Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Reliability of sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I come at this from a US perspective… and that influences my definitions. But my point stands. We do scrutinize right leaning sources more than we scrutinize center or left leaning sources. The solution to that is not to scrutinize the right leaning sources less… but to be a bit more skeptical of the center and left leaning sources and give them more scrutiny. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Very strong +1. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we should have less scrutiny on rightwing sources, nor more scrutiny on leftwing sources. The political leaning of a source should absolutely nothing to do with how we scrutinise any source. Instead all sources should be handled sceptically and based entirely on its own merits. Anything else would be allowing our own personal political opinions to effect to result. If any sources needs to be discussed or scrutinised then it's up to editors to do it themselves, as with everything on Wikipedia noone is going to do it for us. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The number of provable factual errors, in epic historical gafs, in the NY Times in the US political realm exceeds any other news source, and as the paper of record they have brought the industry into near failure. Even if we start on JAN 1 2023, Misstatements about position, quotes lacking context, biased coverage even with overwhelming counter sourcing, incorrect attribution, lack of visible retraction, use of "sources close to the situation" as in "on earth". NY Times feels they can shape the news cycle, because other news outlets key the same way as NYT and are in free fall because of it. The standard is flawed Wikipedia and until editors recognize the American Mainstream media has something other than a neutral position, Wikipedia is flawed. 2601:248:C000:147A:95F5:6C:B82A:CE37 (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

No source is without bias, that would be impossible as all humans are biased.* However bias is not reliability, and biased sources can sometimes be the best sources (see WP:RSBIAS). The core principle of reliable sources is that they should have "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" (see WP:SOURCE), if you think you can make a case that that's not true of NYT (and crucially that other reliable sources don't believe so either) then I suggest starting a discussion at the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
*AI can't escape this either, as LLMs just inherit the bias of whatever material they were trained on and that material contains human biases. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I haven’t heard the NYT described as center left in polite company.

How do you define polite company? 2601:248:C000:147A:95F5:6C:B82A:CE37 (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

What does "previously" mean in WP:SPS?

WP:SPS says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

Does "previously" here mean "before the self-published source was written", such that the author must already be considered an expert? Or does it mean "up to now", such that the author's previous self-published work can retroactively be considered reliable once the author establishes a reputation of expertise? Astaire (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this has been discussed before. The fact that this fine distinction (apparently) matters makes me nervous about whatever source you're looking at.

This is meant to cover the hypothetical case of Einstein having a blog about physics. If you stretch it too far, NPOV is usually threatened. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, and this is purely hypothetical for now, I was just struck by the ambiguity.

My interpretation is actually that the expertise has to come before the SPS, otherwise the word "previously" would be technically unnecessary. Astaire (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I am fairly sure the intent is that normal publication (ie expert status) has to come before the SPS is written. Blueboar (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

This is my understanding as well. Jclemens (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if we agree, I'm not sure that we mean for this to be taken to the extreme. If the SPS is published mere days or hours before the expertise-indicating publications appear, it would be silly to say that the author is an expert on Monday afternoon but not Monday morning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

When the reliable publication(s) and SPS are published around the same time, the order of appearance isn't all that relevant. But the further apart the published dates, the more relevant the order becomes, especially for more exceptional claims. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's contextual and not a good fit for a hard-and-fast rule. Suppose, hypothetically, there was a scholar who retreated to their basement and spent twenty years researching some field. Then they emerge and publish it, and are immediately hailed as the most important figure in this field throughout all of human history - the greatest expert to ever exist. If we had a SPS quote from them ten years into their research (eg. they randomly decided to answer some Reddit post on the subject, going "according to my ongoing research..."), I do think it would become retroactively usable, because it clearly falls into the part of their life where they could be considered an expert even if the rest of the world hadn't realized it yet. But now suppose someone dug up a Reddit post from them when they were twelve, before they had any formal education on the subject - that would not be covered, because there's no reasonable way to extend their expertise that far back. And while these are highly exaggerated examples I don't think the basic idea of each is that unlikely. --Aquillion (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that it's meant to be guidance more so than a hard-and-fast rule. If some reliable publication has recognized their work in the field from around the same time the SPS in question was published, then we would have more reason to retroactively allow their research/analysis from that time period. We would need something to verify the point at which they elevated from student/enthusiast to teacher/expert within that field.

