Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

(Informal) closure request

Hi, since this discussion s nominally about sourcing (but has now derailed a bit), could any passing/uninvolved editor close it? I don't think it needs a consensus evaluated as such, but closure would nullify the heat/light ratio. Thanks in advance, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 20:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

citing wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I recently had a chat about a citation style.

Illustrated here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirkuk%E2%80%93Haifa_oil_pipeline&oldid=1281204539#cite_ref-37

The chat was on the WP:Verifiability talk page. And it resulted in a dead end and is not a very interesting read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#citing_wikipedia

I am writing this to get a fourth opinion if anyone is interested. I am already eyeballing arbitration.

They don't seem to care much about Verifiability, because the citation style does not diminish it in any way. According to them, because the way WP:CIRCULAR is written, the citation style is illegal, but they are also not really defending their point, because in their mind they don't have to.

I am investing some extra effort to make the citation more useful. Should they be allowed to chase after me and undo my work? Am I really that far out of the box here? I am aware that there is a long standing policy that wikipedia should not be quoted because of reliability issues, but that policy contradicts reality and it would be more appropriate that it should not be quoted unless the editor knows what they are doing. In other words, when the rule is followed only for the sake of following the rule it stops being a policy and becomes an issue of some editors imposing their preference and style on other editors.

I am not interesting in creating a new right for everyone. I usually work on articles that are of low quality where progress is made once every few years when somebody with spare time comes around. Nobody cares about citation style rules in this part of wikipedia, because the main focus is to produce something above meme quality. The simple act of announcing where a particular source is principally handled (already summarized in context) is useful information. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:9E9B:730F:DF1B:8C15 (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Am I really that far out of the box here? Yes. There have been at least two lengthy discussions (I closed one of them) where over a dozen editors of long experience explained, at length, that they disagree entirely with your proposals. They also explained why. That you don't fully accept their explanations doesn't change that. Wikipedia talk:Verifiability was the right place to have this discussion, and you couldn't persuade anyone to change WP:CIRCULAR. You need to let this go. Mackensen (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to change WP:Circular. I am letting go of the idea to change it.

And yet, i say what i say. Is that illogical? 2A02:2455:8423:4800:9E9B:730F:DF1B:8C15 (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding an FAQ to the noticeboard

I think there might be value in adding an FAQ to the noticeboard to answer frequently-asked questions such as "Does a publication being too (political position) make it inherently unreliable?" or "Is (this random blog) reliable no I won't say why I want to know." Simonm223 (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

There's already a header (copied below) that addresses both of the issues you just raised. I don't know that a FAQ would be more effective. Maybe we just need to be more consistent about saying "did you read the header?" It might help a bit to number those issues, so we can say "that's addressed by #x."

The reliability of a source depends on its context. Please supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

RFCs should only be started if there have been previous discussions.

Certain types of sources have specific guidelines:

• Self-published or social media sources are generally not reliable unless the author is a recognized expert, and cannot be used in articles about living people unless written by the subject about themselves.
• User generated content is largely unacceptable.
• Bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution.

FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with FactOrOpinion that the current header more or less accomplishes what a FAQ would... That being said it could work better as a longer FAQ, but off the top of my head I'm not sure what else we would want to say that isn't basically duplicating WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

yeah. The trouble is that nobody who you'd want to read it would read it and take heed. Adding more instructions against wrong behaviour basically doesn't work - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

No one reads the header or edit notice, both of which attempt to point people in the right direction. But would a FAQ on a separate page, with just a link from the header, be worthwhile? It could cover the most basic points in simple language (bias, opinion, user generated content, self published sources, etc) with links to the relevant guideline and policy sections. Include anchor points and new editors could be pointed to the relevant sections. A kind of a 'RSN for dummies' guide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Renaming "Option 4" in RfCs

The typical four option RfC on this page goes:

1. Generally reliable
2. Additional considerations apply
3. Generally unreliable
4. Deprecation

This inaccurately implies that deprecation is another level of unreliability beyond WP:GUNREL, which is a common misconception for those !voting. Specifically, WP:DEPRECATION says deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable. Deprecation is more accurately described as a system to warn editors and autorevert editors when they use a generally unreliable source. It would be more accurate if our RfCs had the following set of options:

1. Generally reliable
2. Additional considerations apply
3. Generally unreliable
4. Generally unreliable, with deprecation

I think the above wording would be better going forwards. I got it from a previous discussion held on this page a long time ago, and I thought we might as well start trying to use it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Doing away with Option 4 altogether is another thought, with a requirement that before a source is subject to Gunrel/Dep, Gunrel first is a requirement (so then RFCs for that are a straight yes/no for already Gunrel sources). Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality and sourcing in Education section

The current version contains several claims needing review:

Disputed Claims

• "Rejected by Kinnaird College..." - Lacks reliable sourcing
• "Scandal with Capt. Safdar..." - Pejorative framing

Proposed Changes

Replace with neutral phrasing supported by:

• GEO TV ([1]) confirming her Master's degree
• Pakistan Times ([2]) noting KEMC attendance

Requesting consensus on these improvements per WP:NPOV. Dg creative (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

You appear to be referring to an issue with a specific article (Maryam Nawaz I assume). This should be discussed on the article talk page, and then possibly at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if the matter cannot be resolved after discussion. This page is intended for discussing changes to the reliable sources noticeboard itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

You have already raised this on the noticeboard, anyone interested should see WP:RSN#Neutral Sourcing for Maryam Nawaz's Education Section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)