was text in WP:V about self-published sources at that point, there was no attempt to define self-published, and the examples were totally limited to situations where one or a few individual persons had total control over whether their own work was published.) I assume that this is why the expert source and ABOUTSELF exceptions exist: self-published content written by experts in their area of expertise is much more likely to be reliable than other SPS content, and SPSs are often reliable sources about the author (but not about others or if the content is too self-serving; for that matter, we also have to beware of non-self-published sources producing self-serving content, as might occur in their marketing material, though as best I understand, you and What am I doing always consider marketing material to be self-published).

So I think the underlying issue is assessing whether a SPS is reliable for the content in question. When it comes to the SPS policy, it may be sufficient to say something like

When assessing reliability, be especially wary when the source is self-published, and doubly so if it's being used as a source about a living person. Self-published sources are more likely than non-self-published sources to be unreliable sources for WP content, though there may be mitigating considerations, for example, if the content comes from a reputable organization and involves information such as who works for them or who they gave an award to, or the content falls under ABOUTSELF, or the content is produced by a subject-matter expert whose "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" or falls into the situation that FropFrop introduced. Keep in mind that if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in a non-self-published reliable source.

However, that still means that we need to be clearer about what does/doesn't constitute self-published material. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This all sounds good to me (with the amendments added after WhatamIdoing pointed out some potential issues).

FropFrop (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Void if removed, if you don't mind a couple more questions ...

In the RSN discussion of SBM, you said "We have multiple highly debatable and contested terms, at the heart of a core policy, and radically different interpretation of them."

• I'm guessing that in addition to "self-published," you're thinking of "author" and "publisher." Are there any other terms (besides "self-published," "author," and "publisher") you think are contested?
• For each of these terms, if you have a sense of the different meanings attributed to them, would you say what they are? (For ex., I know that you've distinguished between a publisher as "the person who publishes" vs. as "a business whose business is publishing.")

Thanks! FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

So, some examples gleaned from the various debates:

• Author could mean anything from a single individual who wrote a blogpost, to the company whose unnamed employees were instructed to write content.
• Publishing could mean the trivial act of placing some content online, or a business arrangement whereby a publishing company takes responsibility for the distribution of content, along with marketing and various other concerns.

And as I mentioned in the previous debates, in English "publisher" (a publishing company) and "publisher" (a person who did the act of publishing) are the same word, and this leads to confusion. Depending on how you interpret all the above, self-published can mean anything.

By the narrowest definition of self-published, only something like a single-author blog where one identifiable person both wholly wrote and trivially placed content online is "self-published".

By a broader definition, a corporate website where company employees write content at the behest of the company and it is placed online at the sole discretion of that company, is also self-published, because the author (the company) is the publisher.

By a maximal definition, anything where there is not a traditional, commercial publishing structure, ie a book publisher, a journal, or traditional news media, is self-published.

Many of these debates get derailed by discussions about why we should care, and because many of us are laser focused on "published" as meaning "I can read it online", the commercial aspects of traditional publishing arrangements seem like a total irrelevance.

So, with that aspect usually ignored, most seem to argue that we care something is self-published because we hope for some level of independent oversight, and so editors might point to "editorial oversight" as proof something is not self-published. This is the case for SBM, where a group blog set up and run by individuals who are also presently its sole editors somehow has been decided to be "not self published".

But that, to me, seems like a hack. Editorial approval is not what defines "self-published", its just one component of how we assess a source's reliability and accountability. I think this is part of the incorrect conflation of SPS with "unreliable", when SPS and RS are really parallel concerns, just as PRIMARY and SECONDARY are. Trivial approval steps between someone writing copy and another person ticking a box or pressing "approve" on a blog are not sufficient to make something not self-published. As I've given as an example previously, by this minimal definition, a celebrity social media account run by a PR agency is therefore not "self-published", which seems to be a nonsensical interpretation.

Another common issue is publishing uncontentious information (like scientist X won Y award), and so different interpretations of "self-published" emerging to get round the BLPSPS restriction.

By my reading of past discussions we care very specifically about third-party BLPs because of the interplay between a) the low threshold for anyone to put any nonsense they like online and b) the possibility of that being defamatory.

And my interpretation then is a traditional, commercial publishing arrangement is the thing that provides some level of confidence that Misplaced Pages is not going to be on the hook for defamation, where "a blog owner approved their mate's guest post before pressing submit" does not.

So if I were to propose something it would be something straightforwardly restrictive like:

• Any non-trivial, negative or otherwise opinionated claim about a 3rd party BLP must be sourced to something traditionally published (presumably with lawyers who checked this claim before going to press), ie a book, magazine, journal or newspaper.

When it comes down to it, I think this is what BLPSPS is all about, and I think if you settle it that way all the argument about what is or is not self-published ceases to be quite such a concern. Void if removed (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Lawyers don't normally check any claims during the publication process. A large publisher will have some on staff, and a medium-sized one will have some on call, but (a) there is no routine legal review of content and (b) even when something gets flagged to their attention by other employees, they're not actually engaged in fact checking. They're only evaluating the information that's handed to them, to determine how much risk the company will be exposed to.

This should be obvious if you think about it. Imagine the ordinary working of an ordinary daily newspaper: The city had a meeting, and the newspaper sent a reporter to it. The reporter comes back with notes and writes an article. The editor looks it over. The editor might ask some questions or make suggestions. After any agreed-upon changes, the article appears in the next morning's paper. There is no "get approval from a lawyer" step in the editing process (unless the editor deems it necessary, and that's going to be an unusual circumstance). There's not even an independent, pre-publication fact checking step. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

FropFrop, the RFC I have in mind would be posted at Talk:Daisy Bates (author) and would say something like this (pick any sentence you think is appropriate):

Can we cite this book:

Lomas, Brian (2015-10-29). Queen of Deception: The True Story of Daisy Bates. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. p. 38. ISBN 978-1-5170-5385-7.

to support this (currently uncited) sentence in the article: "Eventually arriving in Broome, she boarded the Sultan with Father Martelli and arrived in Perth on 21 November 1902"? The relevant page says "<insert direct quotation here>" and cites a letter in the archives at Big University. This might seem like overkill, but while I was at the archives last month, I found the letter Lomas cites and verified that the letter supports Lomas' claim.

When you are in the middle of a content dispute, changing the policy so that you can win the dispute is not usually the best approach. Settle the local dispute first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

When you are in the middle of a content dispute, changing the policy so that you can win the dispute is not usually the best approach. Settle the local dispute first. That's what I tried to do prior to writing this up, as I imagined that my post here wouldn't be taken well due to it being an active dispute. However the other editor said that I should try and change policy before trying to make the argument for inclusion. Because the conversation seemed to be going nowhere, I followed through with that suggestion.

Regardless, I'm happy that my post seems to be going well and has sparked some genuine conversation on the broader issue. I'll try and see the dispute through.

FropFrop (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, I don't think that we should focus on wording for an RfC on the definition of SPS. Specifically, I think it's a bad idea for Misplaced Pages's definition to diverge from the ordinary definitions. I encourage you to think more about clarifying "Misplaced Pages's rules about when it's acceptable to cite self-published sources" instead of "creating a Misplaced Pages-specific definition of the word self-published".

For your specific questions:

• I think that it is not unreasonable to consider a government agency to be a traditional publisher if its main duties revolve around publishing information. This means, e.g., that the US Census would be considered traditionally published, but an announcement from that same government agency that they're having a public meeting, or that they have job openings, would not count as traditionally published. Compare:
  • The book publisher Bloomsbury traditionally published Harry Potter and self-publishes current job openings on their corporate website.
  • The government agency United States Census Bureau traditionally published 2020 United States census and self-publishes current job openings on their government website.
  • An elementary school does not traditionally publish anything, and self-publishes current job openings on its government website.
• It's true that the structure of most print, electronic, radio, and TV journalism publishers does not always allow for selling rejected works to others. Journalists (and musicians, as mentioned above) are allowed to negotiate contracts that allow a publication exclusive control over whether their work gets published. In the case of ordinary journalists, they get paid the same salary whether the article runs or not. I'm not sure why this question has arisen. The inability to take a document elsewhere for publication isn't necessarily proof of anything, but it's associated with traditional publishing.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers to my questions. Re: "I'm not sure why this question has arisen," it's because you've said things like "Being a traditional publisher is about the business model," and it seems to me that traditional publishers have more than one business model, and I'm trying to understand which business models count as traditional publishing. For ex., when it comes to the government as a traditional publisher, arguably the idea of a business model doesn't even apply.

I do understand that you think it's a bad idea for Misplaced Pages's definition to diverge from the ordinary definitions. You'd already said as much earlier (e.g., "Yes, it's true that our terms sometimes diverge from ordinary words, but self-published in this policy is supposed to be the ordinary dictionary definition. It is not supposed to be some kind of wikijargon").

Some problems with that approach:

• Dictionaries don't all define "self-published" in the same way. Looking across a number of different dictionary definitions, I've seen two main features highlighted: (1) whether the author pays for the work's publication, and (2) whether the author uses a publisher (with variations such as "publishing company" and "established publishing house"). Some definitions highlight (1), some highlight (2), and some highlight both. Although (1) and (2) intersect, they're definitely not the same (e.g., material written by an employee is not self-published according to the first, but may be self-published according to the second). Also, some definitions refer to an "author," which may be ambiguous (e.g., by author, do they only mean the specific person(s) who wrote/created something, or are they also including corporate authorship?).
• A number of editors clearly don't agree with your preferred definition / don't think it represents practice.
• You've said things like "most traditional publishers have ... self-published content (e.g., marketing materials, investor relations reports, advertising rate sheets)," but I don't see that carve-out in any dictionary definitions. (Maybe I've missed it.)
• To the extent that WP:SPS defines self-published (in a Reference note at the bottom of the WP:V that says "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content"), that definition already diverges from dictionary definitions. So if your goal is to get people to use a dictionary definition, and especially to choose your preferred dictionary definitions over other dictionary definitions, you'd need an RfC to align policy with your preference.

FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe that there are some government agencies that sell documents they publish. The US federal government has some limitations on exclusivity, so the costs are usually limited to reimbursing the cost of printing and distributing, but there's nothing inherent in a government publishing office that would prevent them from using the same business model as other traditional publishers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Point taken. But it seems to me that traditional publishers do not all use the same business model. One model is the one I originally quoted from Void if removed, where there are a couple of variations (the person can take their work elsewhere if a given publisher rejects it, or they sign a longer term contract giving one publisher exclusive rights to future work even if the publisher decides not to publish it). Another business model is the one used with non-freelance journalists, and if a government sells documents created by employees, perhaps that falls under the same model. I'm not sure if you'd say that those are the only two business models that a traditional publisher might use. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The business model is mainly: I publish this (book, news article, whatever) because I think people will pay me for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

That seems to apply to some self-published material too (e.g., some self-published books, an individual's Substack with subscribers), though it clearly doesn't apply to other SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the theory is that authors are less likely to judge the market correctly. Everyone believes their first novel to be a masterpiece, until they've written ten more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

"We generally try to avoid changing overall rules just to deal with a situation at a single article." This doesn't strike me as a single article issue. If it was, we'd just cite wp:KUDZU and be done with the discussion.

Instead, it appears to be an example of a fundamental change in the publishing industry issue.

Or maybe not a change. FropFrop's example shows that publishers are not the same as fact checkers, which may have been true all along. In that case Fact or Opinion's "more about who counts as an expert" is a better way to look at it. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

To my mind, the “fact vs opinion” question has always been the key here. I have long thought that SPS material should always be presented as the author’s opinion (ie with in-text attribution). This shifts the debate from WP:V to WP:DUE. The citation reliably verifies that the author said what we say he/she said… the more important question is whether it is appropriate for us to note this author’s opinion in X specific article. Blueboar (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

FropFrop, I must admit I'm somewhat annoyed you started this discussion behind my back. It's true I had suggested you might try getting SELFPUBLISH changed, but I wasn't monitoring this page and had no idea you had actually decided to do so. Discussions shouldn't silently be forked and continued elsewhere without the involved editors being informed, so I don't think it was fair what you did here. Gawaon (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Now that you know about this discussion, what is your opinion regarding the substance of FropFrop's proposal? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

See the two comments I wrote above regarding specific details of the proposal. In a nutshell: I think the suggested changes are unworkable and would make SELFPUB considerably worse. And, thought that discussion rather belongs on Talk:Daisy Bates (author), Lomas seems to be a doubtful and considerably biased author, hence I'd say that his is just the kind of book SELFPUB is meant to protect us against – and that's how it should remain. Gawaon (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

SELFPUB isn't really meant to protect us from bias (and biased sources can be reliable anyway). It's meant to protect us from things like authors being reckless with the facts, and to focus due weight considerations on content that's newsworthy/non-self-published. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree to some degree, which is why I meant that discussion belongs on the article talk page rather than here. Still I think some overlap is likely – biased authors are more likely to distort the facts in order to get their point across, and I'm pretty sure that that sometimes happens in Lomas. Indeed FropFrop, in an earlier comment on Talk:Daisy Bates (author), already admitted that his bias sometimes leads him to problematic conclusions ("He does get overly critical at times (often assuming that Bates outright lied when it could have been an honest mistake)"). Academic peer review should normally help to reduce such issues, forcing authors to be more honest with themselves and their audiences; and the editorial process though which nonfiction books go with non-academic publishers should have the same effect, at least to some degree. I know very well that these processes will never work perfectly, but I see them as good "filters" that should make our work better, and hence I'm weary of self-published sources, which didn't make it through these filters. Gawaon (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Non-academic book publishing often encourages overblown claims, because controversy results in free publicity, and publicity improves sales.

