Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

Foreign-language Wikipedia reliability discussions

I'm thinking about writing an essay on how discussions from foreign-language Wikipedias affect source reliability on English Wikipedia. Specifically, if a source is discussed on, say, the Spanish Wikipedia and deemed reliable there, should we treat it as reliable by default unless we've discussed it ourselves? How would that work? Gommeh (talk! sign!) 14:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The different language version run entirely separately, so whatever is said on one has no barring on a different language version. Even policies and guidelines aren't the exact same across different version, so judgements on one could be based on ideas that don't work on another. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Apart from what Actively said, remember that in places like China usres are very careful about what they say, if they know what is good for them. So while links from those my be useful reliability is not transferred. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Any discussions on reliability on non-English Wikipedia projects should only be considered as possibly containing useful information. As noted above, they may have very different standards, and accordingly cannot determine reliability here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
I find it works much better to look at what other language Wikipedias consider unreliable. If svWiki, for example, lists a website (like Fria Tider) as their version of GUNREL, then I'm going to at least ask why. Our sister Wikis may be more or less lax than us when it comes to sourcing requirements, but specifically warning editors off a source is a different matter all together. I'm sure exceptions to this rule exist, but when one Wiki bans or strongly discourages a source, there's often a pretty good reason for enWiki editors to pay attention. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 02:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Agreed. Conversely, if they say it's generally reliable and editors there tend to use the source a lot, then perhaps we should also ask why then. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 03:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Asking why and using that as a basis for arguing for or against a sources reliability is definitely a good idea. But it needs to be discussed here, the consensus they formed there is the part that's not relevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:25, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes, but the fact that you have to keep saying this again and again indicates that it NEEDS to become a guideline somewhere. You know how to do that kind of thing better than yours truly, so please do it. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Literally no idea where you've got that idea from, it's certainly not true. If you want something done you should be WP:BEBOLD. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Bold? Yours truly? My friend, my days of being bold ended well over 40 years ago. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Ayesha Singh

Can someone volunteer to clean up the unreliable sources and junk written in this page? ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Anyone can improve Ayesha Singh, including you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Okay I will try ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Good luck! WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank you so much ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

2023 bill se sambandhit jankari

2023 bill se sambandhit jankari ~2026-24091-42 (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia. If you want to ask a question relating to using or editing it, use English, and explain clearly what you are referring to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Google Translate suggests that it's Hindi and means "Information related to the 2023 Bill". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I figured that out myself. Not much use in trying to figure out what is wanted, is it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
My guess is that the user is looking for the One Hundred and Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Biased and Independent Sources

I find this a bit confusing:

"...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.

"Why independent sources are required...Independent sources are a necessary foundation for any article. Although Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful.

Can somebody explain? Mevsherd (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

You haven't indicated what you are having troubles understanding. --Yamla (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
How biased or non-independent sources can be used in articles. Mevsherd (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Is this related to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is God a Reliable Source? If so, then the specific restrictions outlined at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Religion will be more important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Not directly. What keeps happening is that I come across some unsourced or badly sourced comment, sometimes just part of a sentence, and when I remove it or ask for a source, an enormous 5-act Shakespearean drama (or is it a comedy?) unfolds. So, I've been reading some of the policies. Of course, what also happens, apparently, is that none of the policies are actually enforced. So, if there's a consensus to violate the policy, it is violated.
Anyway, in reading about this stuff, I noted contradictory guidelines on the use of biased sources (biased in the sense of conflict of interest). Mevsherd (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
"A consensus to violate the policy" is more or less a nonsensical claim; I think what you mean is "a decision by the community to follow these two policies instead of that one policy".
That's assuming that the uncited or poorly cited content was actually uncited or poorly cited. For example:
  • If the WP:Glossary#uncited content is mentioned and cited in some other part of the article, then there's no sourcing violation in the article. See WP:REPCITE.
  • A source that looks weak to one editor might not actually be a poor source. Sometimes a social media post (which is generally a lousy kind of source) is authoritative for the particular content.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Nope, not what I meant: I think what you mean is "a decision by the community to follow these two policies instead of that one policy". Rather, I meant what I said. Mevsherd (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
How can following the policy Wikipedia:Consensus be a violation of a policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
When the consensus violates policy, such as the policy on reliable sources or no original research. Mevsherd (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources is technically a {{guideline}} rather than a {{policy}}.
It's very unusual to see editors even talk about deciding to WP:Ignore (another official {{policy}}) the sourcing policies. It is common, however, to see an individual editor, especially if that editor is relatively new or tends towards rigid thinking, to incorrectly believe that a consensus that this individual editor is misinterpreting the policies is instead "violating policy". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
@Mevsherd, are you thinking that an independent source is automatically an unbiased source?
An independent source is a source that isn't getting paid (or any similar conflict of interest, e.g., writing about a family member) to promote an idea. "Wonderpam is the best product ever!" is independent if the writer decided to write this on his own, and it's non-independent if the writer is being paid to say something about Wonderpam. Things like truthfulness, accuracy, fairness, etc. don't even enter into the equation here: If the writer isn't being paid to talk about Wonderpam, then the writer is an independent source, no matter what the writer says about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Reorganisation and potential changes

