Wikipedia talk:Independent sources/Archive 1

Archive 1

Two Independent Sources

As it stands, this proposal does little beyond the already existing Verifiability policy that articles should rely on credible, third-party sources.

I would go one step further, by making it say "Any article on a topic is required to cite at least two reliable sources, independent ..." This seems to be a modest expectation of minimum encyclopedic standards. --SteveMcCluskey 22:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There are certainly exceptions to this. When a particular reference is generally considered the key authority on a particular subject, I see no need for a second one. Consider the article LR parser - the reference on that article (Aho, Sethi & Ullman) is so frequently-referenced that any other source on the subject may as well not exist, because nobody who knows about the topic would recommend anything but that one book. It covers the subject in as much depth as anyone reading an encyclopedia article on the subject would realistically want. It is accessible to anyone who is able to understand the article. Copies of the book are widely available, and it is unlikely to go out-of-print any time soon as it is a standard undergraduate textbook in almost every computer science degree course in the English-speaking world. What more could a second reference add? JulesH 16:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I like this essay - it explains the rationale behind WP:V very well. While I personally think that multiple independent sources are an excellent idea (it has become a de-facto standard in notability guideline pages, for example), there seems to be some opposition to the idea. Perhaps saying that multiple sources are necessary when using only one introduces the possibility of a non-neutral point of view in the article? Examples like JulesH's above probably wouldn't fall under this, but I can think of a few examples where one independent source just isn't enough. Ziggurat 03:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of independence

Independence means much more than this. The sources must be independent of each other, not just the subject. If a journalist publishes an investigative report on some scandal, the several other newspapers that report on the issue but do not independently investigate and verify the issue themselves do not count as independent sources. It all rests on one investigation, one newspaper and is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Also, isn't this redundant with Verifiability? —Centrx→talk • 22:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, sadly it isn't. Too many people think verifiability allows an article to be written using one primary source. Still, this is an essay, I don't see what harm it does. Feel free to edit it to address any concerns you have. Hiding Talk 12:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Topic = Source

This essay seems to use topic as a synonym for source. It seems to only concern itself with cases where the topic is a publication, such as a book or movie. Suppose the topic is not a publication, though. If the topic were algebra, how would I find a source that describes algebra "from the outside"? --Gerry Ashton 17:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Eh? Don't understand you at all. It doesn't use topic as a synonym for source at all. It uses topic to mean the topic of an article. I'll try and make that clearer. Not sure what you are trying to address with your point about algebra. Hiding Talk 18:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, it's already explained what a topic is: Any article on a topic. As to algebra, not sure how an article could use algebra as the sole source, but if you think it could, well this essay would certainly apply there too as much as it applies anywhere else. Hiding Talk 18:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me be more specific. The essay says "Any article on a topic is required to cite a reliable source independent of the topic itself...." OK, suppose the topic is algebra. That is, I'm writing an article about algebra. What does it mean to say that a source is independent of algebra? That makes no sense.

Now if the topic were the TV series Heros, the statement "Any article on Heros is required to cite a reliable source independent of Heros" makes perfect sense; when writing such an article I should not just write about what I saw while watching the show, I should also find reviews from reliable sources that are not affiliated with anyone who had a hand in creating or broadcasting Heros. That is why I say the essay uses topic as a synonym for source; the essay only makes sense if the topic is a publication. --Gerry Ashton 18:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Still don't follow you. It doesn't just work for publications. It works for people. "Any article on Tom Cruise is required to cite a reliable source independent of Tom Cruise" It works for algebra. I'd say we should source textbooks about algebra, rather than algebra itself for an article. An article regarding a-b=a+(-b) would require a source outside of it, describing it. HTH. Hiding Talk 18:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

People, publications, and organizations can be sources. We understand what it means to be independent of a person, organization, or publication. The independent source didn't just copy or paraphrase the first source, doesn't get paid by the first source, etc. But an algebra textbook can't be independent of algebra; how can you write an algebra textbook without using algebra? Now, a book about Tom Cruise would probably be independent of algebra, but it wouldn't be much use in writing an article about algebra. --Gerry Ashton 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, why on earth would you use a book about Tom Cruise in an article on algebra? I'm confused. Is the book on algebra written by someone who is describing it? If so, I can't see the problem. That's an independent source. Hiding Talk 19:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)Ok, lets start again. I decide to write a Wikipedia article about the topic algebra. Just the general mathematical ideas that together form the topic of algebra. I should be able to go into your essay and substitute algebra for topic and the guideline should still make sense. So I take the statement

Any article on a topic is required to cite a reliable source independent of the topic itself...

I substitute algebra for topic and I get

Any article on algebra is required to cite a reliable source independent of algebra itself...

So what does it mean for a source to be independent of algebra? --User:Gerry Ashton 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Um, I'm still not clear here. Perhaps you are taking the sentence and the essay out of context? Hiding Talk 15:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • The essay seems to presume that the topic is a person, a group of people, or a publication (which of course are authored by a person or group). In this case, the word "independent" means something; it would be other people, or their publications, who are not subject to undue influence by the topic person or topic group. But some subjects have nothing to do with any particular person or group, such as algebra. These topics do not require independent sources because there is no person or group to be independent from. --Gerry Ashton 18:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Gerry, I was initially impatient with this line of questioning, and thought you were being pedantic. I was going to lecture you about not requiring human language to work with the precision of logical symbolism (as in algebra). Then it occurred to me that this essay is likely to be resorted to by people in the midst of controversy, and some are likely to try to twist this article so as to support an agenda. The point you've identified might serve as a loophole in that case, exploitable to prolong circular argument and preserve a POV edit.

Example: Suppose I'm a creationist seeking to impose my POV on an article on the theory of evolution. I resort to this article, arguing that because the subject is the origins of genus Homo, and all scientific scholarship on this article is produced by members of the genus, the only "independent" source on this topic is divine revelation. It's a sophistic, dishonest argument, but could be sustained for a time -- which is the whole point: to wear down editors who abide by the 5 Pillars and thus keep their bias on display.

So you've won me over. I support adding some precision to this discussion. Have any ideas? -- Alarob 23:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest clarifying along these lines:

• When the topic of an article is a person or organization, information reported as fact (which should be the bulk of the article) should be derived from reliable sources which have gathered information by some means other than merely collecting the statements and representations of the subject of the article. Quotes and statements from the subject of the article are appropriate to add detail or support to general coverage, especially when describing the opinions of the subject (such as a reaction to something, or how they prefer to be identified).
• When the topic of an article is an artifact or entity with informational content, such as a book or a scientific theory, both dependent and independent sources are appropriate. The article should probably summarize the intellectual content, using the subject itself as a primary source in the case of something like a book, or likely using authoritative secondary sources in the case of a collectively created entity like a scientific theory. But independent sources must also be brought to bear. What is the social and intellectual context? How is the entity perceived (controversially, as a factual depiction of the universe, as a masterful work of fiction, as part of a larger theory, etc.)? In some cases, there are disputes over the interpretation of the subject of the article, making its use as a primary source problematic. For instance, theological disputes over the meaning of various verses in the Christian Bible have resulted in some groups taking positions that apparently contradict the literal meaning of the words being interpreted. Independent context is also critical to understanding parody and allegory.
• Many articles concern topics that have no direct intellectual content. For instance, one cannot quote the planet Neptune, and the typical rock has very little to say about its history. In these cases the subject of the article cannot be used as a source, so "independence" of sourcing from the subject of the article is not a concern.

I would also either change the title of the essay to something like "Independence from subject" or add a section to address the meaning "independence of sources from each other" which is the common meaning covered on our actual article on independent sources. -- Beland 07:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It really depends on the situation...

I have seen this AFD debate where the link to this essay has been written up, and I think some thoughts on the value of independent sources is in order. Since the debate I linked to was about airlines, I will continue with using that as a case study:

• There is no need whatsoever to not take an airline's word for it when they say that they fly to a location in their airline schedule. Honestly, what airline would deliberately lie and say that they flew to a destination when they didn't? If an airline claimed that they had flights to New York and didn't they would run into problems immediately when passengers tried booking tickets.
• On the same token, we can take the airlines word for it when they say they have a fleet of so-so many airlines and they have so-so many seats on the airliner. Oh, yes, we can get independent sources for this as well, [1] and [2] for example, but they have probably based much of their data either straight from the airlines or from random observations of people sending in comments which is no more reliable than a wiki. The nonindendent source of the airline is reliable enough. Again, the airline would soon be called upon if they claimed that they had a fleet of Boeing 787 with first class seating in the entire cabin, while actually flying Boeing 247s. The airline has very little motivation for lying about this.
• In a case where there is a clear conflict of interest however would be immediately after an air crash. If the airline provides a press release saying "We feel a deep grievance for the tragic loss of life which happened. At present, the cause of this tragedy appears to be mistakes made at Air Traffic Control who gave our pilots orders to descend too early with the result that it collide with another aircraft. Safety remains a top priority at our airline, and the event will of course be investigated thoroughly by our team of experts who will offer any lessons to our team of dedicated and highly skilled pilots." In this case it would be inappropriate to use this as a source for statements like "ATC error was the cause of the accident" and "Safety is a great concern for the airline". In this case we would truly expect a non-independent press release to be clearly biased. We could perhaps use it as a source for saying "the airline claimed that ATC was to blame for the accident". It is not out of the question that an independent report would may conclude that the accident was partly caused by the airplane's radar malfunctioning, and that it should not have been flying in the first place.