While the Reddit "12 yrs old" example would be obvious, less obvious situations should still be approached with caution. Just because someone was recognized as an SME in their 40s doesn't necessarily mean they were one in their late 20s/early 30s. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

May I interject a quibble. Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship talks about allowable uses of theses and dissertations. While much of that discussion is about such being primary sources, the last sentence in the section says, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. That does seem to imply that the reputation of the author before the the thesis or dissertation was published may not matter, it is the reception of the publication that matters. Donald Albury 23:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Can't we say something simple like.... "An academic well known in their field" Moxy🍁 03:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

That has always confused me because if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence there should be no need to cite them at all... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The thesis/dissertation might have details that the influenced sources don't include. A great example, I think, is the thesis by Aaron Patrick Mulvany, "'Reawakening Pride Once Lost': Indigeneity and European Folk Metal", published in 2000. I used it extensively on the Viking metal article. Ten years after Mulvany's thesis, Viking and folk metal became regularly discussed in scholarly sources (take a look at the dates for most of those sources in the article). Many, if not most of them, reference that thesis in some way. Mulvany essentially pioneered that field of scholarly study with that thesis. But not all the details in that thesis are discussed in the subsequent literature, even though they reference that work.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

(I was so disappointed to learn just now that 'Indigeneity and European folk metal' refers to a modern music genre and is not related to old blacksmithing techniques or DIY metal production.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I do enjoy the former, but the latter would be really cool. I will say, "Viking metal" sometimes also brings up Viking metallurgy, not just the music genre.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

A thesis or dissertation is not self published… it is published by the university. Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, they aren't SPS. They aren't necessarily reliable for notability or due weight, or accuracy, but they aren't self-published, technically.-- 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this distinction makes it clear that the expert status has to come before the SPS is published. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I haven't seen this discussed before, but I've wondered about this for over a decade.-- 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, "previously" here means "before the self-published source was written" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Whichever way it's interpreted there's going to be edge cases. It should be before the self-published source, but I could see situations where that wouldn't be the case. A self-published author's book becoming the authoritative work on some niche topic for instance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Being able to cite policy and/or guidelines when deciding whether a source may be used is generally useful, but we must always be prepared to IAR when doing so will improve the encyclopedia. That does mean the ocassional messy discussion, but our goal is to improve the encyclopedia, not to carve rules in stone. Donald Albury 14:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, "previously been published" means "before the publication of the SPS". However, a SPS can also be canonised as reliable by its scholarly acceptance in later reliable sources. So there's no real contradiction. Zero^talk 11:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

citing wikipedia

There was a recent discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Kirkuk%E2%80%93Haifa_oil_pipeline_and_WP:CIRCULAR) which concluded with the assertion that there are no exceptions to the rule that wikipedia cannot be used in a citation.

it makes no sense. The rule's purpose is merely a convention aimed at improving correctness. It has no substance, since a wikipedia article can be as reliable as the references it contains.

It does not prevent WP:Circular, since something can be wrong on wikipedia for a number of reasons and be picked up by someone else and restated somewhere else, creating a seemingly new source for the claim.

A reference pointing to wikipedia would potentially allow a mistake to be corrected in two places at the same time. A person so inclined could also search for all pages that make claims supported by a particular page through a reference and propagate a correction, if such citations were frequent, which i don't claim they have to be, only to illustrate that there is no clear cut disadvantage.

There is a rule saying that content without a reference MAY be removed. If i want to use an alternative method to provide a reference and thus do more, it suddenly MUST NOT be allowed?

The rule relies on one sentence within the body of WP:Circular, perhaps it would be a good idea to think it through some more or be more specific to make it clear that there can be no exceptions. To me this is a recommendation as it is stated currently. Was the sentence originally written as a recommendation or as a rule?

"Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly" 2A02:2455:8423:4800:7D52:62DE:8D0E:7BB6 (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I glanced at the RSN discussion. I have not figured out why you were insisting that it was better to cite https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bahrain_Petroleum_Company&oldid=1274785393 than to cite https://web.archive.org/web/20241103171151/https://www.bapco.net/en/page/history/ (i.e., the source cited in the Wikipedia article that you want to cite).

I have definitely not figured out why you thought it was worth a dozen people and three thousand words to argue about it. You could have copied and pasted the source from Bahrain Petroleum Company into Kirkuk–Haifa oil pipeline and been done with the whole thing in less than two minutes.

