Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:17, 24 August 2020

Discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard To discuss the reliability of specific sources, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN).

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

Archives

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

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

Movies or Documentaries as Sources

This might be a stupid question but I am wondering if documentaries or movies can be used as secondary sources for Misplaced Pages references? I haven't been able to find any mention of them in the policies on sources. If they can be used, what kind of 'publication' credentials are needed? thanks Mekinna1 (talk)

Yes, many documentaries and some movies meet Misplaced Pages's requirements for a reliable source. Misplaced Pages:Published briefly mentions video. Misplaced Pages:Citing sources has some details on how to cite videos, and Misplaced Pages:Video links and Misplaced Pages:YTCOPYRIGHT goes into more detail on how (and whether) to link to the video in a citation. --DavidCary (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you DavidCary. Mekinna1 (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Page full of bad sources

Hey everyone I found this page and a lot of its sources are cited as unreliable for being blogs. Someone recently added a source on that page but it's for a YouTube video and it was placed by the user to promote another artist so I don't know if it counts as reliable either. It's my first time finding a page that has lots of sources cited unreliable and I thought they should be removed but since they are cited instead of just removed I wasn't sure if it had to be discussed at a talk page first or could those sources just be removed. If someone could either tell me what the proper step is to correcting that page or look into that page themselves I would appreciate it. FanDePopLatino (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Go for it, FanDePopLatino. Your tags should have sufficiently alerted anyone who would object to your next step. Since they haven't corrected the shortcomings of the sourcing of the article, which you weren't required to warn them about, you are empowered by Misplaced Pages policy to remove poorly sourced content from any wiki biography. Per WP:BLPSOURCES: Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." You have certainly challenged the material and sources. I checked a few of the sources you tagged... self-published, blogs, questionable, etc. You may find after verification that this person is not even notable enough to have an article in Misplaced Pages, and was only using it as advertising. Normal Op (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank You @Normal Op:. I appreciate you helping me out with that. Now I also need help with this article. I had removed some content stating that the song was the official theme for the 2004 Copa America tournament and explained why that information was wrong. That information was unsourced and obviously false but another user keeps adding it back with a citation needed tag. I have explained to them several times why that content needs to be removed but they keep adding it back and insist that it needs to stay on the article with the tag. I don't want to get into an edit war with them but they won't stop adding back that false information on the song's article stating that it needs to stay there with the cn tag. Can you help me out with that please. FanDePopLatino (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Activist editors ignoring WP:SELFSOURCE

I am requesting clarity re WP:SELFSOURCE with regards editors using activism/advocacy websites as sources for citations on biography pages, effectively using Misplaced Pages to continue promotion of their activism and prolonging/perpetuating/expanding their own use of celebrity branding over many years through Misplaced Pages.

I have encountered a few cases of blowback when I have tried to remove non-RS content per WP:SELFSOURCE. Some editors think that if Activism X's website says blahblahblah about Person Y, then it is okay to put Activism-X's blahblahblah claim on Person-Y's Misplaced Pages article. Their assertion is that Act-X is talking about themselves. I assert that per WP:SELFSOURCE, Activism-X may only be used as a citation to claim what Activism-X says about activism-X, and may not ever be used as a citation to state any claim about Person-Y. I read the policy as meaning that an editor must instead provide a secondary source that verifies the claim by Activism-X about Person-Y, because Act-X's website is a self-published, non-reliable source. It's like these editors are confused about how far the phrase "about themselves" extends in WP:SELFSOURCE.

Especially in the case where Person-Y may have been hired by Activism-X to appear in an advertisement for the benefit of Activism-X using celebrity branding (whether or not Person-Y was paid money or donated their time and name). It would seem inappropriate to use Activism-X's website's claims as a citation in Person-Y's Misplaced Pages article. The purpose is self-promotion of Activism-X; there's never any further content on the page except for "Joe Blow supports our cause". It's just name-dropping, advertising, and link spam. There is no secondary source saying it happened. It could actually be a hoax where Activism-X is just using a celebrity's name to promote their cause. There is no editorial oversight on many of these activist websites; they just don't qualify as reliable sources.