My point is: Non-independent sources should be used with some caution. If there is a reasonable cause to believe that the source might be biased or inaccurate, we should either abstain from using it or make it explicit that this is a claim from a non-independent source. But in many cases such a source would have no real motivation for saying something directly false, and in such cases it is a source as reliable and as valid as any other independent source, in fact sometimes more reliable. I would expect an airline to know more about its own company than a random journalist writing in an independent newspaper. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Non profit organizations

For a non-profit organization, what would be an acceptable source? Would a newspaper article describing the work it has done in a community be acceptable? Thanks for any help! Julieatrci 15:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an essay, not a policy or guideline. By the standards of this essay, a newspaper article would normally be considered independent. Wikipedia:Reliable sources contains the current guidelines on what is a reliable source. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) is the current guideline on what it takes to show notability for organizations. For a local non-profit that is not a piece of a larger organization, look for multiple publications in the local press or local history books. Be sure the article shows some encyclopedic importance of the organization and the independent sources validate that. GRBerry 23:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

template

we already have {{primarysources}}, which is pretty much exactly the template this article asks for. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Essays do not need to be simply requests. They can be justifications and explanations. —Centrx→talk • 16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Section?

Does this article really need to tell us we can discuss the article on the talk page? Does this imply that I'm not supposed to be discussing other essays on their respective talk pages? -Verdatum (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How can this be upgraded to a guideline?

I really think this essay should become a guideline. Why? Because, especially in the more contentious articles where much criticism can be found, biased, though possibly reliable, sources can create a laundry list of contentions which can unnecessarily bloat an article. It would be a good idea to temper that phenomenon by strengthening the weight of this essay. MrMurph101 (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Add the guideline tag and see what happens. Be prepared to explain the addition on this talk page. Hiding T 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess I can be WP:BOLD. If there are no objections I'll do so in the next day. MrMurph101 (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Where to start? Okay, it doesn't have a nutshell; (b) the "Discussion" section (as noted immediately above) is pointless; (c) if an article that doesn't have at least one independent source, the proper thing is to look at the notability guideline, because it's questionable whether the article should exist at all; (d) the first sentence on the page refers to the page itself; if this is a guideline, it should be offering advice to readers, not saying that the page "gives the opinions of some editors"; similar sentences include ones that begin "The idea is"; "It has been noticed, however"; and "This requirement for independent sources is so as to"; and (e) if one removes all the redundancy and self-referential sentences, there really isn't much left. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Having said that, there are a lot of links to this essay. But I get the sense that many of links are there because of the issue that independent sources are needed for controversial facts, something not mentioned at all in the essay. So, for example, a website can be used for the basis (say) of when a company was founded, unless that fact is disputed. Or an autobiography or a company history authorized by a company should not be treated as a fully reliable source, though still usable. Or that a journal published by an association does not prove, in itself, notability. In fact, perhaps the best way to (re)build this into a useful guideline would be to look very closely at when the essay was cited, and figure out the points being made. That would include:

(a) a lack of independent sources indicates a potential notability problem, as well as a potential NPOV problem (b) independent sources should be preferred for controversial facts, and any disagreement regarding these must be made clear when the facts are discussed. (c) independent sources must be used for judgmental aspects of a subject (for example, an organization is a "leader in the field of X", or "has demonstrated that Y can do Z"); to do otherwise is an NPOV problem. Use of non-independent sources as support for such statements is wrong and should be deleted by editors.

Such a guideline needs to begin with a clear definition of what are and aren't independent sources; that in itself would be very helpful (and examples would be good, too).

In summary, guidelines normally use the word "should" (or similar) a lot - their purpose is to tell editors what to do (and not to do). Again, the links to the essay are where people were citing the essay as support; that means that it should be possible to figure out the points of disagreement between editors, and actually take sides - word the guideline so that one editor is clearly right and the other is clearly wrong (where "right" and "wrong" mean following or not following the new guideline). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• (ec-will read second post)****Thanks for the reply which was basically what I was asking for, what needs to be done to make this a guideline. It went over a day and no one objected so I was bold. And now to your points: a) adding a "nutshell" shouldn't be a problem b)section removed. c) all the more reason this should be a guideline d)The wording can be changed to reflect that e)A guideline is not a policy so this does not "written in stone" and "common sense" should be used so not everything has to be eliminated but it can be a check on the bloat I see. I'm mainly concerned with contentious material. POV pushers find sources that are generally reliable but only tell one side of the story and leads to a POV pusher on the other side to find another source that tells the other side of the story which creates massive text on one topic of the subject which leads to an unbalanced article on the subject. Requiring an IS helps keep this from happening. MrMurph101 (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As it stands the Essay speaks mainly about current topics where independent sources are news media rather than internal sources. Before it makes it's way to Guideline standard, it should address the issue of independent sources in the context of academic topics. There it would involve issues like is a report of the text of a drug that is funded by the manufacturer an independent source -- before we say "of course not" we'd be wise to remember that manufacturers fund the acceptance trials of their drugs.

My thoughts on independent sources come from the newspapers' criterion, familiar to anyone who saw "All the President's Men," of two unrelated sources as being necessary before publishing a report in the paper. From this perspective, independent sources are independent of each other, not independent of the entity being described. This transfers nicely to the academic world, where two independent researchers come to similar conclusions.

Perhaps, as was suggested earlier, this concept should be limited to especially controversial topics, as a corollary of Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• A nutshell is not required for something to be a policy or a guideline. Hiding T 13:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger

One of these pages is redundant, it makes sense to merge them and work out what the best title is. Hiding T 16:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Essays are almost never redundant, because they represent the opinion of an editor. Randomran (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely and fundamentally disagree. A user space essay is the opinion of an editor. A wikipedia space essay is free to be edited mercilessly. But it's obvious we have completely different ideas on collaboration and the betterment of the encyclopedia. It's inane to have multiple essays on the exact same issue if we can avoid it. That said, I don't want to create any WP:OWN issues, and since you've removed the tags as a done deal, there's nothing more here to be said. Hiding T 16:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course an essay is free to be edited, but just short of changing the fundamental argument. If I can, then I know a bunch of controversial essays that could be rewritten and sanitized with a mere RFC. Randomran (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, an essay is free to be edited full stop. Consensus determines content, there is no other limiting factor. But like I say, we're not really on the same page here. I really can't see the need for two essays on the same issue, and I would have thought merging the two into one page would have been something for the community to discuss, but since you're not interested in having that discussion, I can't see any value in continuing this discussion. Hiding T 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really support merging the two as I think they make different arguments, although they are on the same topic. It's why I wouldn't merge WP:FANCRUFT and WP:ITSCRUFT. Randomran (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you don't support the merge. It just would have been nice to have had outside input and a chance to discuss the issue with other editors is all. Maybe there would have been a way to work out which view was preferable, maybe both views could have been accommodated as has happened at other essays, maybe the consensus would have been that they actually say the same thing, near as damn it, or maybe your view would have been upheld. But we'll never know now. I'm not going to be a dick about it anymore than I already have, and I apologise for being that much of a one. Regards, Hiding T 17:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah you weren't a dick, it was a fair suggestion. Not right now. But maybe in the future, as I figure out what my next step in the notability debates will be. Randomran (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-independent sources

I just added some healthy skepticism into a new section I have created. I hope this does not come across as overly paranoid. This may not be relevant to most topics, but:

(a) I see the press-release issue come up very frequently in AfD discussions, esp. those about corporations.

(b) The issue of conflicts-of-interest is subtle but is of the utmost importance in highly controversial topics in which there is often a lack of scientific/academic consensus, or appearance thereof--for example, controversy over health effects of herbicides, or the effects of various economic policies. It is also important when there is a scientific consensus with a vocal dissenting minority, such as with Global Warming or Health effects of tobacco. In these cases identifying the interests behind sources is of the utmost importance--including a COI source as an independent one greatly skews the article--whereas identifying the COI and citing the potential COI in as WP:NPOV a way as possible, such as "A study funded by X found Y" enriches the article. Cazort (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger with WP:IS

I notice a meger proposal above. I assume the proposal was to merge with WP:IS. I would like to add my support to this call for the following reasons:

• The two concepts are basically the same.
• The current version of this essay actually uses the term independent at one point... that's how interchangable the terms are.
• It would make it clear to others that the two concepts are the same.
• It would enable linking to the one page from either concept. At the moment the page that is linked to depends on the choice of words, which is slightly arbitrary.
• I think there isn't too much overlap between what is covered by the sections of the two essays so the merge should be fairly easy.

Yaris678 (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

A few days ago, SlimVirgin went around a number of essays, changing them to say that a third-party source is always a secondary source. If you're interested in that discussion, it's been centralized at Wikipedia talk:Party and person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Scope of the Independence

An issue I keep running into with this policy is the vague scope of the "independence". If you take a very specific concern, such as, say, a particular model of a transistor, then there are multiple layers of association, and the significance of these associations are highly interpretable. For example, suppose that there is are sources from a manufacturer, a retailer, an electronics hobbyist author, an independent peer-reviewed electronics journal, or a general science writer, all of whom have so-called "significant" coverage. From my perspective, the last three do not have a significant dependence on the part.—RJH (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"subject"

In the lead is, "A third-party source is independent of the subject being covered."

Does the use of the word "subject" work here? For example, if a paper is written on Einstein's theory of relativity by someone other than Einstein, how can the paper be independent of the subject originally covered by Einstein? Bob K31416 (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Mistaken comparison

• A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the topic being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. This is contrasted with a secondary source, which is one where the material presented is based on original material, e.g., a non-fiction book analyzing original material such as news reports, and with a primary source, where the source is the wellspring of the original material, e.g., an autobiography or a politician's speech about their own campaign goals.