It is not technically true that "there are no exceptions to the rule that wikipedia cannot be used in a citation"; WP:CIRCULAR has a paragraph at the end about the sole permissible exception. That exception is not relevant, and you may not cite any part or any revision id of Bahrain Petroleum Company as a source in Kirkuk–Haifa oil pipeline.

If you are having difficulty accepting that the rest of the community rejects your preference, then please read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point". As a purely statistical description of past experiences, people who have persisted in such discussions past this point often end up blocked with that section cited as the explanation. You may wish to take that fact into account when you make decisions about what to do next. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I really don't enjoy being a pest, so i want you to be comfortable and not in any way compelled to engage. But i have to ask: How could you find and read the content of

https://web.archive.org/web/20241103171151/https://www.bapco.net/en/page/history/

if wikipedia is not a reliable source. You may not see my problem, but you are able to do the necessary steps to illustrate it. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:7D52:62DE:8D0E:7BB6 (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I have been told to come here on the noticeboard.

I fully understand the reasoning of the current rule and i am aware that i can solve this problem in the way you stated. You should be aware that i want to solve it in a different way.

This discussion is about how the current reasoning is wrong. It is not about my failure to understand it. If nobody shares my opinion, this can be a very short discussion.

I consider it an unnecessary restriction and as such i can ask for reasons why it exists. Several reasons were given on the noticeboard, but they are illogical.

2A02:2455:8423:4800:7D52:62DE:8D0E:7BB6 (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

If you want to cite Wikipedia articles as sources, then I strongly doubt that you "fully understand the reasoning of the current rule". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:

I understand it as far as anyone understands it after a first read and I already challenge the reasoning on that level of understanding.

Suppose somebody hosts a couple of PDF documents that are reliable sources by wiki standards. That somebody also adds a tutorial to the page that summarizes those sources. The summary is a SPS. If a wiki-editor references the page, are they linking to a SPS or a reliable source?

I fully understand though what is going on here. Hypocritical content moderators make themselves justified by showing up in large numbers.

Plausible "blog posts" are legal to add in wikipedia, even if they are not good sources. It's a way to make progress (in either direction). And somehow I cannot ("never") be allowed to cite good sources if i also include a link to an SPS summary of those sources. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

That is NOT what WP:BLOGS says. Blog posts may be used if the author is an established subject matter expert in the topic they are posting about, but the policy goes on to say, Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. If the blog post is not a very good source, it should not be used, even if the author is an expert in the topic area. Donald Albury 14:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

It was communicated to me that i cannot link to wikipedia inside of a reference. I was not told that i should use caution when linking to wikipedia inside a reference.

So which is it? 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The point is you cannot cite Wikipedia as the source that verifies your claims. There is no need to split hairs about the mechanics of linking beyond that. Remsense ‥ 论 15:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

You cannot use a WP article as a reference. You do not need to rely on what was communicated to you. Rely on explicit policy, WP:CIRCULAR: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources ..." (emphasis added).

The question you pose in your hypothetical, "If a wiki-editor references the page, are they linking to a SPS or a reliable source?" suggests a fundamental misunderstanding. A source may be any of the following: both SPS and RS, SPS but not RS, RS but not SPS, or neither SPS nor RS. It's simply mistaken to suggest that SPS and RS are mutually exclusive. Whether the SPS content in your hypothetical can be used as source depends on whether it was "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" and is a good source for the WP content sourced to it.

If you want to use one or both of the two reliable articles as a source (where they're hosted as PDFs on that webpage), you have to cite the actual articles directly. Citing the webpage would be wrong, because the webpage is not itself the source. (If you think that's it's a source when it's only a host, then you're confused about the difference between sources and hosts.) If you want to link to the webpage because it's hosting full copies of the RSs, and they're not otherwise available online, WP RSs are not limited to sources that are available online. It might still be allowable to link to the webpage, but you still can't cite the webpage, because it's only a host. If you're suggesting that that's analogous to linking to a WP article, no, it isn't. With rare exceptions, WP does not host sources. It cites them. Citing is not hosting. If you want to refer to a source that's cited in another WP article, cite it directly, do not use the article as a substitute for the actual citation.