Hi, at User:Kowal2701/Mockup re Source reliability there's a mockup regarding how I think this page can be improved, mainly by reorganising the sections to have a more logical order/layout and incorporating WP:CONTEXTMATTERS at a fundamental level rather than having it as an addendum (similar to the direction WP:RSP is currently taking (phab:T414741)). I was thinking (WhatamIdoing was thinking) it'd be better to focus on reorganising the page's current sections first (whether along the lines of the above or something else) as there's a lot of room for improvement there, and then looking at further changes later on. Would be grateful for people's thoughts on this, thanks Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

To clarify I also think a move to Wikipedia:Source reliablity would be best (though that would probably come last if at all, I'm sure some won't like changing established jargon) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
You may need to be careful with context matters. It's not the ultimate rule that must be followed, it's part of a guideline on WP:V. The point of source is that we can rely on what it says without having to rely on our own knowledge, if the source itself cannot be relied upon then any content it has (regardless of context) is useless. For instance if a source mixes hoax information in with what would otherwise be reliable information in a way that is hard or impossible to separate, then context doesn't really matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
True, the good thing about the status quo is that it relegates some sources as unreliable in whole, which is very important to communicate to newbies (I'd like to preserve that) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
It's more that there are some (even experienced) editors who exalt CONTEXT, even when policy is a important factor (WP:SPS, WP:NOTRS, etc). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:42, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
We can make clear that the criteria for reliability apply simultaneously and should be assessed holistically. Imo that's something the new structure of RSP will solve, it allows for more info on each source that can give guidance on the various contexts and be more conducive to nuance while still saving editor time Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Maybe an option would be to carry out the reorganisation and then discuss the changes in regards to context. I like the idea of stating that policy and guidance has to be taken holistically, many problems stem from people taking a piece of policy without rearf to anything else. I think it would also be helpful to include something on the quality of sources. Sources need only be of a quality to match the claim they support. It's kind of implicit in EXCEPTIONAL, exceptional claims require exceptional sources but unexceptional claims don't. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
I agree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Also agreed. Re quality, that’s a good way to put it. The more technical or exceptional the claim, the higher the quality of the source needed to be reliable for it. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
That's the point of the spectrum/gradient at the top of Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Overview. If memory serves, the balanced plate in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Other sources used to be in this guideline, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I think saying "Editors should seek to use the most reliable sources available to them (though this is not required). For help finding sources, see Help:Find sources." would be good in the intro to a criteria/overview section as well Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:37, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Enos733 might be interested in this, based on this comment a few days ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
If you're reworking the whole page, it may be useful to get rid of some of the cruft that's not really related to the topic, like WP:RSPRIMARY. The only bit in there that is actually related to reliability is the statement that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, which could be better fit in elsewhere. The rest is handwaving in the direction of a different policy to get "secondary good, primary bad" into yet another core guideline. Anomie⚔ 11:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
I looked at the mockup. Do I understand right that there will be a clause in the lead mentioning "sources that aren't reliable for practically anything except their own content", and by "practically" you mean "almost"? Do I understand right that the wording of WP:INDEPENDENT becomes part of the guideline? Do I understand right that WP:NEWSORG will have an added clause "breaking news articles should be replaced by secondary sources further down the line"? Do I understand right that WP:PRIMARY will have a link to WP:PSTS? Do I understand right that a summary of WP:FRINGE#Sourcing becomes part of the guideline? Do I understand right that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is to be replaced entirely by a section that hasn't been decided yet? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

What is the stance on calculators as sources?