This paragraph has it wrong. A third-party source is properly contrasted to a first-party sources, which is not independent. It has nothing to do with the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, all of which could be produced independently or not.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Common usage is that "primary source" is used instead of "primary first party source" and "third party source" is used instead of "primary third party source." WP:PSTS notes "Primary sources are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view." PSTS does not help in distinguishing between primary sources who have a vested interest in a topic of a topic and primary sources who do not have a vested interest in a topic of a topic. In Wikipedia, it is the vested interest in the topic that matters, not a newspaper reporters ability to obtain an insider's perspective of a topic. Until common usage changes, we're stuck with comparing "primary source" vs. "third party source" when it comes to independence from a topic. In any event, this essay sets its own parameters. Wikipedia articles generally are built on primary third party sources (newspaper articles, books, and magazine articles) since they do not have a vested interest in the topic. Yet, WP:PSTS oddly notes "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources." If process said primary third party sources are OK, but primary first party sources are not, those who have an interest in promoting their material would likely read primary third party sources are OK as primary third party sources are OK. Perhaps that is why WP:PSTS focuses on published secondary sources. While the premise of this essay is a little too strict - I do not agree that every article must be based upon third-party reliable sources - this essay now gives some insight as to independency problems that might arise in using secondary sources and provides a visual diagram to help sort all this out. For that aspect, I think it a valuable essay. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, further confusion comes when the topic of a topic is a writting itself. Writings about John Steinbeck are classified as primary third party source. Writings about "The Grapes of Wrath" are classified as secondary sources. If I write an article published outside Wikipedia that summarizes all the primary third party source about John Steinbeck, that creates a secondary source. Certainly, my secondary source summarizing all the primary third party source about John Steinbeck and the secondary source writing about "The Grapes of Wrath" should not be treated the same within Wikipedia. Yet, WP:PSTS says Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. I think the statement "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" is valid for scholarly writings on other scholarly writings, but creates confusion when a primary first party source newspaper reporter writes about the State of Texas or some business in Tamworth, Staffordshire. Should we not use primary first party source newspaper reporter's article in Wikipedia because Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources? Also, what is better to use in Wikipedia, a secondary source summarizes all the primary third party source about John Steinbeck or each of the primary third party sources about John Steinbeck. The primary third party sources about John Steinbeck seems the obvious choice - and that in fact is what is done in Wikipedia. Yet WP:PSTS says Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and the independence of the source from the topic is not given the importance it needs. It all is confusing and hopefully this essay will help shine a light on that such as by provoking questions.-- Jreferee (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK Will, you convinced me. I changed the essay and File:Topic sources of information diagram.png to use third-party source and a first-party source. Where a third-party source and a first-party source originate written material, they both are primary sources, the difference being in that the first-party has a vested interest in the topic and the third-party does not have a vested interest in the topic by definition. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Reputation

a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

How are these reputations established? Who decides what is and is not a valid reputation? Ranze (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary

Paraphrased from policy page:

• primary third-party source: originates written information and is independent of the subject being covered
• primary first-party source: originates written information but has a vested interest in the subject of a written topic

Would there be such a thing as a primary second-party source? What would it be? Ranze (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No.

The numbered-party schemes originates from contract law (i.e., the person who damaged your car, you, and your insurance company) and doesn't translate well to this system. The "second party" simple ceases to exist. There are only people who take action/are involved (first parties) and people who don't (third parties). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

WAID, I'm concerned that you're promoting an unusual view of primary/secondary sources throughout WP, making it more complicated than it needs to be, and harder for new editors to follow. But when challenged you revert.

For example, this first sentence isn't correct: "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources." A short article could be based on one primary source and one secondary source, or even on just one secondary source.

Another example of a mistake, in my view: "[Third party] is contrasted with ... a primary source, where the source is the wellspring of the original material ..." But a reporter who is an eyewitness is a primary source. You are saying that a reporter is a third-party source and therefore can't be a primary source. Elsewhere, you call newspaper articles primary sources, and remove sourced material from historians who say otherwise. It's confusing and I think not in keeping with the way historians and other academics use those terms. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you're the one saying that if someone is a third party, that they can't be a primary source. I'm saying that you can be a primary source and either first or third party. These are unrelated concepts. You may fall into any of these groups:

	First party	Third party
Primary	Involved and reporting your own original material	Not involved but still reporting your own original material
Secondary	Involved and giving an analysis of previous material	Not involved and giving an analysis of previous material

All four of these combinations are possible. It's not just 'my material, therefore I'm involved'. The eyewitness reporter is independent (aka third party) and primary. Because this eyewitness journalist's article is both a third-party source and a primary source, it is not possible for third party to be the same thing as secondary.

Because of this, we can't say things like "A third-party or secondary source is one that is independent of the subject being covered", like you wrote yesterday.

 Yes: A third-party source is one that is independent of the subject being covered.

 No: A secondary source is not always independent of the subject being covered.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's unnecessarily complex. How would this help people to write articles on Wikipedia, i.e. can you show me an article (or a deletion debate, discussion about notability) where these distinctions you're making are pivotal in some way?

Is it that you're trying to argue that a WP article can be reliably sourced if based only on primary sources, and therefore you want to introduce this notion of a "third-party primary source"? Or is there some other purpose? If I could see what you're trying to achieve, it would make it easier to understand. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that it's too complex. WPMED gets this distinction across to a lot of new editors. The distinction between "has a possible conflict of interest" ("not independent") and "secondary source" (review articles, graduate-level textbooks, and meta-analyses) matters in medicine-related articles, where "first-party" secondary sources (e.g., reference works about drugs that are written by a drug company's employees) are routinely accepted.

For your other questions:

• It is possible to have an article that is reliably sourced and cites only primary sources. We do that for pretty much every big news event. You are permitted to WP:USEPRIMARY sources, and if a primary source is sufficiently strong to hold up the claim it's supposed to support, then that's good enough for WP:V's purposes—and if you can support every single sentence with a primary source, then you've got an article that is reliably sourced and based only on primary sources. (WP:V only mentions secondary sources in a line that summarizes NOR; it objects to primary sources only for exceptional claims or citing Wikipedia.)
• For notability, you need sources that are both. Or, at least, GNG requires multiple secondary sources and multiple independent sources, and under most formulations of the GNG through the years, it has required multiple sources that have both of these qualities, although in a few versions you might be able to argue that two non-independent secondary sources plus two independent primary sources would be sufficient. (However, I've never seen anyone attempt to make that argument, nor would I accept it myself.)
• For "what I want", I want people to know that these terms are not synonyms, and to use the one that they actually mean to be using. I do not want people to say "we need a secondary source" when they actually mean "we need a source that doesn't have a massive conflict of interest". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement-driven publications

"For example, a newspaper that depends on advertising revenue might not be truly independent in their coverage of the local businesses that advertise in the paper."

There are many pages which use hobby magazines as sources, magazines which run articles (pretty much always positive) about companies or products that are advertised in their pages. Am I right that those wouldn't be considered independent? --LBiller39 (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi LBiller39,

You are correct that, if the existence of the magazine is dependent on those ads, the magazine might not be independent. However, you want to be very careful about accusing "real" magazines of being shills for advertisers. If it's a serious problem with a sizable publication, you can probably find other sources that talk about it. In most of those cases, the fact that ads and stories cover similar subjects may well be innocent: the journalist interviewed an employee for a story, and the employee suggested to the company's advertising department that the publication might be a good place to run an ad. Or perhaps they've always advertised, and now the magazine has decided to run a story that happens to be about an advertiser. If the audience is going to be interested in model trains (or whatever the hobby is), then both the editors and the advertisers will want to reach that audience with their information about model trains.

On the other hand, there are webzines whose entire business is letting companies run un-labeled advertising that looks like real articles. There are magazines whose dependence on a sponsor might make them unwilling to criticize the sponsor. There are magazines that are directly owned and sponsored by the businesses that benefit from them, like HP's Measure magazine. The main problem that we're concerned about is rather direct control.

In general, if you run into a problem with this, your first question should be whether it matters. Even the most dependent magazine is likely to be reliable for basic facts. Beyond that, your first recourse should be seeing whether you can find a better source. People rarely object to having sources improved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply! I see now that this is "just" an essay, so maybe I'm in the wrong place to ask my question. Anyway, in the topic I'm thinking of, one entrepreneur says he tried to pitch a story idea about his product to a prominent magazine covering the field, and the editor supposedly replied that they'd consider running an article if he first bought some ad space. I suppose it matters because some products only get mentioned in these hobby magazines, so I'm wondering if they're really notable in the larger scheme of things. If publications like "Toasters Today" and "Toaster Oven Digest" (made-up names) are the only publications to write about a product, and its manufacturer advertises heavily in them, then I wonder whether they're independent enough for an article based on those sources to present the neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LBiller39 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Funding of peer-reviewed review

This is a discussion of whether it is appropriate to cite a published, peer-reviewed review article that was funded by a party interested in the study's conclusions. While the ultimate answer I assume is "it depends", is there anything like a presumption that we could use to center the discussion around? Appreciate your insights. Thanks! Lfstevens (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Some confusing verbage

I really don't know what to make of the phrase, in the current guideline, "primary does not mean non-independent or affiliated with the subject." Perhaps this is due to the inherent problem involved in trying to define a word by what it is not rather than what it is.— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.189.43 (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It means that we have a historical problem with people not understanding that WP:Secondary does not mean independent. I agree that formulations along the lines of "potatoes are not meat" are generally not enlightening to most people, but when you have a history of people pointing at potatoes and saying "Why are you growing meat in your garden?", then it becomes necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

How are expert reviews classified?

