Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 72

Archive 65

←

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

RfC on the language on tertiary sources

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

There exists an opinion in WP:Identifying and using tertiary sources which to me makes a lot of sense. However, it is an opinion and there is no corresponding statement in the policy, WP:PSTS, which states that: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Except in special cases I would consider tertiary sources as below primary, albeit balance is needed. Sometimes tertiary sources are too simple and hence misleading, the lie to children phenomenon. I think the language should be changed to be clearer.

I propose adding to the end of the policy statement at WP:Tertiary the sentence.

Secondary sources are always preferred over tertiary ones.

Ldm1954 (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

This proposal, to me, would codify the preference towards secondary sources. I can support this. SWinxy (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Support, tertiary sources are often merely indexes or summaries of a secondary source, and in many cases may not even source or link back to the original. Secondary sources should always be used when available, and this would help reinforce that. SmittenGalaxy (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolute statements like "secondary sources are always preferred over tertiary ones" will have exceptions, so are not usually suitable for policies. In this case, it wouldn't even be good enough for a guideline. For one thing, there is no clear line between a secondary source and a tertiary source. Most sources we think of as secondary cite at least a few other secondary sources, so technically they're tertiary. Also, some tertiary sources are excellent and some secondary sources are not so great. But Ldm1954 asserts this never happens.

As for preferring primary sources over tertiary sources, if I were evaluating a paper written by a professional or high-level student, in a field where I had access to the relevant sources, I'd agree. But in Wikipedia the editor choosing sources often has no expertise in the field, and the reader often does not have access to the sources. I don't think there should be a preference for primary sources over tertiary sources in the Wikipedia environment. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think LDM1954's proposal if WP:PSTS was more like what "Primary Sources at Yale" says: "Secondary sources typically reference or summarize primary sources and other secondary sources. Examples of secondary sources include scholarly works, textbooks, journal articles, histories, and biographies." But our WP:PSTS makes no mention of secondary sources citing other secondary sources, and classifies lower-division university textbooks as tertiary sources.

Another problem is that when a scholar or serious student is writing a paper to be read by others who are competent in the field, there is no need to cite well known information. But there are lot of editors who's primary activity at Wikipedia seems to be slapping {{Citation needed}} all over the place. Finding secondary sources to support these well-known facts would be a needless burden. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with everything Jc3s5h said about absolute statements making for bad policy and the boundary between secondary and tertiary being fuzzy. I'll only add that, wikipedia often covers the same topic at different levels of detail in different articles, and different kinds of sources may accordingly be appropriate. For example, hypothetically:
  • A tertiary source, say a standard university textbook, may be be the best source to use to add a sentence about a 15th c treaty in the respective countries' articles
  • A few secondary sources, say scholarly articles, may be ideal to add a para about the same treaty in articles about the concerned period in the countries' history
  • The treaty itself, a primary source, may be quoted (with care!) in the wikipedia article about the treat

The appropriate sourcing depends upon the context and it would be misguided IMO to convert the general advice to use published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources into secondary sources are always preferred over tertiary ones. Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Both Abecedare & Jc3s5h make good points. I am not trying to say that tertiary should never be used, which is why I used preferred. The background to my suggestion is an editor who quotes (very) tertiary sources such as Oxford Dictionary of Physics to counter other editors (plural) using graduate level books as sources, secondary texts which have their own Wiki pages. The claim is that the tertiary sources are within Wiki policy so equally valid, which currently they are. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954, it appears that this question is premised upon a misunderstanding. Tertiary sources are not "equally valid" "within Wiki policy". Specifically, see WP:PSTS (that's the primary source of policy around the primary/secondary/tertiary thing), which begins this way:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I completely agree with you about them not being "equally valid". However, an editor says that since there is no such specific statement in any Policy, the use of tertiary sources rather than primary or secondary is fine. Below is the current wording which has, IMO, wiggle room.

Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others. Within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Category:Wikipedia and Category:WikiProject Wikipedia articles).

If there is wiggle room an editor will (one has) exploit it. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

There should be wiggle room, because sometimes a given tertiary source is more reliable than a given secondary source.