I agree that traditional publishing is a good filter for us. If we say that 50% of traditionally published books are bad for us, then I'd start with an assumption that 95% of self-published sources are bad for us. But it's also possible that sometimes, probably rarely, a self-published book will be an okay source for us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and there's already an exception in SELFPUB for some such works. I doubt, however, that the additional exceptions discussed here would be great at finding additional okay sources, and rather fear that they would allow slipping a lot of not-okay sources. Gawaon (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

For the general case, I agree with you. For this specific case, however, it's possible that Lomas is one of the few "okay" sources instead of the many "not-okay" sources.

What I'd suggest to you is that you try to disentangle your worries about bias (How dare he call her "the queen of deception", just because she told so many lies about herself!) from your worries about reliability. What matters for that article is not whether this long-dead person told lies, or whether the recent sources called it what it was. What matters for that article is much more mundane: Is Lomas correct when saying that she arrived in Place A on Date B? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, apologies. As you suggested that I try and amend the policy I didn't think this would be an issue.

FropFrop (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

New Shortcut re “ONUS” section?

I see that the shortcut “WP:VNOT” has been removed from visibility as a link at the “Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion” section (justification being that no one has linked to that shortcut in a long time). I am fine with that… however, this removal leaves the only visible shortcut for the section as “WP:ONUS”… a word that was recently edited out of the section and no longer is appropriate. So… I think we should also remove the “WP:ONUS” shortcut, and come up with a new, more appropriate shortcut for people to use in the future. Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

There has been talk, off and on for a couple of years, about moving the onus-related sentence to a different policy altogether. I'm not sure that it makes sense to worry about which shortcut points to it until that question gets settled. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I don’t really care about that final sentence. Keep it, amend it, move it, whatever… thing is, despite how much we have discussed it, it’s not actually the important part of the section. The important part is what comes before it - the reminder that there is more to “inclusion” than just Verifiability.

And I think it would be helpful to have a shortcut that focuses on the important part of the section rather than on what is really just an afterthought. Blueboar (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The sentence "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." is still there, and out there on the coal face it is the thing that people have used the ONUS link for countless times. So I don't see why it is redundant. Zero 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of stripping down the link boxes on this policy page to each list only one shortcut. WP:LINKBOXES states that link boxes "generally should list only the most common and easily remembered redirects", and uses the plural word redirects to indicate that multiple shortcuts should be listed in link boxes when appropriate. When there is only one shortcut listed in a link box, that shortcut will almost certainly remain the shortcut with the greatest number of pageviews due to its prominent placement. Most editors will use the shortcut displayed on the link box instead of going to Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Verifiability (and checking "Hide transclusions" and "Hide lists", then resubmitting and browsing the list) to find other ones, even if the unlisted ones may be more concise or more appropriate.Personally, I will continue using the WP:QS shortcut to refer to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability § Questionable sources, and I do find it strange that the more concise shortcut is omitted in favor of only listing WP:NOTRS, regardless of the pageview counts. — Newslinger talk 02:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The most common practice for section links is to have only one shortcut. We're more likely to see two at the top of the page (e.g., WP:NOR and WP:OR). ONUS gets clicked on about five times as often as VNOT, so I can understand someone wanting to choose the more common. My concern is that if the last sentence gets moved (e.g., to WP:Consensus), then the shortcut should get moved with the sentence, in which case VNOT should presumably reappear here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree with that. ONUS gets referenced quite a bit so we need to make sure that those previous references don't get lost. There is also a bit of an issue that editors may have something like "the ONUS part of WP:V" only to later have the links changed. It might be good to have some type of indication in the new location that it used to be part of WP:V just so those older discussions still continue to make sense. Springee (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

We could split the 'ONUS sentence' into a different paragraph, and then put a shortcut for WP:VNOT at the top of the section and a separate one for WP:ONUS on the new, single-sentence 'paragraph'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I would support that. The final sentence really is a separate concept from the rest of the section, so it probably should be on its own. Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I have decided to be BOLD and do this… revert if necessary. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Calling something the "common practice' doesn't prohibit other practices in appropriate circumstances. I think we all agree that this section says two distinct things: (1) Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. (2) If challenged, consensus is required for inclusion. In this case it is appropriate to show two distinct links (VNOT and ONUS). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It conflicts with the WP:Consensus policy, doesn't really describe its original (good) intent, puts an arbitrary finger on the scale towards exclusion, and it's current wording says something that has nothing to do with wp:verifiability. We could do a lot of good, accomplish the original intent, and fix all of those problems by changing it to: "verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The subject of this topic is the content of the shortcut box. Do you mean to start a new conversation regarding the substance of the ONUS portion of the section? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

North alway reminds us of his favorite wording, whenever we discuss the section.

Now… if he could turn it into a good shortcut, I might be persuaded to give it a try. Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

North, does the ONUS sentence conflict with any part of the Consensus policy except the WP:NOCON section, which says it "does not make any new rules. If this page and the more specific policy or guideline disagree, then this one is wrong"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Onus is the best advert for lack of consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

seeking guidance re: draft RfC on the meaning of "self-published"

I'm planning to open an RfC about the meaning of "self-published" in WP:SPS. (Here's a draft, if you want to see. Feel free to comment there, though I'd rather that you not modify the draft itself.) I haven't ever created an RfC before and would like a bit of guidance:

• An RfC about whether advocacy org grey literature is always SPS was opened on 11/10. Does anyone feel strongly that I should wait until that RfC is officially closed? (A closure request was submitted on 12/2. On 12/12, an editor volunteered to close it, but so far hasn't had time. There's no telling when it will actually be closed.) I don't think the closure in that RfC has strong implications for this RfC, and at this point, I'm inclined not to wait.
• Should I open this here at WT:V, or should I create a new subpage of WP:RFC in anticipation of it being a long discussion? (Though if I'm understanding right, I guess it could start here and then be moved if necessary.)
• "Policy" is the primary category for this RfC. Should I also include the "bio" category, since the RfC has significant implications for BLPs? I'd advertise it on BLPN and WP:VPP (and WT:V, if the RfC itself is located on a WP:RFC subpage). Is there anywhere else that I should advertise it? (WT:RS? WT:BLP? WP:RSN? a WikiProject?) Should I also add an Under discussion tag to the WP:SPS section?
• In terms of what text will appear at WP:RFC, I only plan to include the first sentence, as I think that gives a good enough description.
• I know that it would be better if the whole thing were shorter, but I simply haven't been able to figure out how to make it shorter. Suggestions welcome.

Other than the text of the RfC itself, is there anything else I should be thinking about in preparation? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Your draft begins "This RfC is to determine whether the current definition and examples in WP:SPS..."

WP:SPS does not include an actual definition, so there's no point in asking people about "the current definition...in WP:SPS". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

As I explain underneath, I'm using the word "definition" to refer to the quoted statement from the WP:SPS reference note. What word would you suggest I use for that — "characterization"? something else? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"Characterization" is better.

I've seen some editors this year opposing RFCs that ask for general principles (as yours does), instead of providing exact proposed wording. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I've changed "definition" to "characterization" throughout the text, except where the former refers to dictionary definitions. FWIW, a number of editors in the BEFORE discussions used "definition" in a more general way, and dictionary definitions of "definition" do allow for that broader use.

I think it's premature to focus on the exact wording and that if I were to suggest specific wording, much of the discussion would get bogged down picking at that instead of focusing on the more significant issue, which is whether people agree with the current description, and if not, what do they think it means to be self-published? This might be naive of me, but I think that if we can figure out the consensus about what is/isn't self-published, then interested editors could work out the precise wording on the Talk page without needing an RfC. (Or, for that matter, maybe the consensus will be to leave it as is, though I personally will argue against that.) I could certainly add a line saying that if someone is concerned about the lack of precise wording, they should feel free to introduce a corresponding 3a/b/c with exact wording, or to propose wording just for their selection, as part of their !vote. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for several days. I have been trying to judge the odds of success, when "success" is defined as solving the real/underlying/long-term problem you have in mind.

I am usually pretty good at this, but I feel like I can't make a reasonable prediction in this case. I think this is because I don't understand which problem you want to solve. To established the answer for a particular class of sources? To add an agreed-upon definition? To have the policy be right, irrespective of specific applications? (I believe this last is inherently a good thing.)

I wonder if you could think about your goals in the Five whys model, and come up with a Theory of Change statement. This format might help: "I want to learn from the RFC so that we can ." (It might need several so that statements, e.g., "I want to learn whether the community prefers X to Y, so that I can reconcile USESPS and WP:V's odd footnote, so that we can resolve disputes about whether source type Z is self-published, so that we can apply BLPSPS more consistently across subject areas"). Or something like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a bit of a tangent, but perhaps it will help you understand what I'm looking for.

Advocacy organizations frequently engage in a marketing activity that they call "issuing a statement" (context for this example). That is, they write and publish a press release and hope that some (independent) newspaper or magazine will decide to include their views in an article. You've seen it a thousand times: "Paul Politician said something, which was hailed as the truth by Group A and decried as scurrilous lies by Group B".

Traditionally, we use these independent articles determine which groups' views are worth mentioning in Misplaced Pages articles. Our idea of "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" is usually weighted according to the usual desirable qualities (i.e., independent, non-self-published, secondary). If Group A issues a press release, and the media picks it up, then we tend to include it, too, according to how much attention the independent sources gave them plus our own editorial judgment of what's needed in/relevant to the article. If Group A issues a press release, and the media ignores it, then we tend to ignore it, too, unless there is some obvious necessity for including it (e.g., it's WP:ABOUTSELF for ordinary encyclopedic content).

However, what if the media landscape has shifted so much that information that seems important to editors is frequently being ignored?

So I might say: "I want to learn whether editors consider press releases and other statements issued by organizations to be self-published, so that I can correctly classify sources, so that I can give DUE weight to these sources (i.e., less weight to self-published sources and more weight to non-self-published sources), so that I can apply the core content policies consistently across different subject areas." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if this will be helpful, but here goes...

I appreciate your having thought about it and your questions. First, I thought some more about the distinction you drew between definition and characterization/explanation. I'm not trying to determine a definition per se. The RfC is to learn ,

• so that (1) if people have suggestions for improving it, we hear them; or (2) we learn what the consensus view actually is, and then can shift to the work of revising the SPS (body + footnote) text to reflect this other consensus; or (3) we're faced with figuring out a productive next step, and hopefully the responses will give some hints about what that might be;
• so that the improved the text — in cases (1) or (2)— helps people have an easier time personally judging what is/isn't SPS and reduces disagreements, as the (sometimes contentious) disagreements take up people's time and energy when they could go to something more productive, and they can be frustrating, and it can also frustrate new editors to feel like they're getting mixed messages.

I've reread multiple discussions about what "self-published" does/doesn't include, and that makes me want to take on the task of trying to improve the guidance, even if I fail. But I believe that it can be improved, and I think a well-crafted RfC would be helpful. (Now, whether I've actually created one is a different question. I still have some editing to do.) I did the 5 Whys, and my last entry was: I don't know why the guidance in SPS and USINGSPS is divergent (if you agree that it is, I'd be interested to hear your take on that). It can be hard to write effective guidance (e.g., language is sometimes ambiguous, the guidance has to apply to very diverse publications). People also come to editing (including disagreements) with different experiences, knowledge, values, and goals, which influence their interpretations and choices. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I understand your goal now, which I'd classify as a question about whether the current state is satisfactory vs if clarifying this part of our ruleset is something that the community would like to prioritize.

