Template talk:Unreliable sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I thought this template should exist, as I sometimes see articles that use forums, blogs and sites of questionable reliability as sources.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: reconsider the "Some or all [...]" phrasing, introduce anti-"badge of shame" policy, etc.[edit]

This tag hasn't been given the same amount of attention as Template:POV, although the complications that may be associated with them are similar. I noticed a problem here (which I assume can be considered a topic that's sensitive enough for this issue to be a serious one):


Basically, the tag risks creating a situation where the whole topic somehow is unduly discredited. The tag should be a less serious variant than Template:Unreferenced and Template:Disputed, but the current "Some or all [...]" phrasing doesn't make it so.

Therefore, I suggest the following:

  • Rephrase the first sentence so that it doesn't risk creating excessive "collateral damage" by discrediting reliable data
  • Introduce a set of usage notes based on the ones found in Template:POV (and maybe something from other template docs?)
  • (other suggestions?)

- Anonimski (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(Adding this to note that due to inactivity, additional requests for comments have been posted on three other talkpages: Template talk:POV, Template talk:Unreferenced, Template talk:Disputed) - Anonimski (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't say I especially care for this template. I'd much prefer that specific sources of concern be addressed than to blanket an article in this manner. Alternately, I wouldn't necessarily oppose revising the template to link to an appropriate Talk page discussion and read to the effect that "Some of the sources used in this article have been disputed. Please see the related (discussion link)." DonIago (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant
(A) where there are no sources or just a tiny number of dodgy ones, do research and then WP:SOFIXIT, alternatively use the unreferenced templates;
(B) where there are a ton of dodgy sources, do research and then WP:SOFIXIT, alternatively use use the POV templates;
(C) where there are several good sources and one or two dodgy ones, do research and then WP:SOFIXIT, alternatively tag the dodgy ones with the 'verify credibility' tag
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • We've had the implicit-badge-of-shame aspect of all cleanup templates discussed to death already at Template talk:POV, and I've seen no real reason to buy the argument that cleanup templates are inherent badges of shame (no matter how many bad analogies NewsAndEventsGuy has been able to throw at me). You're reading too much into this verbiage; if there are indeed many bad sources in an article, then that is a perfectly legitimate reason to use a cleanup template that says so. Yes, it's great if the tagger has the time to use inline tags on specific sources, but if the problem is general, then a general tag isn't faux pas. Nobody is discrediting an entire topic by saying that the sourcing in its article has issues. I suppose this "some or all" phrasing is a legitimate reason to start an RFC, but this can also easily be seen as tendentious, stirring up a fake outrage for no real reason. The cleanup template's phrasing is already very much watered down, and saying it's oh-so-ghastly is basically assuming bad faith on the part of everyone who uses it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with Joy's reasoning on the badge of shame/don't warn readers thing, and I also disagree that the small handful of eds who opined at the other page constitutes a discussion by the whole community to the "death"... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Joy, do you have any suggestions for possible modifications? Also, this isn't really "a fake outrage for no real reason" - I encountered an example that shows how this tag could cause problems with very sensitive topics, and started a RfC from that. As for the deletion suggestion - it could be messy due to the amount of inclusions this tag has, so I stand neutral on that. Anonimski (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm entirely unimpressed by your assertion that the tagging of the concentration camp article is a sensitive matter in any way, shape or form. Some people think history articles are sensitive; some other people will think that some other topic about society, philosophy, physics, math, ... toasters, ... is sensitive. This kind of thinking is a slippery slope into self-censorship because oh my, what if someone infers something offensive from whatever we edit? It's just pointless and it's against policy - you need to assume good faith - WP:AGF. Which is not to say that it's impossible to use a cleanup tag in a duplicitous manner - it is, and in any such case, that's primarily a behavioral issue with the specific user who does so, not a general problem with the tools that they use to abuse Wikipedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


Please make it possible to use this template for sections. -- (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I would think that would be as easy as modifying the template to simply read "section" rather than article. In any case, if you place the template in the appropriate section I suspect most editors will know what you're aiming for. DonIago (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that adding the option to specifically use this template for a section would not be a lot of work, so it would be nice if someone would implement this. Similar to how {{Unreferenced|section|date=March 2015}} and {{Refimprove|section|date=March 2015}} can be used. -- (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
This template already has a "section" option. I'll add it to the documentation. Debresser (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, nice; thanks. -- (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)