I found a part of an article that could be proven with an online calculator result as a reference. Are calculators considered valid sources? KrazyMan79 (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

You should give a concrete example. Usually that would be considered original research, unless it's a "routine calculation", in which case we don't need a source at all. (What would qualify is a bit context dependent and there's some gray area, so this is ultimately down to local consensus.) Cf. WP:CALC. –jacobolus (t) 04:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
On the page for snub dodecahedrons, I noticed an equation with no reference. You could argue this is too minor a detail to need a proper source. I would've pulled up something like:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=real+zero+of+x%5E3%2B2x%5E2-%28golden+ratio%29%5E2
which, yeah, that ain't really a source. No publisher, no author. Not much of anything, to be honest. I assume that in my case, the answer would be no, and that we wouldn't need a reference because it's just an equation... I think I just wanted to feel like I did something important. I mean, I could've edited something else and do other things I can do.
TL;DR: In my situation, no, a calculator is not a necessary source. KrazyMan79 (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Adding a reference to Wolfram Alpha for this kind of thing doesn't seem necessary. Giving a decimal approximation for the root of a polynomial does not need a source. –jacobolus (t) 15:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Yep. That's the conclusion I ended up coming to. KrazyMan79 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
However, the claims in that section that these algebraic expressions are relevant to the snub dodecahedron probably does need a source. Unfortunately I'm not finding a good one in a quick search. Perhaps doi:10.3390/sym9080148 which I didn't read carefully. –jacobolus (t) 16:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm late to the discussion, but my opinion: If it's simple enough to fall under WP:CALC, it does not need to have a reference provided. If it's not, it needs a published reliable source. Online calculators are not published reliable sources. So in no case should we rely on online calculators as sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

SELFSOURCE wording - what does "themselves" cover?

Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE states that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves [...]". It is unclear to me from the wording whether this covers both "information about the source" and "information about the publisher". Ie, Conservapedia may be used as a source for statements about Conservapedia - but is the website of an organization (e.g. Greenpeace) a valid source for information about the organization? It seems pretty clear to me that this is the intention - but the wording does not allow this, since the "self published source" in this case is the website, not the organization, and thus "themselves" refers to the website. Looking at the definition of a source, I believe that a self-published source (which falls in category 1 or 3) should be allowed as a source on any of the 4 categories involved. A suggested wording which reflects this could be "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, the creator, the publication or the publisher, especially for articles where on of these are the main subject of the article". Thoughts? NisJørgensen (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