Towards that end, I wonder:

• Is an RFC is actually necessary, given that we have had multiple discussions about it during the last year? I kinda think we already know the answer.
• If you want an RFC on whether to fix it, maybe it should just say "Hey, we've had so many discussions about what, exactly, we mean by a self-published source. Do you think that's all good, or should we be providing more/better advice?
• If you want to skip the "Houston, do we actually have a problem?" step, then I think that one sensible approach would be to have an RFC that proposes replacing the existing text "X" with improved text "Y", and seeing whether people accept the proposal. I'm pretty sure you could write something better than what we've got.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Re: what we know, I know that people have quite divergent views about what "self-published" means, but I honestly don't know what the consensus view is. I also don't know whether the current SPS text does or doesn't reflect the consensus view. The views people presented in the discussions mostly don't strike me as corresponding to the footnote characterization, and a few people criticized it, but many others didn't address it at all; maybe some people think that their own interpretations do correspond to that text, and they're just interpreting that text differently than I am and differently from each other. I've tried to capture the 3 most common interpretations of "self-published" that arose in the discussions, and they're options in my draft RfC; keeping the current wording is another option, and the fifth is "other." Personally, I think the characterization in the footnote isn't good, and in the RfC I'll argue for changing it. I think I could write something better than the current text, but it feels like too much to present good sample text for each of the 3 main interpretations; as it is, my text presenting the options feels long. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the community consensus is except that its complicated.
• complicated means eternal wikilawyering by determined parties to keep sources they don't like out.
• At risk of Appeal to consequences fallacy, some of the hot-button issues with SPS (gender/sexuality/politics) have seen sufficiently determined wikilawyers use BLPSPS for WP:TEND disqualifying entire sources as supposedly SPS. Example scenarios include:

• GLAAD condemns a transphobe
• SPLC condemns a white supremacist
• Science-Based Medicine labels a guy's fringe theory (and therefore the guy) as pseudoscience

Language in WP:SPS to end wikilawyering as yes or no for at least some of these sources would save editor time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, I have questions on the absoluteness of WP:BLPSPS... though admittedly, I have no clue what ramifications of changing WP:BLPSPS would mean Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I have a long Notes section (which will be hatted, but which I hope people will at least skim), and I should include your point, as that's a context in which a lot of these disagreements arise. FWIW, I think the third bullet is an example of two distinct issues: whether the SBM article is self-published, and whether a WP statement about a fringe theory held by Person X falls under the BLP policy (because the reason we're mentioning the theory is that the person espouses that theory) or doesn't fall under the BLP policy (because the WP statement is about the theory itself, not about the person, even though the reason for mentioning the theory is that person espouses it). FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

As probably one of the "wikilawyers" involved, I'm of the opinion that whether a source is considered self-published is related to the sources purpose and organizational/editorial structure. Not if it's used by others, not if editors like it or not, not if it has the right or wrong opinions. Codifying a process on how we achieve this would go a long way to end wikilawyering on articles. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The question asks people to choose among some options: the current explanation, 3 alternatives (the ones I think came up most often in previous discussions), and "other" (where the editor elaborates). Each editor will have to determine whether any of the first four options addresses their view sufficiently, perhaps with tweaks. For the latter four options, the editor either thinks there's either already a consensus for that option or they hope to generate consensus for it. Depending on the details of purpose and structure that matter to you, you might or might not decide that one of the first four options represents your view pretty well. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that the first option can be omitted. People who want "none of the above" will say that.

Your 2b is not making sense to me today. There is no barrier to writing your own 'About us' page. It is redundant with 2a.

For 2c, reader comments are not "from" the traditional publisher.

I wonder how you'd feel about prefacing this with a side quest: Does the community believe that it is possible for a corporate author to self-publish? For example, are all of these self-published?

• Alice writes something and posts (i.e., publishes) it on her website.
• Alice and Bob work together to write something, and they post it on their website.
• The communication team for Paul Politician's campaign writes something and posts it on the campaign website.
• A charitable organization writes something and posts it on the charity website.
• Bob's Big Business, Inc. writes something, and (after the branding team added ® symbols) the business posts it on its website.
• A government agency writes something and posts it on the government website.

I think my answers would be "Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and it's complicated". I think the answers from Jc3s5h would be "Yes, maybe, no, no, no, and no." WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

My answers would be "Yes, yes, no, no, no and no." Also, if Alice wrote a letter to the editor of a major newspaper and the newspaper has a practice of publishing all letters that are not obscene or defamatory, then Alice's letter is self-published. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll think about dropping 1, but given that I'm trying to assess whether consensus has changed (and if not, whether the current text can be improved a bit), I'm inclined to keep it. 2 is framed as "The current explanation doesn't reflect consensus and/or is problematic in some other significant way(s)" so the current explanation is good doesn't fit in 2d. (Yes, I could change the framing for all of 2, and I'll think about that.)

2b isn't redundant with 2a. 2a excludes organizational authors. I tried to make that clear by referring to "persons," and it's stated explicitly in the elaboration in the Notes section, but I guess I need to state it explicitly in 2a itself. The publisher itself materials do include organizational authors. I don't want to describe the "publisher itself" materials as "no barrier" but with an organizational author, as I'm trying to exclude things that the organization publishes about other things.

I'll think about how to reword 2c.

I don't understand how that "side quest" link is relevant (is that the content you meant to link to? were you trying to suggest that it's a deviation from the main focus?). I'm hesitant to add any preface to what's there, as it already feels long to me. I think everyone agrees that the first two are self-published, the third is in 2b, the other 3 are mentioned in the Notes section, though not in those words. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

A deviation from the main focus.

If we were to determine that corporate authors are to be treated the same as/different from individual humans (or very small groups of individual humans), then you could merge your 2a/2b distinction according to the outcome.

About trying to assess whether consensus has changed: Does this mean:

1. A decade ago, you believe that we all had an idea of what self-published meant, and you wonder whether maybe now we have a different idea of what self-published means? or
2. A decade ago, we agreed to put these words in the policy, and you wonder whether maybe now we think some different words would be better?

I'd say that we have had a relatively weak agreement on what self-published means (i.e., I wrote USESPS because we kept having disputes about it), that we probably have a stronger agreement in theory now but would like even greater clarity, and that the wording in this policy is pretty bad, has been pretty bad since at least when the footnote was added, and could be improved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Re: 2a/2b, somehow I'm still not communicating clearly. If 2a included organizational authors, then anything published by an organization would be considered self-published, as the organization can publish what it wants (even if in practice it doesn't, because it doesn't want to be sued, may judge material to be irrelevant to its mission, etc.). Whereas in 2b as I intend it, GLAAD's "about us" info would be self-published, but it's GAP info and media guidelines would not. I think what I should do is try to create a table with different kinds of publications from different kinds of authors, and show whether they would/wouldn't be classified as self-published by 2a vs. 2b vs. 2c (and I'd leave a 2d column where people who dislike 1 and 2a-c can think about how they'd classify these materials). I have no experience creating tables, but assume I'll be able to figure that out, and I'll hat the table but again suggest that people look at it to clarify what 2a-c mean. I'll have to think about whether to include 1, because I don't know that my own judgment about what the current explanation means will correspond to others' interpretations when it comes to material from non-traditional publishers, whereas with 2, I'm the one trying to make the meaning of the categories clear. I'm wondering if I should also add a column for the USINGSPS interpretation, where I might ask you to fill it in.

Re: your 1 and 2, I'm trying to get at two things. One of them is your 1 (though I'm thinking more than a decade ago, before the footnote was added in 2011), but the second doesn't correspond to your 2. The second thing that I'm trying to get at: As best I can tell, no one discussed the footnote prior to it being added; it was simply added, and no one challenged it. (I might be wrong, I only did a cursory check of that in the WT:V archives.) So I wouldn't say "we agreed to put these words in the policy." I'd instead say something like: The footnote was added and never challenged; some people may have never taken a close look at it (because it's in a footnote and they felt that they had a good enough sense of 'self-published' from the text in the body), and others thought it was consistent with consensus. I have no idea what the split is between those two groups. Because the footnote was there, new editors started using it to guide their own decisions about whether they could use a given source, and some people started using it in discussions when there's a disagreement about whether a source is/isn't SPS. Even though NOTBURO, over time it became the letter of the law regardless of whether it captured the spirit of what people meant by 'self-published' prior to it having been added. Over time, the distribution of people's interpretations of "self-published" may have shifted as new editors come and other editors leave. I'd keep "you wonder whether maybe now we think some different words would be better?", but I think "different words would be better" can mean very different things to different people. I have zero idea how many people fall in each group: (a) the group of people who agree with the overall sentiment of the footnote but might want to use different words for the characterization and/or examples to make the explanation a bit clearer, and (b) the people who don't agree with that sentiment and want to use different words for that reason (and where different people in this group may have different views about what 'self-published' really means, and therefore different views on what the new words should portray). Does that make sense?

Only tangentially related: I really was hoping that someone could give me guidance about some of my original questions. If you have suggestions re: the following, I'd be grateful:

• Should I open this here at WT:V, or should I create a new subpage of WP:RFC in anticipation of it being a long discussion? (Though if I'm understanding right, I guess it could start here and then be moved if necessary.)
• "Policy" is the primary category for this RfC. Should I also include the "bio" category, since the RfC has significant implications for BLPs? I'd advertise it on BLPN and WP:VPP (and WT:V, if the RfC itself is located on a WP:RFC subpage). Is there anywhere else that I should advertise it? (WT:RS? WT:BLP? WP:RSN? a WikiProject?) Should I also add an Under discussion tag to the WP:SPS section?

Sorry to have been so long-winded. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Easy answers first:

• Either start here and plan to split it to a subpage ("WT:Verifiability/SPS") or just start on a subpage (either of this talk page or of WP:Requests for Comment/).
• Policy is the primary RFC category, and the rest isn't super important. I'd suggest WT:BLP, and if anyone complains, invite them to post their own, CANVAS-compliant messages, and (if you want to be more formal and organized) to record these invitations in a section similar to this one. If you want a bigger response, add it to WP:CENT.

I would suggest holding off on the advertising push until you know whether people can make sense of the question (probably 24–48 hours). If the responses seem confused or tangential, then you might not want a ton of people showing up. You might instead want to withdraw the question and try again.

BTW, you can ask questions like this and get advice on your question at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, if you want to create a table, try this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:FactOrOpinion/Draft_SPS_RfC?veaction=edit and then Insert > Table. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a table. I may add a few other examples, and I still need to learn how to add colors, as I think that will make it easier to see the differences. I decided to leave most of Option 1 blank, as I'm sometimes uncertain how to asses it (perhaps because I've heard different editors interpreting it in different ways). Maybe it's just as well to let editors decide for themselves how the current explanation would classify various materials. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

See Help:Table#Colors in tables. You'll have to do this in wikitext. The visual editor may not cope well with templated approaches to adding color, so I'd add color towards the end/when you don't expect more changes to the table. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I usually use the visual editor, but I can typically adapt to the source editor when I need to, most often by looking at an example. In this case, the easiest way for me to figure it out was to look at the table you inserted here in the source editor, which prompted me to look up and use the CellCategory template. I appreciate all of the help you're providing (especially your willingness to think about what I'm trying to accomplish and why and whether it will be productive in reality, but also in providing technical and other info). FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know that I've ever looked at WT:RFC, and it hadn't occurred to me to ask there. I wouldn't start advertising it until I'm happy enough with it, so: not yet. It's obvious that it's not yet clear enough. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The table was a good choice, very helpful in the clarification of each option! I'd suggest rephrasing the "Breitbart News article" row a little bit to something like "are their editors checking reliability". I initially read it thinking you meant Misplaced Pages editors and thought that it might be a reference to some prior discussion I hadn't seen. I might also underline or italicize or somehow emphasize more of the sentence: "It is not trying to assess whether a source is reliable, independent, primary, biased, etc., or whether its use is due or needs to be attributed, as these aspects are distinct from whether the source is self-published." I have a feeling there are going to be a lot of tangents in that realm... CambrianCrab (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

CambrianCrab, thank you, I appreciate the feedback, and I'm glad that the table feels helpful. I'll edit the Breitbart cell and think about that sentence. If you think it would be good to add any other specific examples to the table, let me know. Now I'm wondering if I should invite editors to add their own examples if they think it would be helpful; I'll think about that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The table is in fact very useful to the point where I'm wondering if the first RFC on this topic should just be a list of scenarios, and we try to cobble together general principles later. Loki (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Loki, I'm a little confused about the juxtaposition of the table seeming helpful but then only presenting scenarios and asking about them. (Would there still be a table, and if so, what would it show? It doesn't make sense to me to have a table without specifying any options.) Your suggestion sounds more like having another RFCBEFORE discussion, which is certainly possible, though it wasn't what I had in mind. I've considered setting up a second table for the people who are choosing 2d, where each of those people fills in one column to illustrate their thinking and tries to put into words what's guiding their decisions. Are you thinking that we'd only have that sort of table, and we could see where everyone pretty much agrees and where there's disagreement, and then focus a second RfC on the latter?

FWIW, Options 2a-c were my attempt to capture the most frequent features that people identified in several previous discussions. As I said towards the top of the Notes section, I think everyone agrees that the "no barrier" publications are SPS and that publications from "traditional" publishers aren't SPS (with the possible exception of "organization itself" materials, where people didn't necessarily agree). That shows up in the rows where all the options show the same outcome. If I were to take up your suggestion, I don't know that we'd really need to ask about those; I think we'd ask about stuff published by "non-traditional" publishers, the "organization itself" materials, and perhaps one or two other scenarios that people brought up (such as 3family6's question about whether an article published by the owner of a magazine is SPS). My sense of where you ultimately ended up was that you were pretty close to the current WP:SPS explanation, but more explicit that if the content is about the organization itself, then a COI always exists. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The point of my suggestion is to, essentially, only have the table. Or rather, to make the rows of the table the options. E.g.

1. Alice sends a letter to the editor into a newspaper that fact-checks letters before publishing them. Is the letter self-published?

...