If this is about Nonmetal, it sounds like you all might be talking at cross purposes. I can find an excellent source that says Cancer is a disease. I can find an equally gold-plated academic source that says Cancer is a character in a Greek myth. We don't have to prove that one source is 'wrong' to figure out which subject we want to put at a given title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The context is much wider than that. Going fully public, the context involves statements/edits by Sandbh in talk pages of Nonmetal, Nonmetallic material, Talk:Metal#Disputed cite: Nonmetallic materials do not have electrons available at the Fermi level, WT:WikiProject_Physics#What is a nonmetal (in physics)?. and the currently open RfC at WT:WikiProject_Physics#rfc_0092AD6. The main 4 people who have an opposite view are Ldm1954 (me), Johnjbarton, Double sharp, Headbomb, although there are several others who also have opposed the view of Sandbh at WT:WikiProject Physics, and YBG has perhaps decided to move on. There has been little to no movement by Sandbh towards a concensus, and he rejected an early attempt by YBG.

One specific pair of statements in WT:WikiProject_Physics#What is a nonmetal (in physics)? is what made me raise the issue here

:Please note, The Oxford Dictionary of Physics is a tertiary source and as such should be avoided or used with great care, see this essay (with thanks to @HansVonStuttgart for pointing out the information.) Ldm1954 (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:: @Ldm1954: That essay is neither Wikipedia policy nor guidance. For WP policy, there is WP:PSTS, which states that: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Ldm1954 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Tertiary sources do not have to be avoided or used with great care. Also, the community does not have a clear understanding of what counts as a tertiary source, so even if we did, it wouldn't necessarily help you. Someone would claim that the Oxford Encyclopedia, despite the name, isn't really tertiary, and that the other sources really are.

The specific dispute really ought to be resolved before trying to change the policies and guidelines, because otherwise we have a significant risk of preventable drama about Wikipedia:Gaming the system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

N.B., the disagreement is not really Cancer as a disease versus a character. It is whether "blue" is everything light/dark/navy or only color code #0000FF. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Using my analogy, we struggle with discussions about whether "cancer" is everything (carcinoma/sarcoma/lymphoma) or only malignant carcinomas. What you need is to have a discussion that says "We need a global article, and we need some specific/sub articles, and then let's sort out which one gets which name". What we usually get is "Noooooo, the one with this name is about this subject, so we have to totally change the contents of this page to put 'sub topic 1' on it right now, and put all this stupid general-subject global article content over at [Other page] right now!!!!11!!". Someone reading through some of these could be forgiven for thinking that none of us knew how to use Special:MovePage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. We have 4+ votes for a 'general article', and 1 for 'sub topic 1'. The $64,000 question is when/how/if to just WP:BEBOLD, move and have an edit war. (Edit skirmishes already). Ldm1954 (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I can easily imagine situations where a tertiary source is a better than a secondary one. This proposal says 2ary sources are not just preferred but always preferred. This means that any use of 3ary sources could be challenged because a 2ary source says something slightly different. The existing policy is appropriately nuanced IMO and should not be tinkered with. If @Ldm1954 wishes to resolve his dispute with @Sandbh by appealing to WP:PSTS, better to make the case using the existing policy rather than seeking to adjust the policy to match the desired outcome. Changing a policy to resolve a single dispute seems unwise indeed. YBG (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. This proposal does not correspond to actual reliability. Some tertiary sources are written by serious experts while some secondary sources are not. The secondary-tertiary reliability distinction is simply not uniform enough to give an absolute rule. Cases have to be considered on their individual merits. Zero^talk 05:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Consistent with the well-considered commentaries of Jc3s5h; Abecedare; WhatamIdoing; YBG; and Zero, I oppose the proposed policy change for several reasons:

• No immediate nor longer term necessity — There's no burning house nor high risk fire zone that necessitates a policy change.
• Variable reliability — Tertiary sources can sometimes be more reliable than secondary sources.
• Ambiguous boundaries — The distinctions between secondary and tertiary sources are often not clear-cut.
• Citation practices— Most secondary sources cite other secondary sources, which could categorize them as tertiary.
• Contextual appropriateness — Wikipedia often covers topics at various levels of detail across different articles, requiring different types of sources as appropriate.
• Contextual sourcing — The appropriateness of a source depends on the specific context and purpose within the article.
• Reliability concerns — The proposal does not accurately reflect the nuances of source reliability.

