Wikipedia talk:Interviews

I have tried to make this stick as closely as possible to policy and to common practice, but I'm not perfect. This essay could do with checking over by other experienced editors to make sure that it accurately reflects community practices. This is especially the case in the notability section, as I think there is a grey area there with respect to the notability guidelines. If you see any errors, or any better ways to word things, then please edit it! Of course, you are welcome to expand it too. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you started this, but I think you're over-emphasizing the primary–secondary issue. We actually gave three major factors to consider for source classification:

• primary vs not
• self-published vs not
• independent vs not

The problem is the range of interviews (especially on radio). Is the interview "So, Joe Film, would you tell me about your wedding plans?" or is it "So, Professor Paul, what can you tell me about the history of this holiday?"

Joe Film is an expert on his own person life, but what he's saying is primary and non-independent. Professor Paul is an expert on history, but what he's saying is secondary and independent. Both of these are (expert) interviews.

I think it might be most useful for you to read WP:USESPS and then looking over the structure you've developed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

One thing I would highlight a bit more... the need for in-text attribution. When we use an interview as a source for information, we should present the information as being a statement of opinion, and not as unattributed fact. The article text should read something like: In an interview in the New York Times, Joe Person stated that <quote or close paraphrase of interview>... or... according to Joe Person <quote or close paraphrase of interview>. In-text attribution ensures that the citation is supporting the accuracy of the quote or paraphrase (ie the fact that Joe Person said what we say he said)... and not necessarily supporting the accuracy of the information itself (ie that what Joe Person said is accurate). Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

True but there is one case where that would not make sense. For example, the article for video game Ōkami cites an interview with the localization team to support the assertion in the article that the team used shorter versions of Japanese names for the English language release. In that case since they were talking about a decision that they themselves made it clearly should not be treated as an opinion.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• You might want to mention that there's actually a citation template for interview references. I've gotten the feeling that interview information is actually looked down upon in many BLPs, but, if the subject is stating things that only they would know truly for themselves, then I don't know what the problem would be about. Also, a lot of information that can be gleaned from an interview might not be notable information (information that meets the notability criteria for article inclusion on Wikipedia), but it may just be simple, non-controversial information that might help to better fill-out a Wikipedia article. Guy1890 (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the basic premiss of this section, "the golden rule is that any statements made by the interviewee are primary-source material" is often wrong. Some interviews are like that; David Frost interviewed Richard Nixon mainly to get Richard Nixon's position on the record; most of those interviews would be primary sources. But in interviews to gather information about some story, where the story is not about the interviewee, we can expect a capable journalist or publication to have a substantial number of sources they could interview, and only interview the most knowledgeable or well-positioned sources. After the interviews, we can expect the reliable publication to only include the most useful and plausible sources. So if the reliable source is a secondary source, the points made in it come from a secondary source, whether the point is made in the words of the author, or in the words of an interviewee. But any segments that are qualified, such as "this video was supplied by the Turquoise Militia and XYZ News cannot verify its contents" would be primary sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I just saw this policy being referenced and realized that it had just been written. I read it over and I see it being discussed here. I wanted to comment that I feel it is good enough and that it should work in most cases as it is. Thanks for this Mr. Stradivarius. I look forward to watching this be developed over time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: - I actually was going to start a discussion on WP:RS about this very subject, though I had another thought on this which isn't really addressed: interviews which are not clearly presented as such in the source material.

This is a big problem in many cases, where an article is fundamentally interviewing someone, but it isn't written like an ask-and-response thing, but written in a different format. These are still primary sources, because the material is all being sourced from the person in question, but the article does not present it in the usual interviewing format, and it is very easy for people to think that they are reporting on something when all the material is coming from the interview.

Where do we draw the line? Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious about the Notability section. I don't necessarily think it's wrong, I'm just not sure how much it reflects opinions across the project. In video game-related deletion discussions—the AfDs I'm most familiar with—it seems like more of a 50/50 or even 60/40 split, with the (slight) majority believing that interviews don't count towards notability, or at least they don't count very much. Of course, perhaps that's just my own confirmation bias, or maybe just a trend within video games. Woodroar (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree and recommend this section be clarified. The essence of notability under WP:GNG is a more technical definition than in common language. Here, it's not enough that a subject seem notable. We have a specific definition requiring that others not connected with the subject take note and that they do so by offering their own secondary thoughts in reliable sources. Earlier passages in this essay correctly make clear that anything the interviewee says about himself or his own work is clearly primary. If it's primary, WP:GNG makes clear that cannot contribute to notability.