NisJørgensen (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  • If Greenpeace's website is under the editorial control of Greenpeace the organization, then there's no conflict, because the Greenpeace is both the source and the publisher. If Greenpeace's website was under the editorial control of some other entity then it's not a SELFSOURCE situation at all.
    For this reason, I feel that SELFSOURCE as currently written is sufficiently clear and unambiguous to resolve this question.—S Marshall T/C 17:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    Greenpeace is not the "self-published source", which is what "themselves" refers to in that sentence. The "self-published source" is the website. Or at least that is my reading of that sentence. What do you think "themselves" refers to? NisJørgensen (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    It means that all information that meets all of conditions (a), (b), and (c) is WP:SELFSOURCE.
    Condition (a) is that the information is written by Greenpeace.
    Condition (b) is that the publisher, in this case Greenpeace's website, is under Greenpeace's editorial control.
    Condition (c) is that the information is about Greenpeace.
    Clearer?—S Marshall T/C 22:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you for taking the time to reply. I still think there is a disconnect in our communication. You seem to be trying to communicate what the policy IS, while I am trying to understand whether the language of the policy matches the intent.
    In your conditions, I have an issue with "Greenpeace's website" being the publisher - I think the publisher is Greenpeace, whereas "Greenpeace's website" is the publication.
    The issue is that we have these four entities, which can all be called "a source" (taken from Definition of a source)
    1. The piece of work itself (the article, book)
    2. The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
    3. The publication that contains the work (the journal, newspaper)
    4. The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
    The basic definition of "self-published" is that the creator is the same entity as the publisher, (2)=(4). MY question is, if this is the case, to which entity do we attach the label "self-published"? My naive understanding of the term is that it applies to (1), the published work. I realize know that if author A self-publishes work W, then A can be labelled a "self-published author". But I do not think that this meaning makes sense for SPS in this context.
    Once we have established that it is the work itself which is labelled a SPS, it followed that "themselves" also refers to the work(s), and not to the creator/publisher. Which means that the wording does not match the intent and precedent.
    I do realize that my original "alternative wording" could be shortened, since there is no reason to include both creator and publisher. But since we do not agree that the current wording has a problem, this is moot at the moment. NisJørgensen (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    Normally when someone says that policy wording is confusing, the first thing we do is agree what the policy means. It sounds like we have agreed that now?
    The next step would be to draft wording that clarifies the policy. Such wording changes always need to be maximally succinct, as editors are rightly reluctant to add yet more words to our already very voluminous rules.
    The ideal wording change shortens the policy as well as clarifying it. A change that does this is usually uncontroversial and readily agreed. A change that increases the word count, on the other hand, will be controversial and hard to get through. Editors will want to see evidence that the current wording is causing quite widespread confusion.
    Do you have suggestions?—S Marshall T/C 07:45, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry to reply to myself but I've just seen that I didn't answer your specific question. I think that WP:SELFSOURCE applies to 1, in cases where 2, 3, and 4 are all the same entity.—S Marshall T/C 07:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    Nis, here's the intent: If nobody except Greenpeace is involved in any step (Greenpeace wrote it, Greenpeace decided to make it available to the public), then Greenpeace self-published Greenpeace's self-published document on Greenpeace's self-published website. We want Greenpeace's self-published document to be usable for information about Greenpeace (including individual humans associated with Greenpeace, e.g., their board members, employees, or key volunteers). We do not want Greenpeace's self-published document to be usable for information about any other living person (e.g., climate change denialists, government officials, oil company employees). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    @WhatamIdoing, @S Marshall: There seems to be agreement about what the (intended) policy is. This matches my expectation - ie, you confirm my understanding. The next step is to agree (or reach enlightened disagreement) about whether the current text matches this intention. It is my claim that this is not the case, because the word "themselves" refers to the "self-published source", ie the text itself or the publication, whereas we just agreed that the policy actually applies to the author/publisher. I apologize if this seems repetitive - I do not see any of you address this. NisJørgensen (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    Ok. This is the first time that I've seen someone express that WP:SELFSOURCE confuses publisher, publication, and text. Admittedly, I don't monitor policy pages all the time, and there may be examples of which I'm unaware, but without such examples, my position would be that the policy as written is not causing any real world problems. In those circumstances I would tend to support any change that clarifies without expanding the word count, but I would tend to oppose any change that increases the word count.—S Marshall T/C 08:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    I think 'themselves' is fine. Any text is reliable for its own text: yes, the website says that and that's why the text may be used about themselves. What puts it into "questionable", is whether it is self published by a self publisher. I'll admit that the consensus on whether there is a meaningful distinction between the author and the publisher can sometimes be tricky in any particular circumstance, but it won't be addressed by changing 'themselves'. It will be addressed by whether the publisher is acting as a true editorial publisher of another's work, or whether regardless, they should be seen as the one and the same, given all the circumstances. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • The wording could plausibly be changed from "themselves" to "their authors" or "their creators". –jacobolus (t) 07:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Larry Sanger proposing WikiProject Intellectual Diversity

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. TarnishedPathtalk 06:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)