In light of these points, the existing policy, which allows for nuanced use of sources, remains the most appropriate approach. — Sandbh (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am going to withdraw the proposal. I remain convinced that WP:Identifying and using tertiary sources matters, and lie to children is real and important. To me a source such as Oxford Dictionary of Physics should not be considered as even close to equal to graduate texts such as Ashcroft and Mermin, which was my original intent. While it relates to an ongoing WP:1AM disput, I proposed it for it's own merits. However the consensus opposes. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sideshow comments

I note that in the discussion, Ldm1954 imputes or refers to out-of-context actions I am supposed to have taken, or out-of-context actions I have taken. I regard such content as irrelevant to this discussion and its inclusion as WP:INCIVIL. Thanks to YBG for your comment:

"If @Ldm1954 wishes to resolve his dispute with @Sandbh by appealing to WP:PSTS, better to make the case using the existing policy rather than seeking to adjust the policy to match the desired outcome. Changing a policy to resolve a single dispute seems unwise indeed."

Wise words indeed. — Sandbh (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Two possible additions

Under Scholarship, the bullet point Reliable scholarship should consider that books on academic subjects are often reviewed in journals covering the appropriate academic discipline. These can often highlight the value of any particular book. Since some academic publishers seem to be less reliable on the quality of their output than they once were, this is a useful verification of the content of a book (versus a properly peer-reviewed paper).

In rare instances, a review may be so damning that we would probably all see the book in question as not being a suitable source. (See [1] for an example of such a review). Other reviews actually turn out to add to the content of an academic book by giving a second supporting opinion on some content. (See [2] for an example – search for "observations that may not be widely-understood and accepted, but are nevertheless accurate" to see this in action. This example also shows how a review might highlight the strengths and weaknesses of a work, so further helping the editor in how to use a source.)

Therefore I suggest the "Reliable scholarship" paragraph should have added:

• Books are often reviewed in academic journals that cover their subject – these reviews may help an editor understand the strengths and weaknesses of the work in question.

The second suggestion is more concise. The last sentence of Citation counts should be expanded to say

• The number of citations may be misleading if an author cites themselves often, or if a work is frequently cited by those who disagree with or disprove it.

Generally, to disagree with the work of others, you have to cite them. This obviously increases the citation count, especially if a lot of other authors publish in disagreement. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hiding conflict of interest? You've been unilaterally removing Schaffer from Wikipedia for a very very long time based on that single review, in your ongoing WP:TENDENTIOUS edits against a very specific topic that you decided you do not like. - OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired on 15 June 2024 added "Some books on academic subjects are reviewed in peer-reviewed journals, so giving additional information on the reliability of their contents." Obsidian Soul on 21 June 2024 reverted. ThoughtIdRetired on 29 June 2024 re-inserted. I believe that re-inserting reverted PAG insertions, without getting consensus, should generally be opposed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

My own interpretation this, but the edit by Obsidian Soul (OS) was part of a rather unpleasant dispute which has resulted in them, for the present, retiring from Wikipedia. I have encountered ample support for the example raised (Shaffer) not being an RS, for instance[3], together with at least one instance of thanks when I removed Shaffer as a reference (with a full explanation and links to the review in the edit summary) on some articles not of interest to OS.

The more important point on the sentence added is that reviews in academic journals can highlight the strengths of a potential source. This can be particularly useful. This really uses the concept mentioned in WP:HISTRS (or more precisely, WP:HSC. The real example of usefulness is the second example I give, where not only the book but the review itself could be used as a source for the comparative merits of square rig and fore and aft rig in the late 18th and 19th centuries.

Do you think that the added sentence is bad advice in any way? If so, please explain your thinking. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that this is limited to academic publishers or to reviews in academic journals. It's no different than any other source. You have found a source, and you want to know whether it's any good. How can you do this?