4. Is cocacola.com self-published?

And so on. Loki (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

But in that case, the questions wouldn't be options for people to choose among. Rather, they'd be prompts, where each editor responds yes/depends on additional conditions/no to each of the 15-20 questions and presents a !vote for why they responded as they did (along the lines of what WhatamIdoing and Jc3s5h did with WaId's "side quest" above, but with !votes as well). You'd also need to be clear about whether you're asking people to answer based on their interpretation of the current WP:SPS explanation or are instead asking them about their preferred interpretation, which might be different. What are you envisioning a closer might come up with for this large amount of data, and how are you anticipating that it would help us make progress with the issue? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Self-published claims about other living persons

I am seeking clarification on the following sentence within Misplaced Pages:Verifiability § Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

This sentence is corroborated by Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons § Avoid self-published sources (WP:BLPSPS), which states:

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

My understanding is that the above policy requirements prohibit self-published sources from being used for any claim about another living person for whom the author has no vested interest, and that there is no exemption to allow self-published claims about other living persons even when these claims are deemed uncontroversial and self-published by a subject-matter expert. This strongly phrased rule exists to ensure that all content about unaffiliated living persons undergoes adequate editorial oversight before it can be included in Misplaced Pages.

Some editors in the discussion at WP:RSN § Jeff Sneider / The InSneider seem to be in disagreement, so I am seeking clarification on whether uncontroversial self-published content from authors who meet the subject-matter expert criterion is exempt from this requirement. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 20:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Amended to incoporate language from WP:IIS. — Newslinger talk 03:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I would question the assertion that such content would ever be uncontroversial, if its self-published, about a living person other than the author, and can't be found in any more reliable source it is de-facto a controversial claim. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I still say that the solution to this sort of stuff is in-text attribution. Doing this shifts the debate from: “is X reliable for saying Y” to “is it DUE to mention that X said Y”. Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I thought part of the point of the policy prohibition was to say that this type of content from a self-published source is never due. – notwally (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I think its circular in a way because the answer to the question is that its basically never due anyways (theres grey area as with all things, especially when you get into someone making claims about events which they were personally involved in but which also involved other living people). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Whether such statements are never DUE, rarely DUE, occasionally DUE, etc is a question that can and should be discussed further. My only point is that focusing on the DUEness of an SPS statement is much more appropriate than focusing on the author’s reliability. Blueboar (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I think these work hand in hand. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the SPS report is uncorroborated and/or not discussed by RSs and so would not be DUE anyway. If it is corroborated/discussed, then the SPS does not need to be cited except in rare circumstances where it is itself part of the story. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 02:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Some of that discussion seems to veer into WP:NOTNEWS as well as its gossip/diary aspects, not to mention other DUE concerns. Why would it be so important to include reporting about every possible casting change or rumored cameo? Part of why we prohibit SPS on BLPs is to avoid these types of more rumor/gossip/tabloid reporting. I don't see the value is making exceptions to the rule, especially if it is going to result in these types of long, drawn-out discussions about content that is only being sourced to a single, self-published source. – notwally (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

BLPSPS and its related policies are quite clear about "never" meaning "never". I do not think a wholesale change to allow SPSs, even from experts in uncontroversial scenarios would be beneficial. Many SPSs are from self-proclaimed experts, or their readers think they are, and changing the default stance to general allowance based on editor discretion would be opening the floodgates to a lot of low reliability additions that violate the non-BLPSPS areas of BLP. If what they're talking about isn't corroborated or even discussed in RSs, then it would likely not be DUE anyway.

If a change is made, I think the furthest it should go for now is in cases where RSs have corroborated or widely discussed the BLPSPS report itself, similar to how WP:BLPPRIMARY works. If the BLPSPS report is corroborated by non-SPS RSs and is itself the subject of discussion, then using it as a citation so readers can access it and with clear attribution in the text might be okay sometimes. Similarly, if the BLPSPS report is widely discussed by RSs but not corroborated, if the discussion around it in RSs becomes DUE for inclusion in and of itself, then it might be okay to cite the original report with attribution in some cases. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I have posted a notice at WP:BLPN, since this impacts the BLP policy. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the specific case that requires more discussion is how so many journalists are going independent due to the degradation of the outlet they previously worked for. They are still top-tier journalists doing journalism work, but now this policy means none of their work can be used on any person's article because it now falls under SPS. I feel like this is going to become ever more an issue as journalism continues to fragment due to the self-inflicted wounds that legacy media is doing to itself (particularly those that are being bought out by billionaires and that new ownership leading to censoring of the outlet's journalism). Silverseren 02:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the media landscape doesn't look like it did when we wrote these rules. But I'm not sure that changing the rules is a good idea, since "top-tier journalist" isn't an objective quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we'll eventually get to a point when we would have to re-evaluate, but the amount of good, credible journalists going fully independent is still relatively low. Given the BLP issues, if it changes, it would probably be a default to exclude position, with case-by-case or use-by-use evaluation at RSN. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This policy is pretty clear to never use self-published sources as third-party sources. It says nothing about never using such sources at all, and there's a reason why that language has been maintained.

As others have mentioned, this is why we use attribution for such sources and why this policy has the carveout. An independent reliable source can often be used in Wiki-voice, but for SPS both the lower reliability tier and potential legal issues of saying something about a BLP in wikivoice with poor sourcing comes into play. That's why if an SPS is considered WP:DUE, it is used with attribution because it is not an independent source. They're treated essentially as being involved or close to the subject, especially in disputes. There is the option to use such sources, but it needs to be done with care.

I can't say much about the example brought here, but it looks like it's a question of the reliability of the source and how WP:DUE their statements are rather than trying to exclude them solely due to being an SPS. KoA (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that. The phrase third-party source in WP:SPS covers all self-published claims about other living persons for whom the author "has no vested interest", and the language in the sentence does state to "Never" use such self-published claims. The language in WP:BLPSPS prohibits the use of all self-published claims about other living persons, with the following carveout: "a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example".I've amended my initial comment to clarify that I am specifically focusing on self-published claims about other living persons for whom the author has no vested interest. The discussion at WP:RSN § Jeff Sneider / The InSneider fits in this category. — Newslinger talk 03:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

the language in the sentence does state to "Never" use such self-published claims Not quite. The policy says never to use them as third-party sources (i.e., independent sources). That is why attribution is used when consensus determines the source is otherwise appropriate. KoA (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

In the context of my reply, "such self-published claims" refers to "all self-published claims about other living persons for whom the author 'has no vested interest'". Based on the language of WP:SPS, I do not see how the use of in-text attribution would allow this prohibition to be bypassed when the self-published claims about other living persons are determined to be independent. — Newslinger talk 06:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Something being a third-party source is not synonymous with not requiring attribution. If you look at WP:RSP, many independent sources which are deemed generally reliable or marginally reliable still require attribution. Attribution is not a panacea for the clear pronouncement at WP:BLPSPS.

Since there's only really first and third party sources, the line at SPS is just a summary of the fuller policy at BLPSPS, which has a carve-out for allowing WP:SPS when it is a first party source in some cases: It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 01:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:INTEXT attribution would not make the source stop being independent/third-party anyway. The rule is:

• Never use Alice's self-published website to say anything about Bob, unless Bob and Alice have some substantial connection (e.g., marriage or employment).

There is no exception related to adding the magic words 'According to Alice' to the sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

As one of the editors involved at the Sneider discussion, we aren't just seeking clarification on how the current wording should be interpreted but also potentially looking for an amendment. If the intention of the current wording is to prevent SPS from ever being used for claims that are even slightly related to a living person, then I think we should be adjusting that wording to be more lenient for non-controversial/exceptional claims. If the SPS has already been determined to be a reliable source (i.e. a reliable, trusted journalist who is now self-publishing their reporting, something that is becoming more-and-more common these days) and they are publishing a non-controversial claim that is deemed to be useful for an article, why should they not be used? We can make it clear that there should be attribution if we still want that level of caution. And to those who are concerned about whether such an inclusion would be DUE, surely that can be determined on a case-by-case basis through local consensus? The main problem here, in my opinion, is this policy's wording is being referenced to shut down any further discussion about how and where these sources can be used. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• A "reliable, trusted journalist who is now self-publishing their reporting" may not even qualify as an "established subject-matter expert" (which is a higher standard than just being reliable) under WP:SPS. This presents even more problems under WP:BLPSPS because self-published means that there is no editorial oversight, and this is just too much of a risk for using on BLPs. Attribution doesn't address these concerns, as the information would still be there. The point of the policy is to set a bright line because those types of sources should never be used for BLP information. The argument that SPS should be able to be used routinely on BLPs presents too many problems compared to the potential benefit, IMO. – notwally (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm obviously talking about someone who does qualify as an established SME. I recognise that the lack of editorial oversight is why we are being cautious here, but again I think we are being overly cautious for instances where the material being sourced is not controversial or exceptional in any way. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think that is obvious from your comment as a "reliable, trusted journalist" is not necessarily going to be an "established subject-matter expert". I would argue often is not, and that in this particular case, Jeff Sneider does not qualify as one, for multiple reasons. Further, the discussion on RSN seems to suggest that what could be "controversial or exceptional" is also not as clearcut as your comment would suggest. Rather than have repeated discussions about when a person is a subject-matter expert for reporting on other living people, when content is really controversial or exceptional, and when all of this would be due when relying on a SPS, I think the brightline rule against using this information for BLPs makes a lot more sense. While some issues may be obvious to some editors, for other editors the issues may appear far more complex. – notwally (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I am talking about situations where a self-published source has already been deemed reliable. That means they are an established subject-matter expert, because that is the only time a self-published source is deemed to be reliable on Misplaced Pages per WP:SPS. I disagree with your opinion on whether Sneider is a reliable source, but that is irrelevant to this discussion and should be taken up at the existing RSN discussion. This discussion is about self-published sources that have been deemed to be reliable, regardless of who they are. I don't buy the argument that determining whether a claim is controversial or exceptional is too complex an issue for some editors to handle and therefore we cannot trust them to have that discussion. We currently trust editors to determine whether a self-published source is a subject-matter expert or not, and we trust editors to come to a consensus on whether such a source should be used for anything not related to a living person. Why can we not trust them to determine whether something related to a living person is controversial or exceptional? Because it could be hard is not a good reason to have an overzealous ban on something. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  But what has the source been deemed reliable for? A source may be deemed reliable for some content, but not for other content, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Especially in BLP cases, the reliability of the source must be evaluated for the specific use proposed, and any determination of its reliability in another context should be ignored. Donald Albury 23:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Good point… while I can think of many authors I would consider subject matter experts on politics, I question how many are subject matter experts on any individual politician.

  Ok… the exception might be someone who had written a non-self published biography of a specific politician… now self-publishing an update on that politician. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't disagree Donald Albury, but under the current BLPSPS wording we do not have a chance to consider whether the source is reliable in such a context because self-published sources are blanket banned from being used for any material remotely related to living persons. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's not accurate to say "self-published sources are blanket banned from being used for any material remotely related to living persons." They're banned from use as sources for content about persons themselves. They're not banned from use for content about something related to one or more persons but isn't about the persons themselves. There may be gray areas where you ask whether proposed content is about a person or only about something they're linked to, but there also are areas that aren't gray at all. For example, you cannot use a SPS to say "this actor was the director's first pick" (assuming the actor and/or director are living or recently deceased) but you could use a SPS to say "the movie was filmed on location" (as long as the SPS and the proposed edit meet other conditions, e.g., the SPS is a RS for this content, and the content is DUE), even though the latter is "remotely related" to many living people, including the actor and director. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if you completely missed the point of my comment or if you are intentionally being overly pedantic to try shut me down, either way this is a very frustrating response. What I meant was... under the current BLPSPS wording we do not have a chance to consider whether the source is reliable in such a context because self-published sources are blanket banned from being used for any material remotely related to one or a few living persons. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm certainly not trying to shut you down, and I regret that my response frustrated you, but you seem to be missing my point. You keep referring to "remotely related to," and I'm saying that that's not what the policy means. BLPSPS rules out self-published sources used for WP text that's about a living person themself (or about a few people themselves). It does not rule out SPS used for content that's remotely related to one or a few living persons. In the example I gave, WP text that says "the movie was filmed on location" can be sourced to a SPS because it's not about any living person themself, even though it's remotely related to some living people (e.g., it's remotely related to the director who chose to film on location). There are some gray areas in BLPSPS, but "remotely related to" isn't one of them. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  Again, you are trying to undermine my argument by pointing out something that we are not even talking about. This discussion is about situations where BLPSPS does apply under the current wording but some editors, including myself, think it should not. Explaining what BLPSPS does not apply to is a red herring. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  Then I suggest that you stop using the phrase "remotely related to," since it's inaccurate. I'm not trying to undermine discussion of the situation where BLPSPS does currently apply.