For many scholarly subjects, review articles can be found. These appear in on-line encyclopedias like The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in traditional encyclopedias like The Encyclopedia Britannica, in specialized collections like The Oxford Companion to ‘xyz’, in online resources like Philosophical Papers, and in review articles in scholarly journals like Reviews of Modern Physics, Reviews of Geophysics and so on. These articles are primarily written by one author, only occasionally more, and these authors are selected by the publication's editors for their expertise or the contributions are subject to some peer review process. Whatever the winnowing criteria, these authors are ipso facto active in the field and so hardly what one would call 'independent' observers. (In fact, a critique by a non-involved party is tantamount to a non-expert opinion, and not usually sought after.)

Such articles are the only type of general overview of a scholarly topic that is available. In my opinion, this guideline WP:THIRDPARTY is open to interpretation as excluding material reported in such scholarly reviews from WP. It says: "A third-party source is not affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest or significant bias related to the material."

Wording should be added to this guideline explicitly indicating acceptance of scholarly review articles as being substantial and valid, and a reasonable alternative to non-existent "third-party" sources. If there is uncertainty about objectivity, for instance conflicting review articles, then WP:NPOV should govern the presentation by requiring expression of all scholarly opinions. However, exclusion of such articles on the basis of WP:THIRDPARTY is simply unrealistic. Brews ohare (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added a version of these comments to the sub-section Articles without third-party sources. Of course, modifications are invited. Brews ohare (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As on previous occasions Brews is forum shopping to try and resolve a dispute with editors on another article. He mis-states the position above ----Snowded ^TALK 18:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Snowded: Please clarify what are your objections to this rather simple and obvious proposal. Trying to make this into a special pleading on my part ignores the point of the proposal in favor of conjectures about its motives, which are in fact pure. Brews ohare (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You've simply moved a content dispute to a policy page Brews and I see you are edit warring again. The point being made elsewhere is that there difference between sources from a participant perspective (for example neuroscience) which are valid in respect of a newuoscience perspective on a field, but do not cover the field as a whole. They therefore do not support your general edits. Using policy areas to continue a content dispute is poor form to say the least. I suggest you revert your revert and await comments from more experienced editors ----Snowded ^TALK 19:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Your assertions about the bearing of neuroscience upon free will have no bearing whatsoever upon the proposal here, which is not a discussion of your views on that particular matter, but is framed very generally in terms of how to handle scholarly review articles, an issue that exists quite apart from any specific dispute you may have with me. Brews ohare (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious that proposals for changes will arise in some context or another, and often do not spring to mind out of thin air. It is then time to consider the proposal on its merits. Brews ohare (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Snowded, reading your changes, after you removed all examples and the quote from WP:SECONDARY, you added:

"Review articles can be considered [what] WP:SECONDARY calls secondary sources but should be treated with care."

The removed material already pretty much covers this point; it says:

"Review articles are among what WP:SECONDARY calls secondary sources...If there is uncertainty about objectivity, for instance, if there are conflicting review articles, then WP:NPOV governs the presentation and requires a balanced expression of all scholarly opinions."

This is more specific guidance than "using care", and indicates what policy to follow. You also removed the quote from WP:SECONDARY:

""Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."

which is helpful in telling a reader the proposed role for secondary sources as something WP "usually relies upon".

An interesting point is "What is a secondary source, which the policy WP:SECONDARY sees as the backbone of WP?" The WP policy WP:SECONDARY puts the matter like this:

"A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.¹

¹ University of California, Berkeley library defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event".

Reading your Edit Summary, you say:

" Remove examples (some of which could be disputed)"

You removed all the examples, which are:

• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• The Encyclopedia Britannica
• Philosophical Papers
• Reviews of Modern Physics
• Reviews of Geophysics
• The Oxford Companion to ‘xyz’

Now, on other Talk pages you have suggested that The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a doubtful choice, although you have not said why. I suppose that some of the items listed in The Oxford Companion to ‘xyz’ might also not meet your (so-far unspecified) criteria. Maybe The Oxford Handbook of 'xyz' would have better examples? Otherwise, I doubt you have any objections.

Obviously, examples can be helpful in clarifying for a reader what is thought of as a suitable secondary source. So it might be useful to go into this subject in more detail. What do you think? Brews ohare (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

For all the above reasons, I find that the original subsection is more informative and helpful to the reader than the emasculated version you have left behind, and I have restored it to the Project pages. Brews ohare (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The examples are themselves controversial and are directly linked to content disputes on other pages. Your statement about my position on the Sanford Encyclopaedia is a misrepresentation as I suspect you known. To be honest I don't see any value in the addition to the existing wording but I was trying to compromise given that you seem committed to justifying a position you are taking elsewhere (by the examples you have chosen) I have reverted to the prior stable stage. Lets see if other editors want to engage ----Snowded ^TALK 23:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

If there is no controversy about the examples fitting what WP:SECONDARY calls secondary sources, what do you mean by saying some of them "could be disputed"? If you do dispute some of them, which ones and why? Perhaps you think some of these sources contain some examples of secondary sources, but one has to judge the included items on a piece by piece basis? If that is so, how do you recommend sifting them? For example, I have not seen an example from any of these sources that does not cite and critique those sources considered pertinent by the author(s), which appears to mean the articles I am aware of do fit the WP:SECONDARY criteria for secondary sources, and may exceed them in view of the publication's editorial winnowing employed in their acceptance. Brews ohare (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Brews I don't think you are adding any value to this article with the additions. WP:SECONDARY is fine as it is but in a spirit of compromise I left your text with two changes (i) a requirement for some caution and (ii) removing examples which might be secondary sources in some cases but would not be exclusively so in others. So an essay in the Stanford Encyclopaedia may be a secondary source in some cases, but not in others where something taking a wider perspective on the field would be necessary. Given you just did a revert, made misleading statements on the talk page and generally ignored that attempt at compromise I had little alternative but to restore the stable state. On the content you have changed in two Philosophy articles I hope to have time to review late tonight (hong Kong time) at the airport but it may have to wait for tomorrow. Again changes are needed but if you can't live with changes and simply revert it will go back to the stable state again. I'm loosing patience ----Snowded ^TALK 00:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You have many more choices than blanket reversion. And you have adopted my speculation that you think some articles in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy meet the WP:SECONDARY criteria for secondary sources, but some lack "a wider perspective". That is to say you wish to add your personal criterion of 'adequate breadth' to those in the policy. I'd be inclined to say a review article very commonly expresses its author's perspective, and WP:SECONDARY is very clear that is expected. The possibility that several sources may be needed to convey the breadth of opinion is what WP:NPOV is all about. Apart from your desire to rewrite WP policy, the rest of your comments regarding your proposed actions elsewhere have nothing to do with anything here. Brews ohare (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Brews you are the one trying to change a policy article not me, I'm happy with it as it is. It is very clear that an essay written from a perspective in an on line encyclopedia which collects essays is different from a formal Directory or similar with an editorial panel and review process which seeks to review the field as a whole. I've sat on a few but I realise you may not be familiar with the process. In some contexts the former may be OK, in the others it may not be hence my modification to suggest caution. You are being disingenuous in that you chose examples to support your content dispute elsewhere, and its is rather amusing to be told there are more choices than a blanket reversion when that is the choice you made in responding at my attempt to reach a consensus. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Snowded: I apologize for too quickly reverting your first cut at this proposal.

The policy WP:SECONDARY spells out what a secondary source is. Using that definition, there is no doubt that it is not about a treatise attempting a definitive statement of an entire topic and approved by a jury of experts. It is much more modest in scope, and the policy recognizes that it is a personal interpretation and may reflect only a perspective on the sources examined and facts brought forward. I think you are not in step with what the policy definition states, and are not a believer in the process that WP:NPOV envisions can lead to an objective presentation that transcends the presentation of any single secondary source.

In the present proposal, which is simply an addition to help clarify an essay that is neither a policy nor a guideline, all that is attempted is to point out the case of a scholarly topic where third-party sources are unavailable, and point out that WP policy in this particular example allows secondary sources, and relies upon WP:NPOV to achieve the breadth you seek. Some attention to this notable exception to the use of third-party sources is useful to the editing community. Brews ohare (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

If you think its helpful go back the version I suggested :-) Please note the point on context ----Snowded ^TALK 03:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll try a compromise. Brews ohare (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No hope of useful definition

There is no hope of creating a useful definition for "third-party source" because it is fundamentally a term from contract law, and has no legitimate application in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. How true. I had not quite realized how casual the guidelines of Wikipedia were until breaching this topic. I would suggest that, if Wikipedia wishes to maintain a robust model, far more energy is needed in mapping the details of what "reliable sources" means.

With more accuracy and proper differentiation of soure types, and with an understanding in place that different subject matter involves very different source types and means of verification, contributors have a sound basis to create and evolve mechanisms of checks and balances.

Inevitably, if Wikipedia is not to become the world's most relied-upon source of disinformation, a much more meaningful hierarchy of source-type will have to be implemented.Wikibearwithme (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Conflation of "independent" and "unbiased"

This essay says that "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective." This is, however, a better description of an unbiased source. A source may be completely independent, but definitely biased. This distinction is made in the 4th paragraph, but I think it needs to be clearer if the essay is to be relied upon in editing debates or deletion discussions, or in helping new editors to understand our policies and practices. DES ^(talk) 16:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this needs to be significantly re-written, and also merged with WP:Third-party sources. If I ever find a spare 20 or 30 hours lying around, I might even manage to do it someday.