'Source' means three things on wiki: author, publisher, and document. Consider the author. Consider the publisher. Consider the document. How do you do that last step? If it's a book, look for book reviews. If it's a peer-reviewed paper, look for citations and commentary/letters about it. If it's in a non-scholarly periodical, look for the kinds of sources we would use to write about their reputation and scope. And so forth. This is just ordinary "introduction to evaluating your source" work. It is not special to the academic press. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks User:WhatamIdoing. For the specific example of Shaffer, see[4] On the point raised here, whether the added sentence should or should not be included, do you think it is helpful? For an editor who, perhaps, is not trained in assessing sources, it may not occur to them that academic books are reviewed in academic journals. As above, the concept comes from WP:HISTRS, but, in my view, the advice of checking for reviews in academic journals deserves greater prominence. It is certainly a practice I try and follow. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that most editors explicitly research the sources they're using. At least twice in the last year, I have accidentally cited a Wikipedia mirror (some company makes a business of printing books of Wikipedia articles and selling them), which I'd never have done if I researched the book. All I was looking at was the source's contents, not its provenance. I had a reasonable belief that the Wikipedia article was already correct.

I think that review work primarily happens when a source has been contested on a talk page or at RSN. That's when it's useful to know how to determine a source's (or in my case, a publisher's) reputation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realise that I was that unusual. I often check for academic reviews of books before using them as a source. That may be because I live a long way from a decent library, so it is often cheaper to buy a book rather than travel to a library – but I wish to avoid spending money on something that is not worth having. (Strange that the same argument would apply to the cost of travelling to a library to use the same source, but it does not have the same emotional impact.) I find some reviews enormously useful as they can add to the content of the reviewed book. I also keep an eye on book reviews in academic journals to see if any cover subjects of potential interest – often finding things that you would otherwise never discover. Incidentally, I sometimes check the sources in sources, which brought to light an academic paper that took information and the sources from a Wikipedia article (uncredited) where the sources should have been flagged as "failed verification". (The basic fact was wrong.) Another example of circularity, like the Wikipedia mirror case. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it depends on what kind of editing you're doing. If you're deeply invested in an article, it's worth finding the best sources you can, and it would be disappointing indeed to put a lot of time, effort, or money in a source that you ultimately had to discard. But if you're just trying to get rid of a {{fact}} for an uncontroversial claim, then (almost) any old source will do.

BTW, I hope you have been mining Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. I put some time into looking around in it a couple of months ago, and there are literally so many (tens of thousands!) of university press and similar books available for free that I was having trouble figuring out which ones to use. Look under Brill, Perlego, Wiley for starters. Several other publishers are in their systems, so it's not just the ones with their own imprint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes books are often reviewed, yes reviews may help an editor, but an editor is likely to know that already. So I maintain that the sentence is useless, but alas I can't think of a rule against uselessness. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

That rule is at Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks but unfortunately that's an essay. I have, though, finally seen that WP:PAG says "Avoid needless words." and "Expect editors to use common sense. If the spirit of the rule is clear, say no more." On that basis I have reverted the re-insertion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Gerontology Research Group

I do not think that the grg should be considered Reliable they have been "validating" hundreds of supercentenarians that have been convenientlly years before serveal other organizations existed so they can claim to have validated them beforehand also some of the "vaildations" have little to 0 actual documentation Wwew345t (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore almost every important person in this group has been banned on wikipedia and almost all have tried using sockpuppet afterwards is this really reliable when they arent doing through work and have a history of breaking rules Wwew345t (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

And do you have any content related arguments about why they are unreliable? The Banner talk 23:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

They have been adding hundreds of "retroactive" validations that conveniently predates the founding of longeviquest who they are feuding with these validations have also included several cases that have no documentation/proof such as the two 114 year old Brazilian woman they validated recently they also credit people who weren't even in the group at the time of the supposed "Vaildation" again in reference to several latin american cases Wwew345t (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wwew345t, did you see the big box at the very top of the page that says:

This is the wrong page for this discussion. That's why I closed this discussion earlier. You are allowed to have a discussion about whether Gerontology Research Group is a useful source at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Longevity#Grg if you would like to. You are allowed to have a discussion about Gerontology Research Group at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you would like to. You are even allowed to have a discussion about Gerontology Research Group on the talk page of any article that is citing them.

What is not allowed is:

• more than one discussion on the same subject at the same time (WP:MULTI), or
• a discussion about whether a source is reliable on this page.

If you have questions about where you should take your question, please ask for help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

So where do you want me to put this? Project longevity hasnt been exactly active recently so I though I had to put it here Wwew345t (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't actually care, so long as it is not here.

However, if you are interested in the biggest 'audience', then Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the highest traffic option. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I will move it there Wwew345t (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)