Re: your question "How could you find and read the content of [reliable source X] if wikipedia is not a reliable source," this is again a fundamental misunderstanding. That an editor cites a reliable source does not make WP article itself a reliable source. This goes back to your hypothetical: you can only cite SPS content if it satisfies EXPERTSPS and is a good source for the content you want to source to that SPS. But WP articles are written collectively, and it is impossible to determine whether the authors satisfy EXPERTSPS, nor is there any stability to the WP article, which can continue to be edited by others. That people can find reliable sources by following the citations in a WP article does not make the article itself reliable. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

My approach is entirely practical. Maybe it helps to look at it first in terms of how it is:

The lead section of an article does not have to provide references for the claims, because these claims are proven in the article body. At that point its pointless to argue about SPS vs RS or host vs source. Claims are written down and they can be verified by following a simple procedure: read the article and click on the sources.

Now i want to write a few sentences summarizing Bahrain Petroleum Company in the article about the Kirkuk-Haifa oil pipeline. For the same reasons that apply to a lead section, i should not have to prove any of it, because the proof is "below" and can easily be obtained. Inside my <ref> tag i link to the Bahrein article to indicate this and i also link to an oldid permalink of the article as a safeguard in case the references inside it get lost.

PS: the only expertise needed to extract information from a source is rote copying. I guess I just don't see the problem of a SPS being written by an ordinary wikipedia editor not being reliable. If you don't think so or it is very important, you can check the references and totally disregard the SPS summary of them.

PPS: the proposal i am making currently looks like this:

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

the references are copied over. That satisfies people who prefer it that way and who want to see some assurance at first glance that the ref was not added by a complete idiot and that the article will in fact prove satisfactorily what is claimed. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not itself ever a source that can verify claims, so you are putting a needless barrier between claims and verification for no good reason. This is "practical" in a very narrow sense, because it is certainly not that for the readers that citations are actually for. Just cite your sources inline like everyone else please; there is no justification to prefer a method that makes verification harder, full stop. Remsense ‥ 论 18:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

They aren't trying to use WP article text as a source. They trying to use references from article 1 in article 2, but using an idiosyncratic markup that includes a link to article 1. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

First of all, your descriptions up to this point have been quite ineffective in communicating what you're actually trying to discuss, which (if I understand correctly based on your link) is not about using a WP article as a reference, but is solely about using references from one WP article as citations in another article. Except that instead of copying the references in the normal way, you have an idiosyncratic way that you prefer.

"My approach is entirely practical." You're essentially arguing that it takes less time to create a diff and type one thing than it would take to simply click "edit source" in the Bahrain article and highlight/copy the corresponding reference. I don't see the time or energy savings that you allege.

"the only expertise needed to extract information from a source is rote copying" is false. The most significant information extracted from a source is the information used in writing the WP text that is sourced to that source, and writing that WP text does not involve rote copying (if it did, it could constitute a copyright violation). Determining whether to add content to a WP article (and if so, what the text should be and whether your source actually supports that) involves things like figuring out whether the WP text is DUE, whether the source is reliable, how to accurately summarize, whether the tone of the text is encyclopedic. When you reuse a reference, you're actually supposed to check that the reference does indeed support the WP text that you're asserting it supports. In this way, it is unlike writing a lead, which doesn't itself involve reusing a reference. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is not literally rote copying. But it also does not require you to be an established expert in the field to write the summary. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that WP editors summarize things all the time. As best I can tell, the sole thing you're actually arguing for is being able to cite sources in your idiosyncratic way (where the citation still shows up in full, but notes the article that first highlighted the source) instead of simply copying/pasting the markup for the citation. I don't see any time savings. And the thing this makes me wonder is: are you actually checking that the source is an RS for the text that you add to article 2, or are you simply assuming that when you summarize text from article 1, you can source your summary to the same citation, but without ever reading that source yourself? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Depends. Primarily its to reference something i have written before, but it can also be done to something where you found an existing paragraph written by someone else and verified.

But it could also be used for cases where you don't want to verify and instead delegate. You know where alternatively now you would just add content without any citation, only a wikilink. So for example: "China has dominated the steel industry for many years".

or: "China has produced 1,005,100,000 tons of steel in 2024"

Do I really need to verify the number when i know that anyone who wants to be certain about it wouldn't trust my version anyway, even if i did verify it. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