That said, disinterested and unbiased aren't exact synonyms. A disinterested source doesn't expect to get anything out of it. If I were to say that Mac OS X is better than Windows, I'm biased, but disinterested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

(To say nothing of utterly wrong! {insert "just kidding" template here}) KDS4444 (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

About that merge

We've talked off and on about merging WP:Third-party sources over here. I've started a draft, modeled after WP:USINGPRIMARY in my sandbox at User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox_3. If anyone has any comments (other than "it's too long" ), please post them here. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to make this happen. I've talked about it here and elsewhere for years. Nobody's ever objected (yet – and probably won't, until the day afterwards  ;-). If you have ideas or suggestions, please let me know. My goal is to have something that's practical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I for one would like to express my support for said merge. It makes sense to me, and I am sure you yourself have thought about it enough to have come to a solid conclusion that it really is a good idea. And a good idea is a good idea. Let's make this happen before the merge proposal gets stale, which they seem to do all too quickly, and then nobody cares anymore. I care now, and I say, "Go"! KDS4444 (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've "officially" merged the pages (and moved the page, too). I'll finish up the text merge/consolidation to remove the TLDR aspects later (i.e., after people have had yet another chance to notice this proposal and to complain that they haven't been consulted about this despite more than two years' worth of talk page discussions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

What is an independent source?

This is an actual request for your comments. There's no dispute and no proposal. I am just requesting that you share your own ideas about what it means for a reliable source to be independent (or not). Please make a ===subsection=== and tell me what you think. Feel free to tell stories and share examples about disputes, interesting cases, confusions you've encountered, considerations for subject areas that you're interested in – whatever is on your mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Any source which the subject does not have any immediate control over

So, like press releases and the like would be not be independent sources. Any source which the subject doesn't have any reasonable control over, so for instance an article on the editor of a major newspaper; sources from that newspaper wouldn't be considered independent sources. Tom29739 ^[talk] 16:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC).

Any source not directly or significantly related to, or influenced by, the subject

A source which is either not related to the subject, or has a tangential relationship- one which is too insignificant to influence- the subject: e.g. an unaffiliated ice hockey magazine talking about an ice hockey team could be said to be connected, as both involve ice hockey. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure that I understood your idea. In your opinion, is the ice hockey magazine independent of the team, or not? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"I can't define an independent source, but I know it when I see it." Both may involve ice hockey, but unless the team has paid for the article in the magazine (?) or the magazine is a promotional tool for the team (?) or the author of the article is also a member of the team (?) or the team's coach, or the wife of the team captain, etc., then in my mind the two should be considered independent of each other. Unless I am missing something. A useful question can be, "Does the author or publisher of the material have anything to gain by the piece being published?" If "No", then independent. KDS4444 (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

An independent author or publisher

IMHO independence isn't a property of the source material. The exact same text can be found at dependent and independent sources. For instance, a press release, once published by a (third-party) newspaper, yields an independent source for that press release. If no third party publishes it, there is only a self-source. Lyrda (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

unfortunately for Wikipedia reliable sources may not be considered acceptable if for example the source of information about the Salvation Army is the Official history museum run by the Salvation Army themselves. An interpretation board on display in official Salvation Army premises isn't considered "published" despite being designed by the Salvation Army themselves.

Adrian816 (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that you were told the complete rule. WP:V says that anything available to the general public is "published" for our purposes. That means that, if the official history museum is open to the general public, then that sign is published. Use {{cite sign}} if you cite it (assuming that you like citation templates). I've just expanded Wikipedia:Published#Published to explicitly mention signs (and not just billboards and posters). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Syndicated stories

The following arises from the nearly-finished deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg J. Marchand. While it is still around, see Greg J. Marchand.

The AfD was about an article about a surgeon who has a PR agent

"PRESS ALERT: TV/Radio/Blog Interviews Available for Dr. Greg Marchand, World Record Holder for Removing Largest Cancerous Tumor & Developer of New In-Bag Morcellation Technique". Thomas PR. Archived from the original on 3 May 2018. Retrieved 3 May 2018.

And puts out lots of press releases - here are some:

"Press release: Dr. Greg J. Marchand Becomes First U.S. Surgeon to Receive Award "Surgeon of Excellence in Minimally Invasive Surgery". Marchand via MarketWired. November 3, 2016. Archived from the original on May 3, 2018.

"Press release: Arizona Surgeon Dr. Greg Marchand Survives Cancer to Invent and Perform Record-Setting Cancer Surgery". Marchand via MarketWired. January 30, 2017. Archived from the original on May 3, 2018.

"Press release: Why Sarah Sanders may be the Greatest Female Role Model of All Time". Marchand via 24-7 Press Release Newswire. December 10, 2017. Archived from the original on 3 May 2018.

"Press release: Endometriosis Expert, Dr. Greg Marchand, Discusses the Myths and Truths Regarding Vogue Magazine's Recent Lena Dunham Article". Marchand via PRNewswire. April 12, 2018. Archived from the original on 4 May 2018.

The page was terrible and terribly sourced, but what I want to focus on are the syndicated news stories. The original article (which I saved offline if anybody wants it) cited the following:

• Ames, Charlotte (2 August 2017). "Doc revives controversial procedure". WTAJ News. Retrieved 2 December 2017.
• Fillmore, James (7 August 2017). "Controversial procedure for removing tumors". WJMN News. Retrieved 29 November 2017.</ref>
• Longman, Molly (August 4, 2017). "Mesa Doctor Breaks World Record for Largest Tumor Removal and It's Kind of Gross". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved 16 April 2018.
• Brown, David (9 September 2017). "EV doctor sets world record for removal of tumor". East Valley Tribune. Retrieved 16 April 2018.
• Cline, Kathy (7 July 2017). "Mesa doctor sets world record in tumor-removal surgery". KTAR News. Retrieved 16 April 2018.
• Stern, Ray. "Local Docs Enter Record Books With Largest Uterus Ever Removed". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved 10 April 2018.
• Simpson, Victoria (13 August 2017). "Arizona Surgeon Removes Enormous Cancer Tumor Through a Cut the Size of a Dime, Setting a New World Record". RateMDs.Com. Retrieved 12 April 2018.
• Valainis, Erik (29 August 2017). "YBLTV Meets "In-Bag" Morcellation Technique Pioneer, Dr. Greg Marchand MD". YBLTV. Retrieved 2 January 2018.
• "Arizona Surgeon Survives Cancer to Invent and Perform Record-Setting Cancer Surgery", Medical Imaging Business Week, NewsRX LLC: 2316, 2017-02-16, retrieved 17 April 2018
• "Record-Breaking Uterus". NBC Chicago. 13 December 2008. Retrieved 12 July 2014.

At the AfD one of the socks wrote: There's no way this can fail WP:GNG. If you read WP:GNG it plainly says:""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Individual ABC, NBC and CBS stations all over the nation ran the story. Are we suggesting they were paid? This is how syndicated stories work in the US. If you want to delete the article, go ahead, but these sources meet the very definition of WP:GNG....Unless the subject owns or paid these stations, (which is impossible,) you've got a story airing all over TV in the USA. WP:GNG by definition. Anyone looking back at this deletion log is instantly going to realize he meets WP:GNG, (despite churnalism being a fancy word.) the only issue is promotionalism. And listed these additional iterations, and noted Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated:

1) | ABC in San Antonio, Texas

2) | NBC in South Bend, Indiana

3) | ABC in Fresno, California

4) CBS in Marquette, Wisconsin

5) | Tribune TV 8 in Moline Illinois

Another sock wrote this comment which included because YOU KNOW FOR A FACT these 14 news stories did not come from a press release, they came from national reporter. The original story was produced by Wendy Chioji of Ivanhoe Media (they do a lot of the medical interest national stories for CBS, NBC, ABC. Her original story is easy to find so I suspect you already knew this. It's a real national story shared with many legitimate CBS, NBC, and ABC affiliate stations.

Nobody is buying this, bit it seems worth saying to head off this kind of silly argument in the future. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

note about Ivanhoe, the source of the syndicated stories mentioned above. See this 2009 piece at HealthNewsReview.org which is their most substantial discussion of that company. Withering. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The bold edit is here. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I wonder whether the problem for the proponents is with WP:N trying to describe this concept as sources being "independent" of each other. Maybe we need to use a different word, like "separate" or "unrelated".

It would also help if we could name "enduring relevance" (or its more objective cousin, "ongoing coverage") as a criterion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, it's not just syndication/wire services. If Paul Politician gets in a car wreck, and a dozen completely unrelated journalists personally phone the police station to get a quote, and they all separately run stories about it the next morning (and nothing ever again), then that's still just one "thing" as far as DUE and WP:N are concerned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarifying we mean both "independent of the subject" and "independent of each other" would be great; doing that by calling the latter something else, works too. About the "Paul Politican" thing, I would love it if people thought that way but people do not think that way in actual discussions. Hell even one source is enough for many people. Even a single tweet. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The "Paul Politician thing" is in the footnotes at WP:N: "Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information."

But Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions.