  I asked the following below: is the proposal here to change the last sentence of WP:SPS to something like "Self-published sources are only permitted as third-party sources about living people if (a) the author meets the subject-matter expert criterion, and (b) the WP text sourced to their publication is limited to uncontroversial content"? If so, then I'd like to hear more how you'd bound "uncontroversial," providing some sense of where the boundary lies between "uncontroversial" and everything else. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think we should be defining what "uncontroversial" means, that is going to depend on the situation. I think it would make more sense to say something like "the text sourced to their publication is not an exceptional claim". - adamstom97 (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  There's a huge difference between "uncontroversial" and "not an exceptional claim." I'd absolutely oppose the latter as way too broad. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  As an example, "Ronald Reagan was an actor" is "uncontroversial". "Ronald Reagan was a conservative politician" is "not an exceptional claim". And IMO that latter should not come from a self-published source, about any BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  Both of those are claims which can be sourced from numerous high quality reliabe sources though... The examples need to be cases where the highest source in which the claim can be found is a single SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  The point of these examples was to illustrate the difference between "uncontroversial" and "not an exceptional claim". This difference is not unique to self-published sources. Editors are likely to be less concerned about statements about someone's day job than about whether the person adheres to a particular (and contested) political viewpoint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  This seems to assume that a SPS can make either an uncontroversial or non-exceptional claim in this context and I don't think they can... Any claim in that context is both controversial and exceptional by definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know that everyone would agree with you, and whether people do/don't agree may depend on how editors assess whether a source is self-published in the first place and whether there's only one SPS providing that info or multiple SPSs doing so. For example, some say that pretty much everything on a learned society's or university's website is self-published. If I have several RS learned societies and universities all confirming the same bit of info about an NPROF, I personally wouldn't consider that info to be exceptional, despite it not appearing in a non-SPS. It's pretty common for some relevant info about NPROFs to only appear in university and learned society sources. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Still needs more context... If the professor is a member/employee of these learned societies and universities its likely kosher under ABOUTSELF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  My point was that it could be a counterexample to your claim that "Any claim in that context is both controversial and exceptional by definition." (Assume that at least one piece of info repeated across these multiple SPSs doesn't fall under ABOUTSELF, for example, they all repeat info about Organization X giving him a prestigious award, but I haven't been able to confirm that on X's own site, perhaps because they gave it to him many years ago, and its website only confirms more recent awardees.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  And my point is that your counterexample only works if none of those claims fall under ABOUTSELF... And it seems like a long shot that a whole bunch of learned societies and universities would publish something about a living person which doesn't appear in any other source. But yes, there is an extreme counterexample that can be made to any claim but what you're describing is a wildly fringe scenario (and you are welcome to find an exteme counterexample to that claim). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I brought up an element of this at the BLP noticeboard: What about cases where a band member in an interview makes a statement about a fellow band member or recording personnel? And by this, I'm not talking about controversial statements or attributing opinions or beliefs to another individual, but basic stuff like "they played on this album" or "this guy was studying record production so he produced our demo" (I have a specific band and interview in mind with this latter example).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that activities and events which include multiple people are something of a grey area which we address on a case-by-case basis. Generally though when its to the level of talking about a single living person by name its a no though (I've seen a lot more leeway for claims of non-specific collective action). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm referring specifically to one named individual speaking on behalf of the band about other named individuals.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

If it's in an interview, then it wouldn't be a WP:BLPSPS issue and it's probably fine to use with attribution (e.g. "In an interview with X, Y said that...) unless it's an exceptional claim. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Patar knight my understanding is that interviews are considered primary sources. And sometimes the interview isn't in an established RS but maybe on someone's blog or personal site but they nonetheless managed to get an interview with the band, which would definitely make the source only usable as a primary source rather than independent coverage. I would almost always attribute an interview regardless of the statement made. And I agree with some of the other editors above that even with attribution, it's still a statement about a living person.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, if it's an interview in a SPS, then it should not be used per WP:BLPSPS. If it's in a reliable source, then it's probably fine with attribution as long as it's due, and is outside the scope of this discussion. If they're naming other members of the band or talking about the band itself, assuming it's a relatively normal-sized group, then it would invoke BLP protections. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 19:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The fact that interviews (i.e., ones that focus on the speaker) are considered primary sources is irrelevant. Sources can be secondary and self-published, just like they can be primary and non-self-published. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't an interview, as a primary source, effectively be self-published? If it's published in non-self-published traditional print media, is that media editing the interview content to screen out defamatory or false statements? I think it would be responsible of them to add an editorial note (which would then need to be mentioned by Misplaced Pages), but if they're editing the interview itself (other than cutting for length), wouldn't that affect the reliability of the source as a primary source?-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

No, an interview, as a primary source, is not effectively self-published. These three are completely separate qualities:

• independent vs affiliated,
• self-published vs traditionally published, and
• primary vs secondary.

Being non-self-published is not actually about whether they screened out defamatory or false statements. All kinds of garbage gets published through traditional systems. For example, anything written by a long-dead author is not being published by that author (any longer). That makes it non-self-published. That doesn't mean that Les Prophéties by Nostradamus has anyone screening out false statements; the false statements are being left in. It just means that Nostradamus himself isn't the person deciding whether to make that available to the public (again).

Similarly, WP:DAILYMAIL is non-self-published. The contents of Daily Mail#Libel lawsuits, which suggests that they aren't screening out defamatory or false statements.

It is true that in avoiding self-published sources, we hope to tip the scale in favor of responsible entities (e.g., those that screen out false and defamatory statements), but this is mere correlation at best.

What makes an interview self-published is: The interviewer (i.e., not a traditional publishing house) publishes the interview themselves. If you interview (e.g.,) a notable musician, and you post a transcript of the interview on the internet, then that's self-published. If you were to interview the same notable musician, and a music magazine (i.e., a traditional publishing house) posts a transcript of the interview on the internet, then that's non-self-published. What matters is the change from "you create, you publish yourself" to "you create, they publish" (especially when "they" are literally in the business of publishing things). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I follow. My follow up question is, isn't the point of excluding BLPs from what self-published experts are reliable for to avoid defamatory or wildly inaccurate content? Obviously, like with DailyMail, that it's not-self-published doesn't mean that it won't be defamatory or incorrect, but I thought that the BLP prohibition was due to this concern.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

That may have been one of the motivations, but it's not the definition. I believe that another motivation was to push editors to use stronger sources – less like "this comedian tweeted something pithy and memorable" or "this person whom I believe to be a personal friend of the BLP posted something on social media and I'm sure it's not a hoax", and more like "this reputable news outlet produced some factual content". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Friends interviewing each other and using each other's page leads to drumming up each other's profile. If such information can be found in some blog, it's a great indication of lack of importance of the particular content and this is more of due weight issues. Graywalls (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

"Friend's interviewing each other" wasn't one of the examples given, as I'm talking about interviews with independent (but possibly self-published) sources, but I know what you're referring to. That's a notability question, and yes, possibly due, but if it's being used for basic facts (so-and-so was in the band, or an album was recorded at a particular question), neither of those are issues. The question here is specifically about if one band member makes a basic, uncontroversial claim about a fellow band member or recording personnel, such as they joined the band at X time or the producer sang on a certain song. Those aren't undue, and they aren't notability statements or considerations. The question is if those are technically BLP violations if the source is a single member of the band making a statement in an interview, as an interview is a primary source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS doesn't say anything against WP:PRIMARY sources, so the fact that the interview is a primary source is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

So what matters is if the interview is published through a reliable independent source? Thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, it's right there: Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Thanks again, I think that answers my question.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Though point 7 of WP:PRIMARY says "Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy," and BLPPRIMARY strikes me as a bit stricter. Still, my sense is that BLPPRIMARY doesn't apply to BLPSELFPUB, and even though the interview isn't strictly SELFPUB, I'd still be inclined to treat it that way, per my earlier comment about how this content would be treated if the person had instead published it on their blog. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, 3family6, what matters is whether the interview is published through a reliable source (not by the 'interviewee'). I think that reading WP:Interviews might help. Not all interviews are the same, so we shouldn't treat them all the same.

FOO, you shouldn't treat a primary source as if it were self-published; you should treat it like it's a primary source. Most BLPSPS also fall under BLPPRIMARY (though the opposite is not true); whenever multiple BLP rules/approaches apply, I recommend following the stricter approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand the difference between self-published and primary, and I'm not saying that primary source material should generally be treated as self-published. My point is that when someone says something in an interview about themselves (or about someone who is not third-party to them), that content should be acceptable as long as it meets the restrictions of BLPSELFPUB — that in this case, we should not be stricter about what someone says about themselves in an interview than we would be if they said it on their personal blog. The reason I brought it up is because BLPPRIMARY says "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." That would seem to exclude essentially all primary content that's acceptable under BLPSELFPUB, as the reason that WP editors use BLPSELFPUB is because this content has not been discussed in a reliable secondary source (had it been discussed in a reliable secondary source, they'd just use that source). FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

BLPPRIMARY is largely concerned with a particularly risky set of primary sources. It is not really concerned with WP:PRIMARYNEWS or self-disclosed statements. We don't want user-conducted research (e.g., 'opposition research', genealogy, a Zestimate on the person's home, another fight over whether Beyoncé's birth certificate contains the accented character...). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that falls solidly in the grey area, especially because of the ABOUTSELF aspects. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Right. That's where I'm thinking this might need to be clarified.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLPGROUP basically says it's a spectrum of how similar statements about a group are statements about an individual where a small enough group will attract BLP protections, but a larger group is less likely to, with the nature of the material (e.g. controversial/harmful vs. not, quasi-identifying vs. entirely general) also affecting that analysis. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 19:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Patar knight Yeah, this is why on some band list articles, like those for Christian music artists or for National Socialist black metal, I would absolutely consider BLP protections to be in effect. I think it gets into this grey area when it's uncontentious statements about fellow band members in an interview of the band.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break about SPS

That doesn't inherently sound like an SPS source as an interview often isn't the stereotypical person just putting their own opinion on a blog. That's unless there's a serious question about whether the interviewee actually said what was claimed. That's more likely to be a primary non-SPS source.

At least for the purposes of this page though? If it really is an SPS, then there's nothing inherently wrong with using it with attribution. The questions instead are if there's valid concern if the statement was actually made like I just mentioned above and primarily if it's WP:DUE. WP:PARITY may help inform that discussion among other things. Between treating the source as SPS/non-independent, there's a bit higher bar for scrutiny as to whether something is DUE or not. If a band member says something in an SPS, who cares, is it really relevant to an encyclopedia? That's probably the bigger question. I'd be more likely to question if information is being put in the article simply because it exists rather than being DUE (without knowing the specifics of this actual dispute). The short of it is that it should be somewhat inherent that the information would have encyclopedic relevance when used with attribution. KoA (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem is we can't have a discussion about whether something like this is genuinely DUE if there is a blanket ban preventing it from being added. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This policy explains why we don't use SPS sources as independent sources, and that is what is prohibited here. If someone is saying such sources are banned entirely, that's missing the point of this policy and not engaging with the underlying reasoning why we're so careful about SPS about living people. It's ultimately up to talk page consensus to decide if the content should be included or not. KoA (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This is relevant to an FA review, where I as a reviewer have to help come up with that consensus, which is why I brought it up to the BLP Noticeboard (which seemed to be of a similar mix of consensus that leans toward it being a case-by-case grey area).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

So if I were reviewing discussion in a talk page in that situation, I probably wouldn't give much weight to someone just simply saying "can't use SPS sources" and leaving it at that as it isn't addressing the gray area. Instead, the weight would go more towards those really focusing on the spirit of related WP:PAG and saying there is/isn't WP:DUE for inclusion (which you should do even if it's a bad SPS). If there was consensus for inclusion, then just make sure there was attribution. It's WP:CONSENSUS that would rule the roost there.

That's at least what I would be looking for if I was doing a FA/GA review knowing there was a piece of content that had some controversy that someone was trying to add/remove again during the review process. KoA (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS doesn't allow self-published sources to be used for any "material about a living person" at all. If the wording of that policy was consistent with this one then we would be able to discuss these issues on a case-by-case basis to determine if inclusion with attribution is appropriate, but because of the stricter wording at BLPSPS we currently can't. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That would violate the policy on this page, and like I alluded to above, I'd be worried about WP:LETTER if someone is insisting all such sources are prohibited rather than engaging with the why of there being guidance of SPS related to living people. Ultimately, WP:NOTBURO is policy too, so you'd set aside the letter of the policy language and look at the spirit of it. There's additional guidance because SPS have additional hurdles when they intersect with claims about living people. Like when newspapers print articles quoting people, we first navigate those issues by using attribution (and the determination that the statement was actually made by the person). We simply don't treat SPS as independent or as reliable as non-SPS sources. Everything else is up to basic WP:ONUS and talk consensus. KoA (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Is the goal to see if there's consensus for changing BLPSPS as a policy? Or is the goal only to see if there's consensus for allowing this one specific SPS (The InSneider) to be used for specific WP text about one or more living persons? I hear people making different claims here and at RSN. Either way, so far my read is that there isn't consensus for either one. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Since this talk page is about the policy as it applies to all Misplaced Pages articles, the current discussion is about the general application of WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS. I mentioned WP:RSN § Jeff Sneider / The InSneider only to give context on why this discussion was started. Any evaluations of Sneider's self-published content should ideally be posted or at least cross-posted to the noticeboard discussion. — Newslinger talk 01:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. So is the proposal here to change the last sentence of WP:SPS to something like "Self-published sources are only permitted as third-party sources about living people if (a) the author meets the subject-matter expert criterion, and (b) the WP text sourced to their publication is limited to uncontroversial content"?

