Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

Translation

Someone rejected an edit where I supplied a translation of a German phrase, on the grounds that I did not cite a source for the translation (which I couldn't do, because the translation was my own). Now of course, a translation might be wrong or biased; but it's readily open to challenge. Rejecting it purely because the translation is original seems absurd. Mhkay (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It would be better if you post a link to the article where the edit happened so the context can be analyzed. Thinker78 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, this isn't the place to talk about that. Try Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Phone conversations as reliable sources

I ran across the Frank Stanford in which numerous phone conversations are cited as sources for a great deal of information in the article. I started to remove the cites for phone conversations (I haven't removed the actual info that was relying on those "sources", yet), but it turns out there's a lot of them, and I came here to see if this issue has been raised before. My gut feeling is that it should probably all go, as none of it is verifiable, but I wanted to ask for other opinions first. Rockypedia (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Your instinct is correct. Sources have to be published and fixed so that others can go verify the content from them. A phone conversation is none of those things. Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Though I would say that reliable sources that themselves use phone or email conversations should be fine. The source's reliable vouches for the content they publish. We as WP editors cannot use these ourselves. --Masem (t) 15:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me suggest a further nuance. When an interview is published in a reliable source, we can use it here. The reliability of the source verifies that the interview was real and that the published interview is an accurate representation of what was actually said. The reliability of the source does not, however, verify the truth and accuracy of what was said by the person interviewed but only that he or she said it. Thus what is said in the interview must be regarded as a PRIMARY source, and thus subject to the strict restrictions under PRIMARY about avoiding analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of what was said, made even stronger by the "extreme caution" and other restrictions under WP:BLPPRIMARY if BLP is applicable. Within these restraints, a phone call is no different than an interview. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

IF the phone call was recorded (or transcripted), AND that recording (or transcript) is made available to the public by a reliable source, THEN we can say it is similar to a published interview, and deem it a reliable primary source (with all the restrictions that apply). But a phone conversation between the subject and a Wikipedian... no. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Wholly agreed; the call or interview has to be reliably published. My comments were building on Jytdog's and Masem's. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• The phone call ref was like this and simply recounts the phone call. Absolutely not OK. Ref.

I am more curious about whether these two refs are OK: Refs. Hm... these also seem to be recounting phone calls but the records are apparently there to be verified.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... I would be inclined to accept this... while the editor may have communicated by phone, there is an independent researcher behind the information. In each case, the actual “source” seems to be attendance records that were pulled from a file by an employee of the institution (someone in the school’s registrar’s office). Presumably, any one wishing to verify the information could go to the registrar’s office and see for themselves that the records contain what we say they contain. This seems more like a “rare document” situation than an “interview” situation. Perhaps the citation needs rewording? Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah i left it for now. my feeling is the same. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• i looked at this more closely. edit notes like this Many more changes made. Talked to Willett by phone and Linda by phone (twice), confirmed details with the Northwest Film Center as well as U. of A. Special Collections, etc. [email protected] and this Many more changes made. Confirmed U. of A. student details extensively, talked to Stokesbury (and many uncited contemporaries), corresponded with Ginny, etc. [email protected]

Two poems are included in the article as it stands now and there have been as many as three (e.g here). The footnote on one currently says "reprinted here with permission from C. D. Wright, rights holder" and on the other, "reprinted here with permission from Ginny Stanford, rights holder.".

The minnow poem was added in this diff. The claim of a right to publish it in WP is in this edit note, and the claim of permission was added to the footnote here

another poem was added here and the right to publish it in WP was claimed in this edit note. that claim of permission was added to the footnote here

So that kind of stuff has gone on. That was all done away back in 2008. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

News organizations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations

I notice that "editorial oversight" or "editorial control" is mentioned elsewhere, but here, in this section, where, it would seem, it would be most relevant.

I would also like to see more guidance about how to evaluate non mainstream news sources. Benjamin (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Understanding of WP:USERG at a film article

We need opinions from editors at Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Should we include an Audience response section? since there are different interpretations of WP:USERG being argued there. A permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I've seen this issue pop up before at a few other pages. In each case, it's ended up not being included (though I personally disagree with that). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Should content from predatory OA journals be removed on sight as always unreliable?