You shouldn't be adding a citation to any text if you haven't yourself confirmed that the source actually verifies the text. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Nah that is just my opinion, i have no intention of trying to convince anyone of the latter part of what i said. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT/WP:DROPTHESTICK/WP:CIR. Separate articles are separate articles. Also, no one said "use caution when linking to wikipedia inside a reference". IP is pushing their POV and not actually reading what others here or policy documents even say. – notwally (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah. To reiterate: if you're looking for permission for your preferred methods that needlessly make verification more difficult, you're not likely to get it from any of us, I'm afraid. Remsense ‥ 论 18:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly. The idea that citing diffs to old article versions is somehow easier or preferable to simply copying and pasting the actual citation to the source is nonsense. – notwally (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Not diffs. Old versions of articles. I don't want you to adopt this method yourself. The method is fairly easy to adopt to, because it does copy the actual citation, only with additional context. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  You need to step back and consider the perspective of a reader who has not read your explanations for all this. You are needlessly confusing them and making it harder to verify claims. For the final time before I give up, there is no justification for this. Remsense ‥ 论 21:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  I guess different people have different styles of processing information.

  If i write in an unrelated article: "Cuba's manganese industry benefited from zero import duty at the beginning of the 1930s".

  I can provide a citation from a 1933 reliable source that says this, or i can provide this paragraph that puts the source into a context.

  The paragraph is more reliable, because the sources all support each other's validity. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  I agree. The answer is 'no'. The answer is going to stay 'no'. I don't mind talking about the reasons, but talking about it will not change the answer. There is a 0% chance of this rule changing during the present decade. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  FWIW, what the IP is trying to suggest is different from how I initially interpreted it. I don't know if anyone else misunderstood in the same way as I did. They're not trying to use article content as a reference. They're only trying to use references from article 1 as references in article 2, but adding them in an idiosyncratic way that also identifies the page and reference # where they first appeared. The full reference still shows up in article 2. I tried contrasting the IP's preferred markup with the normal markup, but it resulted in half my comment disappearing (presumably because I've introduced markup that doesn't actually work / has a different effect than intended). The removed text in this diff illustrates the contrast. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Either way is equally as bad, the content of the other article (including it's references) are changeable. You can't use them like this as what you are linking to may have no relation to what it once was. The use of old diff is equally objectionable, if content was changed there may have been a very good reason for doing so. Cementing you version is ownership at best.
  I'm not going to comment further, as I've spent to much time on this nonsense already. But take this as my permanent objection to this idea in case of any future points. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  FOO, I don't think you misunderstood. The IP wants to cite a Wikipedia article. Saying "but I'm really citing the sources cited in the Wikipedia article" doesn't change the fact that they're citing the Wikipedia article.

  If they want to cite the sources from another Wikipedia article, then they can actually copy and paste the citations to those sources, and leave out the Wikipedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Nah, I just want to know where a source has previously been summarized so i know how to interpret it. I would also prefer to improve correctness if i know that it will be beneficial to more than one location in the wiki. Or see if there are dependencies after going through an article, while i still know a lot about an article i was working on. That would be good things.

  I would be ok if more people did it and i was not allowed to. That would be fine too. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  No, I did misunderstand. I thought that they wanted to use the text of the article as a source, but now I understand that that's not what they're proposing. I do understand that they can copy and paste the citations. The way they're proposing, the citations still appear in the target article, but the markup is different, and the appearance in the reference list is a bit different, as it also identifies the article where the editor first found the citations. If I understand their argument, they're saying that this provides additional context for the citations, though I agree with you that a better way to do that is by linking to (a section of) the initial article in the current article's text. One technical question that I now wonder about is whether these citations could then be reused in the target article in the normal way; I suspect not.

  It does have me thinking a bit about the inconsistency between the policy of not using WP as a source while allowing editors to copy text verbatim from one article to another as long as a they note it in their edit summary and add a Copied template to the Talk page. When I've copied large amounts of text from one article to another (e.g., when an article is split or editors decide that content should be parceled out differently between two new related articles like March 2025 Venezuelan deportations and J.G.G. v. Trump), I haven't attempted to verify all of the content that's getting copied. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  There is no inconsistency because you should be copying over all the sources. If someone is copying large amounts of text with no sourcing, then they are creating more problems. This whole conversation is pointless. Any additional context needs to be in each article itself. Links to other articles don't work because articles change and old diffs to prior versions would eliminate the ability of anyone in the future to change that supposed "context". – notwally (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  A link to an old version can be changed. Just change the link. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:7F86:AD19:940F:E49E (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  The proposal is of course not actually cementing ownership. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:7F86:AD19:940F:E49E (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  The proposal is already compatible with WP:Circular. I am copying the citations. And adding context to them. The policy does not say that i am not allowed to make my citations prettier. I can only repeat that pointing to an existing summary of the sources will be useful to some people for various reasons. (1) save time if they only need plausibility or are able to judge the summary for some other reason (2) to make sure that they didn't miss anything that somebody else found worth extracting or that their own understanding is supported by someone else's understanding etc. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Readers almost never read the sources (one ref for every ~300 page views; for an article like Freeport-McMoRan, which has higher than average traffic levels, that means that just two of its 109 refs were probably clicked on each month during the last year). Sources exist for that occasional reader, but they primarily exist to benefit editors.