Although editors agree that some kinds of sources are self-published (e.g., blogs, social media) and that some kinds of sources are not self-published (e.g., newspapers, standard book publishers), there's a fair amount of disagreement about whether other kinds of sources (e.g., material from universities, governments, advocacy organizations, corporations) are or aren't self-published. (I'm working on an RfC to clarify that.) Depending on what is/isn't considered SPS, the "size" of the impact of this change will vary. To some extent, the current BLPSPS carve-out falls in this realm: if you consider the material published by most employers or groups making awards to be self-published, the carve-out takes the perspective that it's nonetheless OK to include WP text that the person works for that employer, or that the person got an award from that group, because as long as they're reputable, the employer/group is an expert RS about who they employ/give awards to, and the info should be uncontroversial. But I'd like to hear more from the people proposing this about how they bound "uncontroversial," providing some sense of where the boundary lies between controversial and uncontroversial (not just focusing on easy cases). FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR isn't something that should be invoked to justify using contents from Walter being interviewed as featured in Bent Spork Productions zine to source contents or to create page about Walter who isn't notable enough to have beyond a passing mention in a traditional media. Graywalls (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

In this example, a band member is not independent of a fellow band member or recording personnel with whom they have a working relationship, as all of these people are closely collaborating to create a musical work. Therefore, the prohibition in WP:SPS against self-published claims about other living persons (which is restricted to "third-party sources") does not apply to the band member's statement concerning a fellow band member or associated recording personnel.WP:BLPSPS is much more vague, since the described exemption is "a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example". I believe fellow band members and associated recording personnel qualify for this exemption, as they are all employed in the creation of the same musical work. The language in WP:BLPSPS should be refined to be explicitly consistent with the language in WP:SPS. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

In this example, a band member is not independent of a fellow band member or recording personnel with whom they have a working relationship, as all of these people are closely collaborating to create a musical work. Therefore, That has nothing to do with the discussion here. The point of the policy here and elsewhere is if it is an SPS, don't treat it like a third-party source. In terms of this policy, you don't need to get into whether band members are independent or not. KoA (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

As you pointed out in an earlier comment, the language of WP:SPS states: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people", with the term third-party sources linking to Misplaced Pages:Independent sources. A band member's statement about a fellow band member is not an independent ("third-party") source, so that statement would be excluded from the prohibition. I am not sure why you think this point is unrelated to the discussion, when WP:IS is explicitly linked from WP:SPS. — Newslinger talk 03:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You're talking about mutually exclusive things and appearing to confound them in multiple comments, so that's why I'm spending a little time with you on this. For our purposes here on this page, it's irrelevant whether a band member's statement is third-party or not for the other reasons you mention. That is outside the scope of this discussion. All that matters here is if it is an SPS, and if so, don't treat it as third-party as well.

There are other reasons a source may not be a third-party, such as close involvement in a group or other aspects of WP:IS like you mention, but that is independent of the SPS text in question. This part of the policy doesn't have anything to say about whether sources should be used or not based on independence/third-party that you are mentioning. It only talks about use if they are an SPS. KoA (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You appear to be interpreting the language of WP:SPS ("Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people") to mean that it may be permissible for an editor to use a self-published source that describes another living person as long as the editor does not treat the self-published as an independent source. That interpretation is semantically incorrect, because the language of WP:SPS does not allow an editor to bypass the prohibition by pretending that the self-published source is non-independent.

Here is an example of a rule that is constructed in the same way as the language in WP:SPS: "Never use guns as weapons against living people." It would be incorrect to claim that the rule allows a person to use a gun against living people as long as the person considers the gun a non-weapon. What the example rule actually does is prohibit the use of guns against living people when the guns function as weapons. Likewise, what WP:SPS actually does is prohibit the use of self-published claims about living people when the self-published claims function as third-party sources (independent sources). — Newslinger talk 05:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Clarified wording — Newslinger talk 06:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The wording of WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS differ somewhat, and I think the text of the latter is the guiding text in this specific case. The latter says "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." If you have a self-published source written by band member X, and in that source X talks about another band member, Y, there are two interpretations: (1) that source can't be used for a statement about Y, because Y isn't the person who wrote the source, or (2) that source can be used for a statement about Y because X and Y share a vested interest, as long as the use meets the criteria in WP:BLPSELFPUB (e.g., it's not unduly self-serving). Whether the interpretation is (1) versus (2) might turn on whether the article is about X, or about Y, or about the band, or about none of those (given that BLP applies to WP text about people even if the subject of an article is not a person). BLPSPS should be reworded a bit; right now it refers to "the subject of the article," which ignores the last possibility. Maybe something should also be added to more clearly address a situation like this one, where "the subject" might be a small group of identifiable people (like a band) rather than a single person. Also, the phrase "third parties" in BLPSPS criterion 2 should be linked to WP:IS to make its intended meaning clear. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Context is important… why do we want to even mention what bandmember A said about bandmember B in the article ABOUT bandmember A? Is it relevant in the context of bandmember A’s bio article? Blueboar (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

In the example that 3family6 introduced, the article is about the band, not about either of the bandmembers, and 3family6 judged it to be relevant about the band. But whether it's DUE is distinct from whether it's excluded under BLPSPS vs. allowed under BLPSELFPUB. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This example is the "I speak about us" problem. If two artists collaborate, is a self-published source from just one of them acceptable to say that they worked together? I think we do normally accept this, though even if it's agreed to be permissible, DUE is a difficult calculation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd caution about this degree of semantics on very plain language here. There's no need for metaphors that are apt to get off-base. The prohibition here is very clear not to use self-published sources as third-party sources, and that's very purposeful language and background in how it's written already previously described detailing why SPS don't get the same privileges as otherwise normal third-party sources.

In your metaphor, it misuses context. It's not some loophole if the person considers the gun not a weapon and still fires it as you allude to. That's still using it as a weapon. If you use your version of the metaphor, that would instead be like using the SPS as a third-party source without any attribution and "pretending" it's actually third-party in one's head. That's not ok and isn't what's being discussed here, so it does feel like a bit of an unintentional strawman at this point in the context of what I've actually been addressing. KoA (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@KoA, I wonder if the "as" in the sentence is throwing you off. The rule is:

• If it's a self-published source, and you want to write something about a BLP in a Misplaced Pages article, then the source must be self-published by the BLP you want to write about in the Misplaced Pages article.

There is no special way to use an SPS from Alice to write about Bob so that it gets cited "as" a third-party source or "not as" third-party source. The rule is that you don't get to use SPS from Alice to write about BLPs who are not Alice (or at least BLPs closely connected to Alice). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The rule here is that you don't get to use an SPS about BLPs as a third-party source. The "as" is very deliberate in this policy's language as well as the rest of that part of the policy. You can't make a statement like, "Bob defenestrated chickens in his youth." in Misplaced Pages's voice because Alice said it in her blog. Functionally, the source becomes as if it is closely involved with the subject matter and doesn't get the benefits of a more distanced sourced. It gets functionally treated instead as WP:BIASED and defaults to the more conservative WP:ACCORDINGTO if used.

Now that statement I quoted could be true and due weight for some part of a BLP (maybe Bob got tired of tossing chickens out the window and invented a better way to get them out of the shed), but the main caution here is that because the statement came from an SPS, there's less degree of certainty about reliability, due, etc. in a BLP context. Even WP:RS is clear about this while adding additional information not in this policy that even being an expert, etc. is not an exception to the third-party aspect. Putting a statement in Misplaced Pages's voice with such a source opens Misplaced Pages up to potential legal issues, so that's why there's an even higher degree of scrutiny on SPS BLP use. IRL, newspapers deal with that by attribution and still checking that the claim is reasonable. You can use attribution saying Alice made the statement in their blog instead as others have mentioned above, though that's still subject to WP:DUE, WP:ONUS, etc. with inclusion already being much less likely due to being an SPS as others have mentioned. There's actually a lot going on in the background of this simple line of policy when it says third-party and links to more information.

The policy says don't use SPS sources in X way, not don't use SPS at all. Yes, I'm aware a single line in BLP policy exists that doesn't exactly match what is said in these other areas of the project, and that seems to create a subset of editors having trouble with this policy here and similar guidance like this. I am concerned in terms of WP:NOTBURO policy when someone is using that single line to say SPS cannot be used at all in BLPs and instead would say to look at the full context of what WP:PAG say related to this (and that they mostly specify what kind of use). The spirit of it all though is that SPS in a BLP would be heavily scrutinized even with attribution to the point that most still won't make the cut. That's really up to individual talk page consensus to decide on a case-by-case basis for the rare times when SPS may be seriously considered for narrow use. KoA (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that this "as" clause was intended in the way that you are interpreting it. The intention was "Is Alice a third-party/independent source about Bob? If yes, then you can't cite Alice's self-published works about Bob."

The "as" clause has nothing to do with "in Misplaced Pages's voice" or "ACCORDINGTO". It actually does mean do not use Alice's SPS at all about any BLP that Alice is a third-party to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This was the original version:

"Self-published sources, such as blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP."

I don't know if that's clearer to you, but according to the edit summary, it was meant to match this statement from the BLP policy, which I believe is much clearer:

"Information found in self-published books, zines or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject"

So: The policy says you can't use it. It does not say "don't use it in one way, but you can use it in another way". It says don't use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The policy here tells how to use such a source, so you can't say we can't use it in the way the policy carves out. Yes, there's a single outlier line over at BLPSPS that does not include the third-party language or context, but everywhere else does, and I covered navigating that above. The short of if is that people should not be assuming you cannot use SPS at all based on a very narrow reading of a sentence of BLP policy. That gets into issues with WP:LETTER The focus at this policy is that even if someone is well-credentialed, we can't treat their SPS as a third-party source in BLPs, not no use at all outside of WP:ABOUTSELF. If it had been the latter, there would be no need for the third-party language being so pervasive across this and other guidance. The reality is that guidance on this subject is scattered across policy and guideline, but most of it talks about specific things to avoid in use SPS.

"as a third-party source" has everything to do with Misplaced Pages's voice or ACCORDINGTO. If it's not a third-party source, we generally have to use attribution due to lack of independence if it's still a narrow case where such a source would be considered due weight (often they aren't). That's not going to be linked absolutely everywhere due to WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP, but it's pretty fundamental to how we deal with third/first-party sources. Especially from the legal angle related to BLPs, the real summary of what underlies all this policy is don't put things up in Misplaced Pages's voice (or other content that is seriously questioned in terms of authenticity) that would realistically get them sued. Documenting what sources say rather than taking them at their word is pretty key in that legal angle, hence the third-party language in terms of how it meshes with actual use of the term.

I understand that some want an outright ban and really just focus on the language in BLPSPS's sentence, but that is not the case if we follow overall WP:PAG on this. Instead, it's much more the case the SPS are heavily restricted in how they are used even if they pass the bar that already scrutinizes SPS more heavily in terms of DUE. KoA (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I'm still not understanding what you're saying. Here's an example:

Alice Expert does not actually know Chris Celebrity. Alice self-publishes this about Chris on social media: "Chris Celebrity claims to be vegetarian, but I heard them order a hamburger at the Local Hamburger Shack, and I took this photo of them eating it today. If people are going to claim to eat meat sometimes, they should call themselves flexitarians instead."

Please write two sentences for a Misplaced Pages article, one in which Alice is a third party of Chris and one in which Alice is a friend/family member/co-worker/some non-third-party to Chris. The main subject of the sentence is approximately "Chris ate meat today." Assume that there is zero chance of misidentification of either the BLP or the hamburger, and that Chris is known for being vegetarian. Editors agree that this should be mentioned briefly in the article, assuming we can source it without violating any of the rules about using self-published sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

WAID, you say “Editors agree it should be mentioned in the article” - sidebar question: I think it may matter which article we are talking about… Is the subject of the article Alice or Chris? Blueboar (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure out how you can write something like "Chris was seen eating a hamburger." in ways that make that blog post be a WP:3PARTY source vs make it not be a 3PARTY source.

"Chris was seen eating a hamburger." – Alice is a third party.

"According to Alice, Chris was seen eating a hamburger." – Alice is still a third party.

"According to Alice's blog, Alice says that she saw Chris eating a hamburger." – Alice is still a third party.

There is nothing you can do to the text of the sentence that changes the fact that Alice is 3PARTY to Chris. 3PARTY is about real-world relationships (or the absence thereof). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Precisely. It is not possible for a Misplaced Pages editor to turn an independent source into a non-independent source (or vice versa), since Misplaced Pages editors have no influence over how the author and the subject of the self-published claim are associated with each other. The use of in-text attribution or the phrase according to has absolutely no effect on whether a source is independent. — Newslinger talk 04:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

"According to Alice's blog, Alice says that she saw Chris eating a hamburger." – Alice is still a third party. No. In that case you are treating Alice as a first-party/non-independent source by using attribution because of the lower quality (and to be clear, that is not the only reason we use attribution). What you cannot do there is treat Alice or her blog as a third-party source and say Chris was eating a hamburger. The source doesn't reach the level where you could even consider using it in Misplaced Pages's voice as a third-party source. You have to treat it as if it was closely tied to the subject and use that level of care. KoA (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

No, we're not. When we use attribution, we are not turning the source into a first-party or non-independent source.