This question has been raised at Talk:Superstition in Turkey. WP:RS mentions POAJ twice but is not clear whether all of this content should be removed on sight as 100% unreliable or we should just be cautious with it and deal with it on case by case basis. RS also cautions about blogs or random external links, but our practice has always been to deal with them on case by case basis - see who's the author, whether there are controversial claims (for which higher sourcing standards are required, etc). How should we treat stuff from POAJ? Frankly, I don't think they should be removed on sight because while they don't have proper peer review and hence are essentially self-published, but as our policy notes "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims." Given that a lot of articles on POAJ are published by academics (not particularly good ones, but academics nonetheless, hence 'experts'), I think they should not be removed on sight unless they are used to source said extraordinary claims. If someone wants to remove them and the content sourced to them, they should make a case on talk pointing out errors or other problems with the source, and just saying 'content has been removed because it was sourced to a POAJ', particularly where such content does not appear controversial or extraordinary, is insufficient. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Nearly always, yes. The only reason I would accept a predatory journal is if an expert got swindled into publishing into one and the expert is normally reliable. And would only accept it for basic facts not new claims. Or accept as a primary source to back up the claims made by the journal in disputes about the journal, or in a discussion of junk/predatory science. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I think Headbomb put it well. The material that the POAJ cite supports also should be removed, unless it is wholly noncontroversial. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

There's also the fact that if it's a basic fact, it shouldn't be too hard to find better sources either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Headbomb here. There is also the question of our rewarding unethical publishing practices: If we use a POAJ as a reference, we are granting them some measure of legitimacy and, essentially, advertising for them. We feed into their business model. This isn't a concern when we cite, e.g., a scientist's blog as a source for "expert opinion". XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• nearly always yes. predatory publishers, by definition, have poor editorial peer review and editorial practices, so things they publish are unreliable. So yes we remove them because a) we aim for high quality, always, and b) we are especially vulnerable to these unreliable refs being used, since (i) we have a preference for OA refs and these are of course are OA, and (ii) way too many lazy editors, especially student editors, don't evaluate sources and grab this-thing-that-is-online and use it and "hey all the better if it looks like a valid journal". We have to be vigilant not to assist these scammers by becoming an engine for referrals, which we could very easily become. I am very grateful to Guy for his labor in searching for these and removing them - we all should be. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog, XOR'easter, and Headbomb. Content based solely on what is published in a predatory journal shouldn't be acceptable Wikipedia content. Asking someone to establish the case that there are errors in the content before removing it, as Piotrus has suggested above, is completely the wrong way of going about it and is at odds with WP:V. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Case study with the case which prompted the discussion. The POAJ article in question is an extremely naive work by a nobody student. It does have the basic facts straight, because the author cites them from reliable sources rather than from her own research. Which actually confirms the point expressed above: if something is worth citing from a POAJ, then it should be available from good sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

This does seem like a reasonable suggestion that could be added to our article: avoid citing from POAJ, but check their sources, and consider looking them up and using them instead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

YouTube as references/sources for official music videos

For a musical artist's videography article, can we use official music videos YouTube links as the references? I saw Taylor Swift videography article does that (which is a featured article), so just want to double check to be sure. Do YT official links constitute a primary source? Does Wikipedia have a preference for a secondary sources or are YT links fine (for music videos)? Thank you!!!--TerryAlex (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

National bias in WP RS re ‘intervention’

Are there any WP RS news media that refer — in reporter’s voice — to their own country’s intervention in other country’s electoral (or other) affairs as ‘interference’? Humanengr (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

By way of example, U.S. news media considered as RS in WP rarely (if ever) refer to U.S. intervention in other countries as ‘interference’. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Good question! Writing from memory, several members of the Indian press were critical of the Indian takeover of Sikkim. (India had been "interfering" in Sikkim for a long time, apparently legally, but the last election before the take-over was controversial.) Similar sitation applies to allegations of interference in Nepal, esepcially when there are allegations of a blockade. I am sorry that I don't have any references handy, but I can dig them up if it is important. (Mind you that non-interference in other country's affairs is a core principle of India's foreign policy from the days of Jawaharlal Nehru.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. That would seem to run directly opposite to what my searches show for U.S. news media regarded as RS on WP. Any such refs would serve as useful counter-examples, so if you happen across them, great. And thanks for the cite to Nehru’s foreign policy; I see here that he “described the five pillars to be used as a guide for Sino-Indian relations, which were first put forth by Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai Called Panchsheel (five restraints), these principles would later serve as the basis of the Non-Aligned Movement. Jawaharlal Nehru was the architect of the Non-Alignment Movement.” Principle #3: “Mutual non-interference in domestic affairs” invokes ‘non-interference’ explicitly.

But my primary interest is to see if any here can identify similar use of the term ‘interference’ by a U.S. (or, if not that, any Western or allied nation) RS reporter to characterize U.S. intervention abroad? Anyone? tia, Humanengr (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. See also Non-Aligned Movement, of which Nehru was a champion. The Parchsheel agreement did not do much good for India because China still blamed India for CIA's interference in Tibet. This (mis)perception was one of the causes of the Sino-Indian War. Some scholars still believe that India was involved in Tibet. Knowing Nehru, I think it would have been highly unlikely.