User:Unscintillating, I really like the re-arranging you did to create the WP:SUSTAINED section at WP:N two years ago.[3] I wonder whether you have any thoughts about this issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure that it would be wise for Unscintillating to respond. There was a big sprawling ANI thread about their recent behavior at deletion discussions, and at related notability guidelines, and some of it was directly about "independence" of sources. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#False_Allegations_by_Unscintillating. Something went awry there as they formerly did give some great input. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

(General GNG remark): IMO our whole WP:GNG based on a simplistic criterion of counting "multiple ... sources" suffers from the "searching the lost wallet under the lantern at night" fallacy. In fact, encyclopedic notability criteria must pay more attention to the lasting impact of the topic, rather than the amount of noise generated. Try to look from this perspective at Paul Politician, Rob Robber, or Eddy Egghead, and you will have a clearer idea about notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

(Counting independent sources): I was mulling about the concept of "overlapping sources". If two sources list the same bunch of facts only in different verbiage, then this may be a good reason to count them as one. On the other hand, if in addition to identical facts there are, e.g., opinions of independent experts, then the sources my be treated as truly different. Is this worth elaborating? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

the latter has huge potential for advocates to exploit like crazy. Reporting "opinons" is not much relevant to the mission anyway - i know that opinion gets played up a lot in politics/current events but those topics are more like cancer or an infection, not core, healthy content. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are opinions and opinions. Still, in the context of the current gudeline, formally they are independent. We have to have a separate guideline about opinions. Do we have a guideline or an essay? (If not, a possible guideline is to lump same opinions together. For example, rather than citing each and every talking head (even from a filtered list), we have to just write: "USA, France, Zamunda and teh Democratic Kingdom of Seychelle Islands and its Adjacent Shales condemned Russian invasion in Veyshnoria"). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Staszek Lem, the "overlapping sources" become a problem when you reach the WP:WHYN stage of writing an article. If all of the sources only say the same handful of things, then you'll end up with a doomed WP:PERMASTUB. But if a few of them (truly) independently say the same things, and there's plenty of content, then there's no need to count them as a single source. Many short sources will only repeat what facts that are present in longer sources, but that doesn't make them a single source. It could instead indicate sustained interest in a subject over time (e.g., most of the sources that mention last year's Big Sporting Event in the run up to this year's Big Sporting Event contain no new information). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Syndicated stories, and stories based on other stories, are not independent of each other. This is even more true when the news outlets re-publishing the work share ownership or are otherwise strongly affiliated with the original news outlet. A new agency "recycling" or making slight or non-substantial rewrites to another "wiki-acceptable" source and publishing it under your own banner should not "automatically count" as a new source in Wikipedia. I say "automatically" because sometimes the decision to print a syndicated story or not really is based on the editiorial judgement of the "copying source" that the item really is notable, and they are using syndicated material because it's more efficient than doing their own research or doing their own research is not feasible, NOT because "we don't care about this topic, but it might generate some ad revenue so we'll put it in." Bottom line: handling syndicated stories and whether they "count" for notability will always be a case-by-case issue, but we probably can come up with some "rules of thumb" to help editors decide "is the fact that this story got published in 500 major reliable news outlets" an indication of the topic's notability or perhaps it was just an indication of a slow news day or a "firehose/we publish everything that comes across the wire" policy by those news outlets. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, we do already have a rule at WP:N that says the same wire service story is still just one story, no matter how many newspapers choose to run it, and regardless of how many change the headline or lead or otherwise make small adjustments.

I think it's a little harder to spot syndicated stories when they switch mediums. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The new paragraph on syndication seems useful, I support keeping it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support the para as appears at the top of this section; a useful addition and would come in handy at AfD discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of images

Regarding this edit: instead of continuing to re-insert the images in question, can the interested parties please discuss whether or not there is consensus to include these images on the page? isaacl (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate humor, I fail to understand why it would be restored when reverted. It may be an indication that it was misplaced... You have no chance to survive make your time. —PaleoNeonate – 06:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Jesus, it's just a little fun. They were there for two weeks before Guye removed them with the edit summary "Funny, but disruptive" [4]. That hints at the common misconception that we're required to be dead serious all the time and that inserting something to lighten the mood is verboten. It's not, of course, and since Guye now knows that, one hopes he or she will be able to partake of the amusement without guilt. Those who don't find it amusing can just ignore it without spoiling things for those who do; it's certainly doing no harm. I should add that I didn't notice this discussion before restoring this morning. EEng 16:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate you think it's fun, but three editors have reverted, indicating they either don't think it's fun or that they don't think the fun is a net benefit. Personally, I don't understand why three beef patties is amusing, and I think it is unduly confusing for readers to see the three duplicate photos on the page. (As for not seeing this conversation, I'm pretty sure continually re-inserting content wouldn't be an approach you would recommend to someone else in a similar situation, if it were you removing it.) isaacl (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• indicating they either don't think it's fun or that they don't think the fun is a net benefit – No, actually. One explicitly said he thought it was fun (but seemed to mistakenly think that fun isn't allowed) [5] and two others didn't say anything substantive at all [6][7].
• I think it is unduly confusing for readers to see the three duplicate photos on the page – Well, they're not our readers but rather our fellow editors, who are a distinct cut above. Whether or not it gives you the ol' LOL it's hard to take seriously the contention that a series of images of hamburger patties and a bottle of Worcestershire Sauce, captioned "First patty ... second patty ... third patty ... third patty reliable sauce" – embedded in a discussion of third-party reliable sources – could be in any way "confusing".
• I'm pretty sure continually re-inserting content wouldn't be an approach you would recommend – Actually, continually removing content that had been there for some time isn't the approach I'd recommend. Why is removal the default?

EEng 16:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The removal in itself means the editors did not think the addition to be a net benefit. By "readers" I meant people reading the page. I saw the patties and had no idea why you thought this was funny. I didn't see the sauce bottle, but unless "third patty reliable sauce" is a takeoff on some kind of slogan I'm not aware of, I don't find the punchline particularly illuminating either. And wouldn't you recommend that a discussion be opened on the talk page in this scenario? isaacl (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

unless "third patty reliable sauce" is a takeoff on some kind of slogan I'm not aware of – Jesus, it's immediately adjacent to the paragraph containing the bold text third-party reliable sources. Do you need to be hit over the head? EEng 18:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for being unclear; by "slogan" I meant advertising slogan for Worcestershire sauce. A connection there would add greater depth to the punchline. As it is, there's no obvious connection as to why Worcestershire sauce should be considered reliable, or specific to the third patty, so for me, the punchline just hangs out there. isaacl (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I give up. EEng 19:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• fun is fine and perhaps acceptable if it illuminates. The image about the Bippledorp 9000 is fine and is an example of ridiculous PR that has no place here. However the big mac joke images illuminate nothing. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Well since you bring it up, the Bippledorp 9000 image adds nothing tangible either: the reader readily appreciates the point about promotional language just fine without it, and in fact most readers won't really understand what that image even shows. Nonetheless it adds a bit of interest and variety, which is all most images on project pages do. EEng 17:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

It's an example. Examples illuminate - they help people understand. I agree that this one is probably not necessary but it is at least relevant. Three identical patties don't help people understand the difference in WP between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Some images that might, would be a progression like a cow >> a package of ground beef >> a hamburger on a plate, trying to say something about the differences among the three. But even that is not great. Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, if we're really going to have a serious discussion then let's. The pedal image doesn't inform or enlighten the reader any more than the patties do. The Bippledorp text is completely self-contained and gets its point across 100% on its own. An image of what is essentially an electronic circuit board in a box -- not even recognizable as a guitar pedal -- adds nothing in terms of actual information, but does add that bit of leavening that helps cement in the mind the point made by the text. Patties and sauce do the same, nothing more and nothing less. In project space anything that makes the material more memorable is helpful and breaks the monotony, even a groaner of a pun. If you want to say you just don't think the joke works, that's fine, but please let's not pretend that one image is super relevant and informative and the others are meaningless and intrusive. They're both jokes ("Bippledorp") and they both serve the same function. EEng 18:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no objections to removing the Bippledorp image. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I certainly would object. It serves a minor function, as described. EEng 18:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have blatantly canvassed my glittering array of talk page stalkers to come here and browbeat you all [8]. Fair warning. EEng 17:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  Again, would this be an approach you would recommend if places were reversed? isaacl (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  Honestly, are you completely lacking in the ability to read social situations? EEng 18:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  Ah.... I could ask the same of you? Did your read of the situation lead you to believe that this was going to be well-received? I know you believe you are being funny, and certainly there will be some who agree with that, but you might also consider the effect of your statements on those who aren't as enamoured with your humour. isaacl (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  The effect ... on those who aren't as enamoured – What effect is that? The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be getting a chuckle? Since many obviously do enjoy this kind of thing (and I've got the literally thousands of thanks notifications to prove it) can't you just let it pass – on an essay page, for crying out loud? That's the question. EEng 18:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  Not every sperm is sacred and not every joke it really funny or useful. You can do better than this one. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll take that as a compliment. EEng 19:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

As it was meant. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Try reversing the situation again: Imagine you have concerns about a passage of text or an image someone has added to a page, and the other person keeps re-inserting it, and then makes jokes and insults you as you express your concerns. Does this make you feel that the other person is working towards a collaborative solution? isaacl (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, imagine making jokes in a discussion about jokes. And I won't cop to "insults", so let's just say I'm trying to get you to consider that you need to bring more clue to bear. EEng 19:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Our policy pages are hard to read already. A frustrated reader trying to find an enlightening advice sees hamburgers and would tiredly think "WTF this smartassness is supposed to mean now?" People read policy pages not for lulz but for info. Jokes create an extra distraction. You may write an essay on the subject and put 5 hamburgers into it, nobody will say a word. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This is an essay, silly. But as a glance at e.g. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not will show, there must be something wrong with your reasoning even with regard to policy pages. It's amazing the extent to which some people are not only unable to break out of their blinkered view of something, but unable to imagine someone else breaking out of that view. EEng 19:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Now, now, colleague; aren't we into insults now? The dead horse starts stinking. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest not over-generalizing: just because some editors disagree with this specific edit of yours, doesn't necessarily mean they don't appreciate aspects of your argument, or that they wouldn't offer the same points in a different situation. It's just not helpful to make statements that appear to reject the viewpoints of others on the basis that they have a lesser understanding than you do of the situation. isaacl (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm already over my daily budget for overexplaining the fundamentally simple. EEng 22:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on independence of two sources with same owner

There is a discussion on the independence of two sources with the same owner on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Sources from the same organisation. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Changed to supplement page

Just noting that, as seen here and here, Newslinger changed the page to a supplement page. I suppose it is better designated as one than as an essay. And, really, there isn't much difference between an essay and supplement page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there isn't much difference between the essays and supplements. I'm more doubtful that this is only about NOR and WP:N. This is a fundamental, cross-subject concept that appears in WP:V ("Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources) and WP:RS ("Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources") as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