You are first party/non-independent if you have some significant conflict of interest. For example, Alice would be a first party to Chris if any of the following, or anything similar, were true:

• Alice and Chris are (or were) married or otherwise part of the same family.
• Alice and Chris run a business together.
• Alice and Chris are writing a book together.
• Alice and Chris are friends.
• One of them is suing the other.
• One of them has loaned the other money or invested in the other's business.

A simple rule of thumb that may make sense to people from the US or UK might be: If one of them is called up for jury duty, and the other has been accused of murder, would the lawyers (either side) reject the potential juror for being too close to the defendant?

These are real-world relationships. There is no way to change the wording in a Misplaced Pages article that actually affects it. If Alice has a connection to Chris, then she has that connection even if you do/don't write "According to Alice" in the article. If Alice has no connection to Chris, then you cannot magic up a relationship between them by adding or removing those words.

I think that one of our long-term problems is that all of the 'bad' things for sources get basically the same treatment, so people start thinking that they're all the same thing. Primary source? Better be careful and consider using INTEXT attribution. Self-published source? Better be careful and consider using INTEXT attribution. Biased source? Better be careful and consider using INTEXT attribution. Non-independent source? Better be careful and consider using INTEXT attribution. Opinion? Better be careful and consider using INTEXT attribution. Questionable source? Better be careful and consider using INTEXT attribution.

But they are not the same thing, and the prescribed solution does not change the source's status. No matter how careful you are, and no matter whether you use INTEXT attribution, Alice and Chris either have a real-world relationship, or they don't, in which case, they're either 3PARTY or they're not. Spamming in "According to Alice" doesn't ever change that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break about SPS 2

Thank you, Newslinger, that makes sense, and the principle that I was operating from. KoA, I'll give some examples of how I think this is relevant. At the FAC review, I brought up how this source is used to support the statement that a band member only met the rest of the band two days before they went on tour. It's a statement by one of the band members, speaking on behalf of the band. The source itself might be RS, but the article is posted by the site owner/main editor. I brought up the question recently on some noticeboards/talk pages about if articles from a publication's publishers, owners, and/or editors would be considered SPS, because they presumably don't have the same editorial process that an article from another staff member would have. The answer seemed to be yes, those are a type of SPS. So, in regards to that interview, the article is essentially SPS, but the statements from LaPlante are perfectly fine to use as primary source statements about herself or the band collectively. Where it potentially violates BLPSPS is her making statements about other individual band members. I think Newslinger highlighted the important distinction here - LaPlante is not independent from the band, and neither is the other band member. She's a closely affiliated source. Wall of Sound would be independent, but statements by LaPlante herself published via Wall of Sound would still be primary. The other example I was thinking of is regarding the production of a demo by Vaakevandring. The demo was produced by Stian Aarstad of Dimmu Borgir. On that fact there are multiple independent non-self-published sources. Where I think it gets questionable is the sentence that Aarstad sings on one of the songs - as far as I can find, the only source for that is an interview with a member of the band (in German). The source is not self-published (it's from a German youth ministry organization with multiple staff), but as the statement comes from a member of the band, it's a primary source statement. So does that violate BLPSPS? If Newslinger is correct, probably not, because Aarstad and Dæhlen are closely affiliated. But is that a correct understanding of the consensus?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the key thing here is that for the purposes of this page, much of this discussion on that dispute is out of scope and more suited for a general noticeboard (especially given the notice at the top of this page This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles.). That's what I was getting at about relevancy. Here we can comment on what SPS has to say a bit, but not really on the other areas of the content issue.

Like you mention, assessing WP:IS of a source regardless of SPS or not is one thing to consider in discussions, but for here, the question is just what to do about an SPS that is being considered. So given what you just summarized, is there an SPS being considered for content, or have they pretty much been excluded for other reasons? It sounds like it might be the latter, so I just wanted to see how narrowed down it is now so there could be focus just on what this policy has to say about the situation. KoA (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

So given what you just summarized, is there an SPS being considered for content, or have they pretty much been excluded for other reasons? The first example, the Courtney LaPlante interview by Wall of Sound, is cited in a featured article candidate. I brought the question to the BLP Noticeboard for clarification, and the majority opinion was that the statement is fine and useable, although FactOrOpinion expressed that, in their opinion, likely the source is technically outside of policy. My decision as an FA reviewer, based on that discussion, was to ignore the rules for sake of improving the article as nothing defamatory or controversial was stated by LaPlante and she's close to the subject. The second example, of Vaakevandring and Stian Aarstad singing on the demo, is used in the respective article about the demo, which I recreated awhile back and have revisted recently to clean up.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

3family6, the discussion here made me realize that I wasn't really paying attention to the "third-party" element, and I was also focused too much on the letter of the policy but not on the spirit of the policy. (I'm not a totally new editor, but am still only moderately experienced, and my understanding of how all of the policies interact and what they mean changes somewhat as I reread policies in response to people's questions + the discussions that result from them, and as I consider others' views.) My current view of the LaPlante interview is that it's OK to source that WP content to that interview, as it would meet the BLPSELFPUB conditions had she written it on her blog instead of it being published in Wall of Sound (it's not unduly self-serving, the other band member is not a third-party to LaPlante, we trust the authenticity, etc.). It shouldn't matter whether we judge the interview to be self-published by the Wall of Sound owner; it's an interview response, not the interviewer making his own claims, and it would be silly to conclude that it would have been OK to use that info if she'd written it in her blog, but it's not OK if she says it in a interview that's possibly self-published by someone else. The issue is the same re: it being a primary source; BLPSELFPUB is primary source material, and we've OKed limited use of such material, so it shouldn't matter whether a secondary source has discussed it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Right. That's what I realized myself. I missed the "third-party" part.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

If you take it structurally/literally you kind of end up with it saying almost nothing. It's a restriction on such a source's use as a source and in wiki context, that would mean to use it to fulfill a wp:ver requirement for an included source. So if you want to write "John Smith wore a green coat on December 30th 2024" with no provided source, that is permitted in practice, but if challenged, it would not fulfill the requirement to provide a suitable source. And, prior to / absent a challenge, the editor is on the honor system to not put it in unless they think that a suitable source (other than the excluded one) is available and that it is unlikely to be challenged. But taken literally, categorically and on a stand alone basis, many wiki rules sometimes conflict with each other and conflict with wiki-reality. And some common sense interpretation and balancing is required (with the strong wording of this clause being a part of that equation), the described practice being supported by influence from WP:IAR policy and the last point of wp:5p and other places. IMHO the intent and also the net result of the whole wiki system is: "Don't put something in from such a source in in such a situation unless it looks rock solid, uncontroversial, useful for the article, and meets other Misplaced Pages criteria. Which is a high bar to meet. And if the veracity is challenged, it is no longer uncontroversial. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Also… context matters. Looping back to the example of Alice expert seeing Chris Celeb eating meat… let’s add a twist: in her self published blog Alice tells the story about seeing Chris eating meat, and states that this incident inspired her to write her best selling book “Cheaters”.

Now the question: which policy governs this: SPSBLP (its “about” Chris Celeb)… or ABOUTSELF (it’s “about” Alice and the inspiration for her book)? It’s kind of both.

Ultimately (to my mind) the acceptability of the source depends on which article we are using it in… In the Chris Celeb (vegetarian) bio article , I would say it is “about” Chris… and thus not acceptable under SPSBLP. However, the same source used in the Alice Expert article (or the article about her book) is ABOUTSELF (even though it mentions Chris) and is thus acceptable.

Thing is, things like this are not the sort of nuances that we can write clear policy statements to cover… they are judgement calls that we have to consider individually, on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

We usually sidestep this one, in the instance of the book inspiration, by saying in Alice Expert that Alice was inspired by "seeing a celebrity who is famous for promoting vegetarianism eat a hamburger", rather than by saying "seeing Chris eat meat". It's more encyclopedic writing because it will be comprehensible to people who have no idea who Chris is.

(I had the Chris Celeb (vegetarian) article in mind above.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm… so the appropriateness of a SPS source not only depends on which article we are citing it in, but also on how WE (Wikipedians) phrase the information it is verifying? Yup… I can agree with that. It’s that pesky Nuance stuff again! Blueboar (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

If they use the name in the Alice article, I'd view that as a bit of a Chris Celeb BLP inside of the Alice article and the higher standard would apply. But if they omit the Chris name then it isn't. So there's a structural rationale for the nuance you expressed. North8000 (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Verifiability of rulesets for game shows?

There's a conversation ongoing at Talk:Pyramid (franchise) regarding whether rulesets for game shows are required to be sourced. Additional opinions are welcome! DonIago (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

When something gets reinserted (VNOT/ONUS)

Talk:REI#Flagship_locations I feel that something like this should fall back on WP:ONUS, but another user restored it for the second time simply saying "disagree". While sourced, I don't believe the inclusion of store locations merit inclusion from my viewing of WP:NOTADIRECTORY criteria 6. The information however was around for some time before I removed it. Should it be on me or that other editor to establish consensus? It was the same editor who restored it for the second time. Graywalls (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion in this situation is more likely important than ONUS or STATUSQUO. Whether the details of some stores are in the article or not while it's happening, isn't going to have a major impact. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

However, if there's a disagreement between only two users, it has to default to one side. ONUS is a policy, STATUSQUO is not. Graywalls (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

When there is a disagreement between only two editors… you need to call in additional editors to find out what the consensus actually is. The two original editors can lay out their arguments (for and against the material) and point to relevant policies and guidelines… and then let the additional editors decide who has the more persuasive arguments. Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is a policy and should be followed in my opinion. I believe it is better to leave contested content out until there is consensus for inclusion as opposed to the other way around. – notwally (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO isn't a policy (also, it doesn't say what a lot of editors think it says), but WP:Consensus is a policy, and QUO was added to that policy back in 2012. So if you want to play the "we must follow the policy" game, then the editor objecting to your removal gets to play the same game. There are official policies supporting both sides in this dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I was about to write the same thing. Further, IMO WP:Consensus is on more solid ground than the wp:onus clause which has been questioned many times and somewhat conflicts with wp:consensus. IMO another part of the equation is whether the content of the material is actually contentious vs. where someone would just prefer to not have it in the article. North8000 (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS says "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." WP:ONUS says "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." The CONSENSUS policy does not require maintaining the status quo, but merely calls it a "common result", while the ONUS policy has an explicit requirement of consensus for the inclusion of contested content. If ONUS should not be applied, then the policy really needs to be changed. – notwally (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If ONUS is going to be the policy, then CONSENSUS shouldn't be saying that that ONUS is routinely ignored. And both WP:PG and WP:NOT indicate that when actual practice routinely diverges from the written policy, then it's the written rules that are wrong, not the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the common result of non-consensus may not necessarily mean that ONUS is being ignored, but in any case, if the written rules are wrong, then they should be changed. Seems pretty pointless to have a policy like ONUS if the recommendation is to explicitly ignore it. – notwally (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but we haven't been able to decide which rule should be kept. It may be a case of misaligned incentives: We (i.e., the highly experienced wikilawyers who hang out on the policy pages) actually like being able to cite ONUS when we want to get rid of something and NOCON/QUO when we want to keep it, and given a choice between winning content disputes and having logically consistent policies, we would rather win. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the (presumably tongue-in-cheek) idea that it is about winning. I mean, I have to deal with other editors, too, so I'm usually on both sides of that dispute. My opinion is that "rigid" policies that dictate a particular outcome in every case ("in case of a dispute of this nature, version X always wins") are generally bad for the project because they discourage collaborative editing, compromise, and consensus-building, and instead encourage people to dig for policies that say "I win" and them clobber other people with them without even engaging in the underlying content dispute. To me, seeing people citing WP:ONUS or WP:QUO in that manner is almost always a sign that things have gone seriously wrong. It is better to have both, balanced against each other, in a way that provides rough guidelines (never hard rules) for what to do in intractable situations, while leaving enough leeway that the ultimate way to resolve something in the long term is to build a proper consensus. Perhaps what we need is a policy stating that it is undesirable to deliberately seek no-consensus outcomes, or to constantly try and rely on policies that assume no consensus (like ONUS or QUO) - editors are expected to seek consensus and engage with the substance of a dispute, not to shrug and go "policy sez I win". EDIT: I'd also add that part of the reason I think WP:QUO is better than ONUS in this regard is because it is structured to only really apply after an RFC, when most other channels have been exhausted. The reason I particularly loathe the interpretation of ONUS as a silver bullet that defaults to exclusion in all cases is because I fairly frequently see people citing it at the start of a dispute, reaching for it the moment it is clear they're in disagreement with another editor where they're on the side of wanting something excluded - that IMHO is never appropriate (it's a failure state for when it is clear efforts to build consensus have broken down; the only time it ever makes sense to invoke it at the start of a dispute is if the other person isn't engaging or is just assuming that verifiability means something must be included, with no other explanation for why they're adding it.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

(Perhaps more cynical than tongue in cheek.)

If you think WP:QUO is structured to only really apply after an RFC, then you need to go read QUO (aka Misplaced Pages:Reverting#Avoid reverting during discussion).

