User:FortunateSons/sandbox

Title: Reliable sources can be prejudiced.

Nutshell: An otherwise reliable source can prejudiced without becoming unreliable. However, using such sources requires care.

Shortcut: WP:PREJUDICEDSOURCES, WP:PREJUDICENOTUNRELIABILITY

While a prejudiced source can be reliable, they often aren’t, particularly in the areas where their prejudices are particularly apparent. Editors in favour or opposed to using the source should check the list of perennial sources for an existing consensus, and search the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for past discussions. If they can’t find a discussion of the source or are looking for further clarification, they can ask at the noticeboard; if there are past discussions but no clear consensus, a Request for Comment may lead to a consensus about the use of the source.

In a case where the source is reliable and simply biased, which sources rightly or wrongly perceived as prejudiced usually are, attributing the view can be the best way to include the sources content. In addition, the use of a prejudiced source can be undue.

No matter if you are in favour or against to citing an allegedly prejudiced source, you should take additional care when discussing and editing such citations. When in doubt, taking a short break and doing something else for a few minutes or hours is beneficial when the discussion gets heated.

If you are citing the source, you should be mindful that whether or not you believe the source is actually prejudiced, the views held can be be distressing to other editors. Particularly if the criteria is a protected group (or comparable to one), not applying the necessary degree of sensitivity may lead to sanctions. In addition, even if your conduct is not sanctionable, acting in a less-than-appropriate manner when editing with such sources can harm the encyclopaedia and its editors.

If you are opposed to citing a source, avoiding generalising about the readers or views of the source is essential to allow for a productive discussion. Particularly in charged or contentious topics, labelling broadly held views (inside or outside the English-speaking world) as hateful or ascribing such views to your fellow editors without evidence can be disruptive. On the other hand, actually holding such views is disruptive as well, and should be brought to the relevant noticeboards.

When editing about biographies of living persons, one should be particularly mindful when using sources that are considered prejudiced.