​I just noticed this. Especially with the change in WP:V (at Special:Diff/891747580), should the explanatory supplement banner reference WP:V, WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:RS? If four links are too much, which ones should be removed? — Newslinger talk 07:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Do we have to name any of them, or could we just say something like "a lot of policies and guidelines"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

​Unfortunately, the {{supplement}} template forces the word "the" into the sentence. I tried to use "multiple policies and guidelines" for the interprets parameter, and the result was "This is an explanatory supplement to the multiple policies and guidelines." I think we have to name at least one specific page, or simply say "This is an explanatory supplement to the policies and guidelines." — Newslinger talk 17:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There must be some kind of switch behavior in there, because Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry doesn't have the word the (and Wikipedia:Navigation template has it twice). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The {{ombox}} looks good. — Newslinger talk 13:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly an elegant solution, but it'll do for now, I guess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on impact of low press freedom

There is a discussion at WP:V § Freedom of press about the impact of low press freedom on the independence of a source. The discussion concerns the content added in Special:Diff/931590746. — Newslinger talk 19:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 29 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources → Wikipedia:Independent sources – The title is more concise. Interstellarity (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 18:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 17:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Concerned. Concision is nice, but there already seems to be a problem with people citing this interpretive essay as if it were policy. Moving it to such a policy-like title seems unlikely to improve matters. -- Visviva (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• History: Interstellarity boldly moved this page to that name a few months ago, and has made multiple similar proposals or page moves, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources#Requested move 11 December 2019. User:Dekimasu moved this page back to the longer title in December 2019 (before User:Andrewa's late-December recommendation to do so; perhaps there were other discussions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support or split - One of our most core values is WP:Notability, and it is the independent nature of sources which is critical to making that determination. We do have plenty of policy-level requirements related to independence of sources. To make this page co-equivalent with the WP:Reliable sources, I am fine with renaming (and refocusing to a policy statement), or splitting the policy content into its own page at the proposed title. Either way will allow people to validly cite "WP:IS in discussions, the same way they often cite "WP:RS". -- Netoholic @ 11:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Um, that's not how it works.
    1. The title of the page doesn't determine the status of the page.
    2. People can "validly" cite any page they want to explain their thinking.
    3. We don't need this to be "co-equivalent with" any other page (except WP:3PARTY, and that was achieved by merging the two pages).
    4. The reason this isn't officially a "policy statement" is because (a) it doesn't need to be, especially among editors who understand Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays, and (b) it would need a thorough copyedit before it would be ready for a WP:PROPOSAL. The purpose of this page is to help people figure out what an independent source actually is. Editors who reach this page don't need to be told that independent sources are important; they need to be given enough information about what it is that they can figure why the other editor thinks that a particular source doesn't qualify (especially since some of them will have been told the wrong thing: Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent, and some editors have trouble keeping the two concepts straight).
    5. As for its name, this page was at WP:Independent sources back in the day, and then WP:RS was moved to WP:Identifying reliable sources (because we were tired of people asking where they could find 'the list' of reliable sources, and we thought that saying this is a guideline on identifying them, rather than just the sources, might help). I made the title of this page (and others) match the title style that was in vogue then (in 2016). WP:RS was moved back to its old title last year, and Interstellarity proposes moving this page back to its old title (although the reason given is concision rather than age). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the thorough analysis provided by WhatamIdoing. If confusion with policy is an issue, perhaps we should have an Essay space for all the essays. BD2412 T 15:48, 22 April 2020 (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.

For the record

I support the current title. Otr500 (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS and 3P Sources

This page states (emphasis mine):

Wikipedia's guideline on Reliable sources states that "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources".

Curiously, WP:RS makes no such statement. I'm proposing to edit this page to reflect that. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on whether certain sources are considered to have a conflict of interest

There is a request for comment on whether certain sources ("articles by any media group that [...] discredits its competitors") are considered to have a conflict of interest. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability § Does Footnote 9 still have consensus? — Newslinger talk 06:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: Soft censoring of Ex-Muslim Articles

Hi,

Request for comment discussion has been initiated @ Talk:List of former Muslims#Rfc: Soft censoring of Ex-Muslim Articles and has reference to this article there in.

Those interested can express their views there in.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarification

In the Relationship to notability the last sentence states There is no requirement that every article currently contain citations to such sources, although it is highly desirable. "Every" could just as well be replaced with "any". A problem is that although there may not be exact wording Wikipedia:Verifiability states verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. I would be baffled at an argument that "verifiability" did not mean verifying what is on the article and not that it merely exists. WP:BURDEN states 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.

Two notes are added to this:

• All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article. This is actually confusing because the word "attributable" usually (unless it has changed) means "(of a work or remark) able to be ascribed to a particular author, artist, or speaker." The wording "whether or not it is cited in the article" negates the first part because if it isn't there then there can be no attribution.
• Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy. The wording "support the material clearly and directly" can not be accomplished if there is not source.

WP:NRV (titled Notability requires verifiable evidence) states the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. While wikilawyers can give their best arguments the above mentioned last sentence wording supports that our sourcing requirements are actually only "highly desirable" when that is not actually supported by policies and guidelines. I would be equally baffled at any argument that the wording "evidence must show" would mean anything less than the sourcing on an article. A newer editor (or any editor) may read the literal wording to be indicative that sourcing on an article is not really necessary.

While the absence of sourcing may fly under the radar WP:NPOSSIBLE states However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. which leads back to WP:BURDEN.

WP:WHYN uses the word "existence" but there would be no way to follow up on any of the points if such existance was not on the article.

My point is that the above first mentioned wording conflicts with policy and gives the appearance there is no strict sourcing policy to even include BLP's as that is not even mentioned. In fact, a biography, without a source, can be tagged and deleted (after seven days) if a reliable source is not provided. We could then fairly state that "every" BLP requires a source right? WP:NPOV is a policy and there would be no way to know where information came from without "evidence". Otr500 (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Otr500, there's a lot to unpack here, but the first thing that occurs to me is that whether a statement is verifiable does not depend upon the presence of a citation in the article. "Verifiability" means "able to be verified", without restriction as to the means of verification. If you can verify that a fact has been previously published in a reliable source through methods such as "using a web search engine yourself" or "asking your local library for a book about that subject", then the fact is still verifiable. The rule is very much verifiABLE and not already verifiED (or "cited"). We require only that it be possible, not that it be already done. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, and adding reliable sources is one of those unfinished tasks.

Ditto with:

• "attributable" – We mean that someone must be ABLE to do this if necessary (and the person is willing to bear the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost in time and money to do so) ; it does not have to be done already.
• "evidence must show" – We do not restrict "evidence" to merely what's already cited in the article. The other half of NRV (with the shortcut of WP:NPOSSIBLE, not N-ALREADY-DONE) says not to judge notability based on what's in the current version of an article, but to get busy looking for reliable sources.
• WHYN's use of "existence" (I wrote that section, BTW) intentionally means that a published reliable source must exist, anywhere in the entire, in any language, even if the editors writing the article have no idea that it exists. To quote WP:V, the standard is "a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article."

I think that the FAQ at the top of WT:V puts the actual requirements in more context:

----

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.

----

The question I have for you is: Why are you asking about this on this page? Even if we had a requirement that every single severable fact be followed an inline citation, we would still not have a requirement that only independent sources be used. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello WhatamIdoing, in answering backward, the "Explanation" section deals with Wikipedia:Verifiability and the Relationship to notability section (at the beginning of my comments) that I quoted is where it states what is does, that also includes "that it be possible to verify a subject...", and I was wondering why the wording was there (clearly implying that we do not need sourcing) "on every article". The article explains things like the various types of sources (some can advance notability or may just support content) and it would seem that to identify if a source is independent (or not) there would likely have to be one on the article which would be the "attributable" part. The comment "reliable source must exist, anywhere in the entire [world I presume], in any language, even if the editors writing the article have no idea that it exists.", seems to indicates that your view is that an article can be created out of thin air, but I am sure that is not your intention. I mean, where would an author get information to create an article if that person had no idea that it exists? How would any editor "verify" that information was not made up original research? How would we possibly have any idea if synthesis was used to "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" if there were none.

The content under the Relationship to notability section begins with "Non-independent sources may not be used to establish notability", and the paragraph ends with the above quoted "There is no requirement that every article currently contain citations to such sources, although it is highly desirable." I was not inquiring if every line in an article needed a citation. It is clear in WP: Verifiability that All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. which certainly indicates that contentious or controversial material (challenged or likely to be challenged) surely would need a source and specifically an inline citation. I am just trying to make sense of the wording I pointed out. WP:AFD is where a "challenge" is certainly made and many times that sources are non-independent to establish notability.

Your explanation of "attributable" is confusing. WP:BURDEN (or WP:PROVEIT) states: All content must be verifiable. 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. This does not remotely indicate that an editor must bear any cost, "unless", an otherwise RS (surely referring to one provided on an article) has restrictions like time, location, cost associated with some source not available on the internet, or technical or personal. I do agree that we are "not to judge notability based on what's in the current version of an article" which is why we are directed to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to any nomination at AFD. This requires a "minimum search" (D) for "adequate sources". I also agree that "adding reliable sources is one of those unfinished tasks."