Otherwise, I agree with you, but that takes me back to the cynical thing: We (I) don't always want to engage deeply with the consensus-building process. When the answer is "<expletive> no", then "Let's all have an open-minded discussion about this and find a compromise" is a waste of my time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, right. Even then, though, QUO is much more carefully and cautiously worded (it applies only while the dispute is in progress, and presumes actual discussion is ongoing, which avoids incentivizing stonewalling because you can't as easily invoke QUO to try and end discussion early on the way people routinely do with ONUS.) The core problem with ONUS is that its existence is mostly an accident - it was slipped into a policy whose main purpose was "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" with no discussion or consensus and no real indication as to what it might imply, and only took on the misinterpretation of "an editor can remove anything at any time and you must demonstrate a consensus to stop them" later on. As a result, it's was never really considered or written with an eye towards how this would function in practice. This is also why in practice most of our disputes are handled by QUO; it's an actual functional dispute resolution guideline, whereas the "default to removal" interpretation of ONUS (as opposed to the "you need more of an argument than just showing that something is verifiable", of course, which was the original intent) is largely the result of an editing error. --Aquillion (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why I think some editors don't really want the ONUS/NOCON conflict resolved. Most of the time, in practice, "I" am in a dispute with people who are vastly less familiar with the rules than I am. Therefore, if I have Rule A in Policy A, saying that I win if I want to keep it, and Rule B in Policy B, saying that I win if I want to remove it, then I use my best judgment to invoke whichever rule/policy I believe will produce the best answer. If you've added garbage, I'll invoke ONUS; if you've blanked decent content, I'll invoke NOCON.

The only significant downside – and it's a doozy – is that I train the next generation of editors to be rules lawyers instead of negotiators and compromisers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Many WP:UNDUE and advertorial contents often get noticed years later. When such information is removed and is objected and someone objects it by saying " but, but it was there for a long time", it essentially tilts the table in favor of inclusion and just encourages those involved in public relations editing effort to have their infusion not noticed so they can say QUO QUO QUO. Graywalls (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Notwally:, you meant the EXCLUSION of contested contents rather than inclusion, right? Graywalls (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I meant that consensus is the requirement in ONUS to include contested content. I added the words "of consensus" but I don't know if that makes my point any clearer. Words are hard. – notwally (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I take that to mean if two editors are disputing it and prior discussions do not support, of there's lack of discussion, it falls on the party looking to INSERT to establish consensus, and they have to do the legwork to do so. Graywalls (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This thinking is exactly the reason why I feel that that interpretation of WP:ONUS is harmful. The thing to do when two editors are in disagreement is to seek additional voices, not for them to bludgeon each other with policies in an attempt to "win by default." Our goal is to build an encyclopedia by consensus, not via legalese. --Aquillion (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• It is important to note what ONUS does and does not say… it does not say we should remove contested material… it says that those wishing to keep contested material need to demonstrate that there is consensus to keep. This isn’t all that hard to do. But it requires discussion. If those wishing to keep can present a convincing argument as to why the material should remain in the article, we tend to form a consensus to keep (not always, but often enough that QUO notes this as a frequent outcome). Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm a strong supporter of ONUS but I think this gets missed a lot. It says nothing about removing content only that those wanting to keep content need to find consensus for it. Content could be removed for multiple valid policy/guideline reasons, but ONUS isn't one of them. Some of those reasons will mean that content should stay out until the discussion is complete (BLP issues spring to mind), but the less problematic the content the less it matters. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'd say it does matter for less "problematic" content as ONUS is one of the guideposts that helps prevent WP:GAMING through edit warring. I definitely agree with the rest of your framework. In a typical situation where someone added content and someone else removes it for X policy/guideline reason, you'll sometimes get people edit warring it back in just saying they don't agree. That's where the content should be removed with a reminder to follow WP:ONUS policy and get consensus on the talk page. If it's old content that was removed, then it's a case-by-case basis of assessing consensus. Was it content no one really ever looked at? Then it's probably fair to remove if there are issues. Did it have some degree on consensus in limited talk discussion or iterative edits working it out in the article? Then it's probably best to keep it in for the time being and discuss on the talk page. That framework never seemed that difficult.

  If all someone does is remove content for no stated reason other than ONUS though, then that's more problematic and misusing the policy. KoA (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah I'd agree with that, strongly with the last point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Putting more barrier to removal than for inclusion is an inclusionist bias. The policy requires citation, at minimum with rare exceptions (such as that sky is blue). Citation and verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. I don't think listing out each and every regional "flag store" of a medium retail chain, or each Walmart management district, regional offices and such is encyclopedic. If the inclusion advocate objects removal with simple "I disagree" and this stays, that is a bias in favor of inclusionism. So to avoid people from going back and forth with "I disagree" as the reason, WP:ONUS has been put in place to avoid this. They might think it's useful info. I think it's unnecessary info clutter. If it was not a big deal that isn't worth fighting over, the inserting advocate could simply stop adding it back in. Graywalls (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Basically, the two editors involved in the edit war have been debating “I like it” vs “I don’t like it”… neither of which is a convincing argument.

  However, when you frame it as: “useful information” vs “unnecessary clutter” there is something more substantial to build a consensus about. So, go to the article talk page, and ask that question… make your respective arguments as to why you think it is “useful” vs “unnecessary”… then call in other editors, and sit back and see if a consensus forms. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  However, in the mean time, why should the inclusionism be favored simply due to delayed discovery? The same user chose to restore it twice, despite the lack of consensus. The discussion here doesn't have to be about that particular article, but how such situations be handled. Graywalls (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  We can ask the same question the other way: Why should exclusionism be favored? I don’t have a good answer to either question, and I flip flop frequently. All I can say is… WHEN there IS consensus to include/exclude, we should follow consensus. That’s what the VNOT section is about. I tend to say “leave it in” while a discussion is ongoing… simply so others can easily see what the dispute is about. However, if the keep proponents can not be persuasive, (and gain a positive consensus) I switch over to “cut it” when the discussion ends. But that’s me… others have other opinions. Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  {

  So ONUS was originally BOLDly added onto VNOT without discussion, but it lasted several years before anyone questioned it (amusingly, when it was finally questioned, people pointed to QUO as a reason to keep it). In recent years we have had multiple discussions, and the current consensus seems to be somewhat mixed. My own assessment (for what it’s worth) is that ONUS currently enjoys consensus, but it is a very very weak consensus.

  Most recently, there has been a proposal to keep it, but move it over to WP:Consensus (and merge it into NOCON). not sure what the status of that proposal is. Blueboar (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  The current discussion is to move NOCON to WP:Editing policy, see wt:Editing_policy#Move_NOCON_to_this_page?. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Misplaced Pages:Editing policy says that Misplaced Pages is best when it contains more verifiable information instead of less. I interpret this as putting only a very slight bias in favor of more information (and as saying nothing at all about whether that information belongs in a new/separate article). It would not be unreasonable to understand this as an actual policy indicating that things are ruled in the favor of inclusionism in ambiguous situations.

  As a side note, WP:V doesn't require inline citations quite so often as some editors preach. Everything (including that the sky is blue ) must be possible-to-verify in some reliable source (including uncited/as-yet-unknown sources), but only WP:MINREF content is required to be already-cited. The idea that (almost) everything must be WP:Glossary#cited is something of a lie to children, and a favorite pipe dream aspiration for a fraction of editors. (We're doing much better than we used to, with a ratio of about 1 little blue clicky number per 2 sentences now.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Your interpretation has such a pro-incolusionism spin to it. It's not the quantity of information but quality. And commenting on your sidenote, that almost favors people who wants to brain dump from their personal recollection and puts the burden on others to find sources around it before removing it. Graywalls (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Right. We presume that the material is verifiable before removing it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  But there's no policy based mandate on presumptive verifiability. Graywalls (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Please be bold and add content summarizing accepted knowledge, but be particularly cautious about removing sourced content. Information in Misplaced Pages must be verifiable and cannot be original research. Show that content is verifiable by citing reliable sources. Because a lack of content is better than misleading or false content, unsourced content may be challenged and removed. "Presumptive" was strong wording from me, but the highlighted text does indicate that the editing policy is to lean toward inclusion, because Another way you can improve an article is by finding a source for existing unsourced content. This is especially true if you come across statements that are potentially controversial.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's not an accurate assessment of what WhatamIdoing said or of the situation. In essence, the common case is that it must be verifiable and that once challenged it must be verified. (hopefully a challenge would express a concern about the verifiability or veracity of the content) Policy comes down pretty strong on this and nothing that WhatamIdoing would tend to reverse or go against that to say that the burden is on the prospective remover. Also, if onus were out of the picture, it would leave the decision process as dictated by wp:consensus; I disagree that that would be an inclusionist bias. North8000 (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Quoting from WP:EP: "Misplaced Pages summarizes accepted knowledge. As a rule, the more accepted knowledge it contains, the better."

  Graywalls, you're absolutely entitled to your opinion about quantity vs quality, and even to the opinion that quality is determined by the density of little blue clicky numbers in an article, if you want, but the wording of that policy is clearly about quantity. There is no way to interpret the wording of "the more accepted knowledge...the better" as meaning that less content, but better cited, is better than having the content that the reader seeks, in a state that is accurate, verifiABLE, but uncited.

  In recent years, we have done a pretty poor job of communicating the difference between "material is already cited" and "you can check the material (e.g., in your local library)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  In essence, the common case is that it must be verifiable and that once challenged it must be verified. Not quite, content must be verifiable, but challenged content must be cited (blue clicky things as WAID puts it). Although an explanation of a challenge is appreciated, and experienced editors should know how to provide it, no explanation is required (inexperienced editors are not required to learn the ins and outs or mediwiki or Misplaced Pages policy WORDSALAD to remove something they know to be wrong). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with your post. Except that I don't think it conflicts with mine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  For a long time, we used the word verified to mean cited. My original title for WP:Verifiable, not cited was WP:Verifiable, not verified. It has a certain amount of pleasing alliteration, for one thing. However, that can be confusing in a few situations. For example, {{verification needed}} means that a citation is already in place, and we want someone to verify that the cited source contains the claimed information. So when you say "once challenged it must be verified", it can be just a little unclear whether you mean "once challenged, someone has to add a citation" or "once challenged, someone has to check that the cited source actually says what is claimed". Since you can't properly CHALLENGE cited content, then this is very easy to figure out in context, but I've been trying to use cited in such contexts. (It may take another few years before I can do it consistently.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that my "verified" is not specific (as anything that brief inevitably would be) which means that it could have several different meanings. I think that one of the common meanings is "suitably sourced and cited" which was the one I had in mind when I wrote that. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:Circular and lists

This may be silly question, but do you need to provide citations for obvious qualities of entries in a list (say if the article was going for GA)? For instance, for the inclusion of the Kingdom of Rwanda in List of kingdoms and empires in African history, or for the inclusion of Kenneth Dike in African historiography#List of historians of Africa? While the answer is ideally yes, WP:BURDEN says you must provide citations for material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and in reality I can't see anyone challenging these in good faith, when they can click on the link and see it's in the first sentence and well cited. It seems a bit unreasonable to expect sources for these, WP:BLUESKY may apply, but I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Ask yourself this: which will cause you less stress and result in less drama: 1) spending two minutes adding a citation or 2) spending hours trying to convince a challenger that the citation isn’t necessary? Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

+1 Donald Albury 18:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup. Just add the sources and you (probably) never have to worry about it again. DonIago (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that WP:BURDEN does not say you must provide citations only for "material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged". It also says inline citaitons are required for "material whose verifiability has been challenged". I don't know if the "good faith" aspect is relevant, but I do think those are claims that can in good faith be challenged. Is the country a kingdom? Is the person a historian? I don't know, and I'm not sure how BLUESKY would apply as those are specific factual questions. If the claims are well-cited in the linked articles, then it should be easy to copy a citation. No article should require someone to click on a wikilink to verify content. – notwally (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

One final consideration… while article A might currently contain something that verifies information on article B, remember that our articles can be edited. At some point in the future, article A may be edited … and no longer contain the something that verifies the information in article B. Best to independently cite the information on every page where it appears. Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you everyone Kowal2701 (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you were asking the wrong question, since Misplaced Pages:Good article criteria#The six good article criteria requires more inline citations than this policy – not merely what's WP:LIKELY to be challenged, but any content for which a challenge would not be unreasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem comes when someone thinks a challenge IS “unreasonable”. But that is where my advice to focus on which reaction involves less work comes into play. Sure, you can spend lots of time (and frustration) debating whether the challenge is reasonable or not… but it is almost always less work to simply shrug and pop in a citation. Let the wookie win. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

'Reasonable' or 'likely' are also in regard to challenges that may happen and not challenges that have happened, which is a separate bullet point. Unsourced content could be removed by an IP editor who never edits again and leaves no edit summary, but the person behind that IP could be the foremost expert in the field removing something they know to be blatantly wrong. Editors shouldn't be required to learn how to properly edit a wiki and our internal WORD SALAD to challenge content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:Let the Wookiee win is still a red link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

But not Let the Wookiee win. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Modifying the first sentence of BLPSPS