Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources)
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Where should I ask whether this source supports this statement in an article?
At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Don't forget to tell the editors the full name of the source and the exact sentence it is supposed to support.
Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me?
No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/cost. If you need help verifying that a source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange or a relevant WikiProject.
Do sources have to be in English?
No. Sources can be written in any language. However, if equally good sources in English exist, they will be more useful to our readers. If you need help verifying that a non-English source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Wikipedia:Translators available.
I personally know that this information is true (or false). Isn't that good enough to include it (or remove it)?
No. Wikipedia includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or beliefs is not enough.
Is personal communication from an expert a reliable source?
No. It is not good enough for you to talk to an expert in person or by telephone, or to have a written letter, e-mail message, or text message from a source. Reliable sources must be Wikipedia:Published.
Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?
No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual.
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.

Archives (Index)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35
Threads older than 14 days may be archived by MiszaBot II.

Contents

[edit] Transcript of a lecture hosted on a student organization's page

[edit] Mr Fzeeze

you have not mentioned Eli Wallach as Mr Freeze,  : Wallach played Mr. Freeze in the 1960s Batman television series. He wrote in his autobiography that he received more fan mail about his role as Mr. Freeze than about all of his other roles combined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.186.138 (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Wallach's appearance as Mr. Freeze is mentioned in both the Eli Wallach bio article, and the article on the Batman character... so I assume you are talking about some other article? Was there an RS question? Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the article in question is List of Batman television series characters. Freeze was played by multiple actors in the series and Eli Wallach is not mentioned there.--69.159.111.241 (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Um... actually, yes... he is mentioned there (and has been for quite a while). In any case, this isn't an IRS issue, and so not within the scope of this page. Blueboar (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Roman success rates of military

the roman military was one of the best of romes time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.235.82 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] British actor - Kenneth Haigh

Don Anderson rruggles@cogeco.ca

Possible missing info about British actor Kenneth Haigh- Twilight Zone - "The Last Flight", Very dangerous scene without a stuntman, Kenneth hand started an old Bi-Plane.Where did he get the experience?" There was no scene break for a stuntman. Starting an old Bi-Plane by hand turning the prop is very dangerous and among those trained to execute the technique many have lost their lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.208.199 (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Currie/ T Rex

Steve Currie also worked with me at Taplows wines and Spirits in South St.Marys Gate Grimsby in 1963/64 before going on to join T Rex! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.168.84 (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] kingdom animalia

can you please give me the sub phylums of vertibrates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.74.68 (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Try asking your question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Disclaimers on websites

A trip through RSN's archives shows a lot of discussions in which people ask whether the presence of standard liability disclaimers on the website make the source unreliable.

For example, the website for The New York Times says "NYT does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information displayed, uploaded, or distributed through the Services". This is pretty typical, and yet few of us would say that a major newspaper is an unreliable source.

So my thinking is that we should expand the ==Questionable sources== section to add a single sentence along the lines of "The presence of a boilerplate liability disclaimer, such as seen on the websites of many major newspapers, is not an indication that a source is questionable."

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Except that it is regularly indicative that a source is questionable, when it is used in place of an editorial policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    Can you give an example of a source that you would have been happy to accept as if they didn't have such a disclaimer, but have rejected because they do? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    This entire thread is being discussed with the implication that sources are globally reliable or unreliable. Reliability is contextual depending on what's being claimed. If anything, we should change the policy to emphasize that few sources are totally reliable or totally unreliable, and that it's all contextual. Gigs (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Counterpunch, Antiwar.com

Can they be considered reliable sources for statements of opinion? If, for example, I find that a criticism against a prominent civil society organization, made by an antiwar.com or Counterpunch writer, fits the entry for that organization, should I include it? Can they be used as reliable sources, not for facts, but instead for opinions, criticism, etc.? Guinsberg (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This kind of question is best asked at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Are interviews reliable sources?

Are interviews published by a source independent of the interviewee considered reliable sources? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

They are intrinsically only reliable sources of what the subject said in the interview; in that case they are also primary sources (which, for quotations, are preferred). As far as content, they are only as reliable as the person being interviewed (e.g. I once found Loudon Wainwright III misstating his own father's name). If someone were an expert in the field, they might be considered reliable for that. All of this depends on the reliability of the publisher of the interview. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export