  If you think people should read a different Wikipedia article, then it should be linked in plain text. Those links are more likely to get clicked on/read than the refs anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  I do not care about visitor traffic patterns.

  I care about that anyone (any editor) that verifies could be redirected to verify in another article. Not a big deal, anyone can do that. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:7F86:AD19:940F:E49E (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  The policy requires that all material be verifiable in a reliable source. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. (Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources by definition, no matter how many sources they have or how good you believe them to be.) Ergo, citing a Wikipedia article does not actually meet the requirements of this policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  I am supposed to work with definitions that contradict common sense?

  How about instead of a reference i use a footnote to convey the information. A footnote is by definition not a reference. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:602D:A68E:73FC:7E01 (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONUS and WP:STATUSQUO

WP:ONUS seems to conflict with WP:STATUSQUO. Per WP:BRD, when an editor makes a bold change, any editor may dispute that change by reverting it. Then a dispute discussion takes place on the article talk page. Per WP:STATUSQUO, the article should remain at the status quo ante while this discussion is ongoing until a clear consensus emerges. Some editors use ONUS to subvert the common sense application of STATUSQUO - that the article should maintain the original state that is being discussed. I think we need to add some qualifications to ONUS about this, as the two seem to be in direct conflict. Skyerise (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Just a heads up that this has been discussed before, most recently last fall. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The exceptions listed at WP:STATUSQUO are crucial, and saying " the article should remain at the status quo ante while this discussion is ongoing..." and leaving the exceptions to be discovered by those readers who follow the link is problematic. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

A LOT depends on the reason why ONUS vs STATUSQUO is being invoked. If the issue is that the “status quo” version violates a core policy, then we should not maintain the “status quo” during discussion… if, on the other hand, the issue is more subjective (say a question of whether some factoid is relevant), then we should. There is no “one size fits all” way to approach this, and instead of wikilawyering “the rules”, focus on the discussion and reaching compromises. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Right, I agree. But the section that WP:ONUS is in specifies that we are talking about verifiable material in that section: "not all verifiable information must be included." So it is being used in cases where there are perfectly valid citations and there is no argument that the material is verifiable; the argument is usually that the material might be WP:UNDUE, which is a guideline issue, not a policy violation, which should be settled by discussion. Skyerise (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Just removed an added line about this, as it didn't seem to clarify the situation. First, can we just use plain language in policies please? Second, what is the situation you're trying to avoid? Is the idea that X content has been in Y article for a year, and someone comes along and removes it, then cites ONUS when someone restores it? Doesn't our page on consensus and implicit consensus more or less cover that? (i.e. there is consensus for it, so it's included, and should remain there as discussion determines the strength of that consensus)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the issue. Material which is properly cited and has been in the article for some time is removed. Another editor restores it citing WP:STATUSQUO, but the editor again removes the material, claiming that WP:ONUS overrides STATUSQUO, and refuses to engage in discussion on the talk page. Clearly, if the material is not cited, WP:BURDEN applies, but I don't think ONUS should be used to justify repeated removals by an editor refusing to discuss on the talk page. I've run into this kind of situation several times involving several different editors who think ONUS simply gives them the right to remove anything they don't like and then can be used to stonewall discussion. Skyerise (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Two things:

• QUO's purpose is to stop edit warring. It is a section in the Wikipedia:Reverting essay. If the edit warring stops by "violating" the QUO essay and having m:The Wrong Version on the page during discussions, then that's fine. (Once the discussion is over, QUO is inapplicable.)
• You've been around long enough to know that Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays is mushy and that the true policy is the community's actual practice rather than its written documentation, but you're objecting to someone applying a policy (ONUS), and advocating instead that two essays (QUO and BRD) should trump the policy. This is not necessarily the strongest position to be arguing in an ANI report about edit warring.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