The principle of non-interference had its roots in the anti-colonial movements, because colonialism was nothing but interference in the extreme. So, the former colonies would appreciate the worth of non-interference. The former colonial powers probably think it is a yawn. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

References

And they continue to yawn while effectively pursuing similar ends under the heading of ‘foreign intervention’ (a neutral or positive term) rather than labeling it ‘interference’ (a more negative term). (Thx for the various details re Soviet, China, Tibet, India, CIA; that all rings bells.) Humanengr (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Please remember that the question asked is not: “Did country X interfere in country Y?” ... but “Did the media of country X use the term “interfere” when talking about what X was doing?” Most media would use more positive sounding terms if they approve of what X is doing... and would only use “interfere” if they disapprove. So... you would have to look at opposition media for the usage. Blueboar (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thx, Blueboar, and you’re exactly on point that the question is “Did the media of country X use the term ‘interfere’ when talking about what X was doing?”. Also thank you for the phrasing “if they approve” and “if they disapprove”. Using that, imagine two situations: 1) nation A takes action in nation B, and 2) nation C takes action in nation A. Media in nation A overwhelmingly approve #1 and characterize it as ‘intervention’ and disapprove #2 as ‘interference’. Just checking that makes sense before proceeding further. Humanengr (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, "intervention" does not necessarily indicate approval... but "interference" almost always indicates disapproval. I would suggest you explore media reports from the late 1960s regarding the US involvement in Vietnam... I doubt many US media outlets would have used "interference" in the early 1960s (when involvement was generally approved of in the US). However, by the late 1960s or 1970s attitudes had changed, and the chance that an outlet used "interference" goes way up. Do I know of a specific instance of the word being used? No... but I would be surprised if no one used it. Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Basically agree re ‘intervention’ and ‘interference’; the former typically neutral or positive, the latter negative. Also, thx for enunciating the temporal element.

Backing up a step, I’m realizing I should amend the § title to “National bias in WP RS re foreign ‘intervention’”. I struggled with the title as it is a compound topic, bringing in effects of national bias in news media, WP criteria for identifying media as RS, and weighing of RS for use. Your statement of the question captures the first part of that, but I wanted to indicate the broader context. Will write after further research. Humanengr (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Template:Blueboar and all, Offered for consideration:

A WP search for <"Russia interfered" OR "Russian interference”> yields 470 hits, the phrase appears in 3 as an article title; in many cited articles; and in the title of a WP ’Sister Project”, … . The phrase is freely used by U.S. reporters and editors to describe Russian actions.

In contrast, a WP search for <"America interfered" OR "American interference" OR "U.S. interfered" OR "U.S. interference”> yields 61 hits. In 0 of those 61 does the phrase appear with supporting a citation of a U.S. reporter using that phrase to characterize U.S. actions. Where it does appear, it is used, e.g., to characterize foreign perceptions of U.S. actions; with citation not to news media but to a book or an academic work; or without citation to a source.

(A search for <Vietnam “American interference”> yielded 5 hits, one of which was relevant. The mention was, again, that of foreign perception of U.S. actions.)

For further context, note that, per Foreign electoral intervention,

A 2016 study by Dov Levin found that, among 938 global elections examined, the United States and Russia combined had involved themselves in about one out of nine (117), with the majority of those (68%) being through covert, rather than overt, actions. The same study found that "on average, an electoral intervention in favor of one side contesting the election will increase its vote share by about 3 percent," an effect large enough to have potentially changed the results in seven out of 14 U.S. presidential elections occurring after 1960. According to the study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36.

References

Further searches welcome.

To what does anyone attribute the above discrepancy between “Russia interference” and “America interference” in WP? Humanengr (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Ray Thomas cause of death

Can this post on Facebook, by his wife Lee, be used as a source in his article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Any proof it is actually wife behind the account? But either way sorry for her loss. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea how proves that a particular named user is "behind" the name on any Facebook account. And, even if I did, I suspect that would be WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Then it fails criteria 4 of WP:SOCIALMEDIA. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Use this, instead. In general, when low-quality sources can have their accuracy confirmed by reference to high-quality sources, it's best to just use the high quality source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. His wife has posted on her Facebook page that Ray died of "a massive heart attack". Officially no cause of death has been stated. That link from The New York Times very clearly illustrates the problem that multiple media reports have caused. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well normally if the account is associated with him or his wife, I would take it as an acceptable assumption that his wife or a close family member was behind the posting. But that's still a primary source, and (though I'm not suggesting this is the case here), causes of death can be touchy subjects that primary sources close to the deceased might have cause to lie about. So I wouldn't use such a primary source for anything except very uncontroversial statements that can't be sourced elsewhere. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. So it looks unlikely that we'd be able to use it here, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Unusable per above: given no one else has even re-reported the wife's claim, keep it to what the NYTimes says: No reason given though known to have been suffering from cancer. --Masem (t) 19:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he spoke out very publicly about his prostate cancer. So that is covered quite prominently in the article. But obviously we can't put anything in the way of infobox "cause of death" or Categories. I think the media reports were part of the reason why his wife Lee felt so upset - his message was that the disease could be fought, as he himself had shown for over four years. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)