I am still struggling to understand the rationale for including the wording I pointed out in the beginning of my comments in reference to what is "in this explanatory supplement", so why I made comments here. This actually concerns notability, not just content verification sources, and certainly includes BLP's. Otr500 (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's a way a short article could be written by an editor who does not know the identity of any reliable sources on the topic. The editor enrolls in a university class in the topic, and the class relies primarily on printed lecture notes from the professor. After graduation, the editor applies the knowledge in a work environment, but does not have occasion to use textbooks or journal articles about the topic. But the topic is widely known and it's obvious to everyone who is competent in the field that the topic meets the notability guideline and is correct. Reliable sources on the topic exist, it's just that the editor who wrote the article does recall the bibliographic details of any particular source. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's another way to write an article without knowing specific sources: Notice something that's extremely common in your culture, notice that there is no article about it, and start a stub. Christmas candy and Valentine's candy are probably both notable subjects. I'd bet that almost any Wikipedia editor could write a sentence to start those articles without needing to look up any sources at all. You could just write something like "Christmas candy is candy associated with the Christmas holidays, such as candy canes", maybe add a picture of some sort of Christmas candy, and drop a link to c:Category:Christmas sugar confectionery at the end of the page. Would it be great? No. If someone tried to see what reliable sources say (aka "tried to verify the article's contents"), would they find out that I didn't just invent that? Yes. It is therefore "verifiable" even without a single citation typed into the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Video games and computer programs

Pretty sure that video games and computer games fit under the fourth category under the "Examples" section. I am almost certain that these topics are quite common in human society, and therefore deserve mentioning in this Wikipedia page. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 10:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Qwertyxp2000, what you've added sounds very similar to the books/music/film example. Maybe it should just be part of that one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I had a gut feeling it would be so. Perhaps merging some of the items together into a more generic example would be a better move, or even just splitting some of the items entirely, because I think the "books/music/film" is a bit too long to me. And as a question, would topics about video games and computer programs take a different approach to independent sources than would for books/music/film? Because in my opinion video games in particular appear to have different standards of notability compared to books, music, and film in my view, or at least that's what I personally think because of the presence of internet communities of certain topics, with the most notable being video games and films in particular. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 07:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I have to bring up the point about topics that are dominated by internet community influence. Especially content that is highly visible on the internet, most particularly animated content and video games. I hear people like to talk about them, and therefore there could be some users on the internet wanting to insert an article of a certain game/animation/video/blog/website/etc. that would be considered insufficient for notability and therefore may need help with the Wikipedia:Independent sources to find non-biased, independent sources for that certain subject (in this case, the game/animation/video/blog/website/etc.) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 07:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Decided to refine the whole new point to just "online content". As per my this edit summary of mine: "refining, I guess, but still need something to cover more than just a business, a person, a city, and a physical item", adding coverage about a virtual entity is necessary because virtual entities like online content require different approaches compared to physical items like books, music, and movies. Sure, video games could be more considered in the books/music/film category in this context, but the need to address topics dominated by internet perspectives is necessary because of how "crazy" the internet can be with popularizing stuff radically. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 07:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple thoughts here, so let me try to break them up:

• I agree with you that video games seem to have different standards for notability compared to books and (theatre-released) films, but that is a matter of editors collectively enacting our own biases. We collectively want some types of content more than other types, so we tend to lower the bar for "high" culture and things we know, and to raise it for "low" forms of culture and things that are unfamiliar to us. This page isn't trying to set notability standards. It's trying to help editors figure out whether the source(s) they're looking at are independent or affiliated.
• In general, we try to write advice based on problems that people are actually having, and not merely to make it complete. Similarly, the subjects we include here are the ones that commonly have problems with non-independent sources. Thus people/businesses/products, but not math/philosophy/bacteria, because people have problems with figuring out what's independent for the first set but not for the second.
• A book is not necessarily "a physical item". Video game are not necessarily online content (Tennis for Two is older than the internet). I think combining books and video games (like you did) makes sense. They are both creative intellectual products.
• I've removed or changed some of your edits. An online guide to a video game written by someone with no (significant) connection to the company is independent. An online guide written by the company/author/makers is non-independent. The method of making the information (e.g., posting it online vs in a physical book) available to the public is irrelevant to the independence of the work.

Please feel free to tell me if you disagree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Your corrections appear to be factually correct as far as I can see. It's true that separating into creative intellectual products and online content is necessary, seeing you pointed out the differing standards between "high" forms of culture and "low" forms of culture. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Then we're done here, and it's time for a big Thank you to you for noticing this and for figuring out how to improve things for the next editor. Thanks! WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Always trying to improve pages for clarifications and improved completeness.

One more thing, I'm pretty sure "mirror sites" is also a dependent source for online content. Adding this point should not be at all questionable, because a mirror site is just like the main site but it's just a repost. Surely a mirror site is not at all considered independent. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Pardon, I meant "non-independent", but it should mean the same thing, I think. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

A mirror of what, and independent of what? Imagine that someone made a mirror of a major news source ("mirror.com"), including an article about Paul Politician and his dealing with Bob Business. The news article would still be independent of the subject matter. (You couldn't link to it because of WP:LINKVIO, but "mirror.com" still wouldn't have a connection to Bob or Paul.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

My thinking was something like a reposted version of the subject in question. Like say there is a meme video of a dancing potato. Let's say it was originally posted on YouTube and it became so-called "popular". If that video is reposted a lot on other websites, that's not independent? But yes, you have a point about mirrored major news sources still being considered independent sources, albeit a bit fishy in terms of copyright violation of an independent source, since they have no direct relationship with the subjects and only with the ones making the independent sources are involved with the mirrored site stuff.

Perhaps I must be confused this thing about what "independent sources" are and whether they dictate notability of an article subject. Because a thing can be "independent" but it doesn't necessarily mean it's "notable". I do need to get my words right, I think, but where could I address something about further explaining independent and its relation to making a source useful enough to secure notability of a subject? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about this again, with the dancing potato example, if the creator of the original said to the reposters "please repost" or in the video that creator put in the video "please repost" as a message to spread the video, then that would be leading towards those mirrors being a dependent source. But otherwise, by default, mirrors shouldn't be dependent. I do have some experience with telling other small YouTube users about messages like "ooh make a new edit of my video, I think it will be cool!" and knew that this kind of thing would be influencing the others to repost different versions of my original video(s); that would be dependent and not independent. On the other hand, a user who just makes a parody of my video based upon my original without any direct contact with me would be considered making an independent source, at least I think so. But as for whether my videos would be considered "notable" and whether the reposts of videos are reliable sources and are quality enough to provide evidence of a widespread culture of my uploaded videos, obviously not.

I know I'm rambling on about my YouTube stuff, and I probably should refrain from doing that ever again because of WP:COI, but I am describing an example from my personal experience of what would be considered boundaries to dependent and independent sources and discussing about lateral aspects of sources not covered by the dependent-versus-independent boundaries, as in the case of "must express notability", "must be reliable" and "must be verifiable" for instance. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's take your fun example. There's a meme involving a video of a dancing potato. Let's assume that there is an article about the artwork itself.

• The original post of the video is non-independent of the subject. (It might be usable as a reliable source, if you want to write a basic description or plot summary, but it's not independent of the subject, because it is the subject.)
• Copies of the original video are non-independent, because they're the same source. Posting a copy of the meme on a personal website is like posting a photocopy of a newspaper article: we're still looking at the same source.
• Anything written by the meme's creator is non-independent of the subject. It doesn't matter whether the creator is describing the inspiration, asking people to share the meme, saying what a surprise its popularity is, or anything else. If the person who created the subject of the Wikipedia article is writing it, it's non-independent of the subject of the Wikipedia article.
• Anything written by family, close friends, or business partners of the creator is non-independent.

For a list of things that are independent, I'd list:

• If the meme gets changed by someone unrelated to the original (e.g., a parody), then that's an independent source. In copyright terms, it might still be a derivative work, but if someone has added/removed/changed something, without having being involved in the original creation or having any connection to the original creator, then that's independent. Not connected = not affiliated = independent. (It might not be usable as a reliable source, but it's still independent.)
• If a newspaper writes about it, that's independent.
• If a blogger posts a description, without payment or connection to the creator, that's independent. (It might not be usable as a reliable source, but it's still independent.)
• If a volunteer sees the meme online and decides to write a Wikipedia article about it, that's independent. It's completely unusable as a reliable source, but we're not getting paid, we don't know the creator, we have no connection to it, we don't benefit from it, etc., so we're independent.

I think that it helps to separate the "what we're trying to achieve in the end" from "what independence is". Independence is very important for notability, but it's not the sole consideration. Don't try to define "independence" as "sources that count for notability" and non-independence as "sources that don't count for notability". That won't serve you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like there is mention about the points about not adding COI, as well as that for addition of multiple third-party reliable sources with reputation of fact-checking and accuracy. But as for other aspects, not sure. But surely parodic videos themselves aren't themselves good enough as sources despite having the potential to be independent. You'll need stuff like news about parodic videos to make a difference, I guess. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

On another note, it's worth adding a nutshell to this article because of how complex the knowledge of the independent sources covers the topic. Perhaps something like "When sourcing, use sources that come from independent parties. Generally speaking, an independent source may have the potential to be unbiased and reliably sourced, but do not rely on this aspect" "Independent sources are important for Wikipedia, as these types of sources are typically associated with reliability, a lack of bias, and factual accuracy" or something similar. My wording is pretty shabby, but I think the second attempt at nutshelling the entire page should sum up well if the wording used was adjusted. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I think your proposed nutshell concept is about "why we care". I think the main point of this page is "what it is". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I suppose my nutshell would perfectly work with "why we care". Whatever the case, let's try make some suggestions to create a nutshell describing "what it is". If I got this right, independent sources are sources created by an individual or group who has no involvement in direct relationships with the subject. So perhaps something like "Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved. Wikipedia encourages the use of independent sources because they are typically associated with reliability, a lack of bias, and factual accuracy" might work here, combining the "why" with the "what". Because I think this article does discuss a lot about the "why" as well as the "what". Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)