ONUS may be in a policy page, but the policy is actually WP:V - verifiability. I don't read ONUS as a policy violation if the material is properly cited and I'm not sure why it's in this policy page when it should be in WP:UNDUE. Therefore I propose moving the single sentence and the ONUS link to that page, since WP:V adequately covers unsourced material and ONUS isn't really about verifiability, it is about whether a verifiably cited inclusion is DUE or UNDUE. Skyerise (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I think a lot of these discussions depend on the actual specific cases. The idea expressed by Skyerise that "I don't think ONUS should be used to justify repeated removals by an editor refusing to discuss on the talk page" also applies in the other direction. What if an editor repeatedly restores material while refusing to discuss on the talk page? In both cases, I would argue that if there is no discussion by one editor, then the consensus is based on the discussion by the other editor who did use the talk page. When push comes to shove, though, I think ONUS is the more important policy. From my perspective, if we have problematic information in an article, it is better to remove it and wait for consensus to include rather than leave problematic content in our mainspace while we discuss it. Wikipedia does not have deadlines and there is no harm in removing information while we discuss it, while leaving potentially problematic content in mainspace while we discuss is far more likely to be harmful. – notwally (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, I can see it's been discussed before and I'm probably not saying anything new. But it does seem more like part of UNDUE than V to me. Skyerise (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

There are several areas of overlap between WP:DUE and WP:V already, and I don't see how it could be harmful to add something in WP:DUE about this. Fringe theories are discussed fairly extensively in both. I do understand the current sentence's placement in WP:V though as that is where there is more discussion about how consensus works (and note C also discusses the issues involving WP:ONUS), and so I don't think it would make sense to remove it from there. – notwally (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Skyerise, the reason ONUS is in this page is because it has something to say about verifiability. Specifically, it's message is that being "properly cited" is not enough. Verifiability is necessary, but it's not sufficient, or in the words of the section heading, ===Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion===. Properly cited material can be removed despite being properly cited.

The problem with moving it to DUE is that DUE is not the only reason why properly cited material could/should/must be removed. Properly cited material is removed for many reasons, including (but not limited to):

• POV pushing
• copyright violations
• unencyclopedic content
• being redundant
• being badly written
• being off-topic for the specific article

Moving it to WP:DUE would imply that DUE is the only reason for removing cited material. In reality, cited text can be removed for DUE reasons, but also for COPYVIO, WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA, WP:MOS, and many other reasons. IMO we shouldn't move ONUS to all of the places where it is relevant. If we're going to have it, it should either be here (message: verifiability isn't enough; you have to have consensus to include the verifiable material), in Wikipedia:Consensus (message: material without consensus can be removed, even if it's cited), or in the Wikipedia:Editing policy (message: everything an editor adds is subject to consensus). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Whether the content stays in or not is a million times less important than finding consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

^ This. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Does this include deletion ( removal ) as well? Meaning an editor who removes content from Wikipedia and gets reverted. Whose responsibility is to get consensus ? Cinaroot (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the responsibility remains upon editors who wish to include the content to provide a justification for why the text should be present within the article. Of course, your general case doesn't indicate why the material was deleted. A deletion of text with no explanation is easily reverted, and indeed there are user warning templates for editors who delete text without explanation. DonIago (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Why the material was blanked is important. Was it uncited? If so, WP:BURDEN applies, and you need to treat it like a WP:CHALLENGE. Is it contentious matter about WP:BLP? Then don't restore it until you have written proof of consensus to do so, unless you think you'll be able to make a convincing case about it being a test edit or blatant vandalism. Is this a WP:CTOP subject? Better stick to WP:1RR at the most, and remember that if it heads to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, you want to have done no edit warring at all, or at least significantly less than the other editor. Is there some special circumstance, like a copyright violation? Be quick to discuss and slow to restore. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is ultimately everyone's responsibility. If someone is saying "No way, dude, it's your job to start a discussion on the talk page; I just get to keep doing whatever I want in the article until you start a discussion", then something has already gone wrong. Consider what the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle says about such cases: The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

BTW, it's not unusual for someone to invoke the WP:QUO essay when reverting. It's my experience that a lot of editors haven't actually read it, and that doing so might solve some problems (or at least result in the reverter producing a relevant objection). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

...and if this is about the edit war at Hamas, then it might be solved by a trip to AE, perhaps with a suggestion that this less experienced editor might not be quite ready for the WP:EXCON user right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)