Here is an example to illustrate the problem: an editor made a series of edits on 2012-10-14 where they inserted content about "Oscar's Law" activism into at least 5 celebrity articles. Eight years later, three of the articles they inserted this into still have the edits (1 2 3), and two have been corrected (4 5). Here are two sample diffs showing the insertions: .

They aren't the only editor adding this particular non-RS website as a citation. There are currently 9 articles using oscarslaw.org as a "citation" on wiki BLP pages (see search result ), and one that mentions "Oscar's Law" with no citation at all (see search result ).

I attempted to remove the content and citation from Sia (musician) but was not only reverted, I was challenged/queried, had my detailed explanation on the Talk page half-ignored, and was told I was "misreading the SPS rule". Presumably this advocate meant self-published sources guidelines, rather than various guidelines I have been operating from, including the Questionable sources guidelines and:

• WP:SELFSOURCE: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves ... so long as ... It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
• WP:BLPSOURCES: Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."
• WP:CHALLENGE: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.", and "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.", and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

This isn't the only activism or activist-website that I'm having this trouble with (you oughta see this one! ), but it was a small enough example that still illustrates the problem. There seems to be a rampant problem with this and I'm just trying to correct the encyclopedia per policy. About one in every 20 corrective edits I make there is some sort of activism blowback to waste my time.

I just want to make sure that I'm reading this policy correctly. I don't think WP:SELFSOURCE is ambiguous at all. Do others see it the same as I do, or is there another viewpoint I'm missing? Perhaps the problem is the wiki phenomenon of WP:ACTIVIST and WP:ADVOCACY, and I should just tackle each one as it comes and WP:AN/EW anyone who starts an edit war over edits correcting such activism.

Requesting feedback, please.

— Normal Op (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Like noted in this thread, you are an activist editor. I couldn't care less about supporting PETA. And many on this site know that I do not tolerate editors engaging in activism editing. What I care about is your disruptive editing. Your WP:APPNOTE violation above is just more of the same. And it is a violation because it is not at all neutral. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Strike three, Flyer22 Frozen. You have spent the day casting aspersions on multiple boards and talk pages. Normal Op (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You say that despite this and the above. There is no "strike three." Go report me at WP:ANI and see what happens. Someone else might mention your WP:APPNOTE violation above. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages:SOURCE?" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Misplaced Pages:SOURCE?. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 9#Misplaced Pages:SOURCE? until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – The Grid (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of PETA

Opinions are needed on the following Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Reliability of PETA. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC on reliability of headlines

There is an RfC on whether the reliable sources guideline should state that headlines are unreliable. If you are interested, please see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Reliability of headlines. — Newslinger talk 01:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Two RFCs on reliability re: 1) CNN and 2) MSNBC

Inspired by the recent RFC about Fox News, I have started two separate RFCs on the RS noticeboard on the reliability of these media outlets. NOT intended as a Deprecation question. Please see: RFC on CNN and RFC on MSNBC. Blueboar (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

press releases

Currently this content guideline mentions that some sources "... should not be treated differently than the underlying press release". But it never mentions how we should treat press releases. Are press releases a "deprecated source", or are they sometimes OK as a "self-published sources"? --DavidCary (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

A press release is a primary source. It is reliable for statements about the company that is making it but not for much else (but most press release do not go beyond anything beyond the company so rarely an issue). --Masem (t) 23:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding Biased sources in BLPs

Is there any policy regarding the use of sources that have a personal conflict or some type of conflict of interest that impacts their reliability and/or objectivity as a source? Particularly if that source is being used extensively in a BLP? Like is there a policy on the use of tell-all books by ex-wives, for instance, or are they just treated like other biased sources that one should balance them out with other sources and try to document any personal history or conflict between the subject of the BLP and the author of the source? Is this a policy that should be articulated on this page somehow (or maybe it's already in a different policy somewhere else?) - thanks. Mekinna1 (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)