But not interviews are alike. Some are just softball Q&A allowing the interviewee to say anything he likes. Those interviews are clearly primary because they contain no meaningful secondary content and are thus unhelpful in establishing notability. Others are more like an investigative 60 Minutes segment, where the interview material is interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts, often challenging everything the interviewee says. An interview like that does contribute to notability. But you need that secondary analysis before the interview can be helpful in establishing notability and, even then, only that secondary part is helpful. Msnicki (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and revised this section as I outlined here. If there objections, please revert me and let's discuss it here. But given that the original concern has been sitting here without objection for 7 months, I'm hoping my edit will seem reasonable. Msnicki (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I like the changes. The distinction between softball interviews and those with secondary analysis is an important one. Woodroar (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you've taken it too far. While an interview is not a third-party source when it comes to the content, and someone declaring themselves important does not make them such, the fact that someone is repeatedly selected to be interviewed (assuming they're not man on the street interviews) does indicate that the person is of interest to the people conducting the interviews. It may establish that the person is an expert in a topic or that someone is widely quoted by their peers. Some interviews may also combine independent fact checking (you were alluding to that) or reviews. Often you'll find lower quality sources that are just reports about the reports (So and so said this in an interview) and that seems like a much worse source to be citing. I'd hate to encourage it. I'm going to take a stab at this. Feel free to revert if I'm way out of line here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hostgeeky (talk • contribs) 01:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't. I see that you only have a small number of edits here on Wikipedia and none of them in an AfD, where we decide whether to keep an article based on notability. The argument you've offered is one that's commonly offered by editors who are new to Wikipedia and don't yet appreciate that we use a more technical definition for notability than in ordinary conversation. The argument is wrong and it rarely prevails. This section was written for new editors like yourself to explain the problem. Before you decide it's all wrong, I think you should gain some more experience, especially in some AfDs. Msnicki (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Too late. I was editing while you were typing. Read what I said and feel free to revert or revise (I'd prefer you revise since I fixed several grammar issues). I think I'm being pretty reasonable here in translating and clarifying what you were already saying and what I remember this essay saying several months ago when I last read it. Hostgeeky (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Not correct and not acceptable. I've reverted. WP doesn't work the way you wish it did. Msnicki (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I noticed this particular essay references who the interviewer is, ie are they a respected journalist? What if a Wikipedian manages to wrangle an interview with a celebrity or a notable expert in the field himself? Do interviews conducted by individual editors count as credible sources, as opposed to original research? If credibility is an issue, rather than taking the editor's word for it, Wikipedia can request transcripts or a digital recording of the interview in question to complete the cite and prove what was said.

This would particularly helpful when referencing articles on relatively obscure or technical fields with interviews we conduct via notable persons - particularly if there isn't much in the way of published material about the topic.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I realize I'm responding to a few-years old comment, but as no one else has responded.... No, a Wikipedian interviewing a subject would not be useful as a source for an article for several reasons. 1. Verifiability requires that readers be able to access the source, therefore meaning that the source must be published. A digital recording of the interview uploaded to Commons might arguably, technically meet the verifiability standard, but it would still be 2. Original research, which is forbidden under Wikipedia policy because Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source, repackaging information previously published by secondary sources. 3. We would be opening ourselves up even more than we already are to spam, advertisements masquerading as articles, and sundry other junk. Remember, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. 4. Notability requires that the world at large have noticed and reported on a topic before we include it in Wikipedia. If we are having to do our own interviews because there is a lack of information in published reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then the subject is not notable and should not have an article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The decision by a reliable, independent newspaper or magazine to feature a substantial interview with an individual does carry weight for the notability of that individual. If many reliable sources feature interviews with them, that is an unassailable argument for notability, even if none of those reliable sources printed a single word of analysis or criticism. The fact that these reliable sources have made the decision to run those interview means that they consider the topic to be notable, and their decision creates an assumption of notability here too.

Uncritical interview sections should indeed be treated as primary sources for verifiability purposes, but for notability, a reliable independent source is still a reliable independent source unless some very exceptional circumstances apply (for example, the New York Times interviewing Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times).

I see that this argument is dismissed above as being "commonly offered by editors who are new to Wikipedia." However, it is also the current project-wide consensus on this topic, and it is supported by the general notability guideline.

Thparkth (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think WP:GNG does support use of interviews. In the opening sentence, GNG requires sources that are independent of the subject. Further down, "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. If the source is the subject talking about himself, I don't know you how you argue that's independent. It could certainly be used to support notability of other independent subjects the interviewee talks about but not the interviewee himself or herself. If you still disagree, it would be helpful if you could cite not just GNG but the specific language in GNG you rely on and your reasoning. Msnicki (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You are fundamentally misunderstanding what is meant by "independent of the subject" in the context of notabilty. The New York Times does not become dependent on Donald Trump because it publishes an unabridged interview with him; it remains a work "independent of the subject". The independent source's decision to publish the interview is what confers notability, not the content of the interview itself. The things you cite (advertising, press releases etc) are not evidence of notability because the decision to publish them is not being made independently of the subject, but that is not in any way comparable to an editorial interview in a newspaper. Thparkth (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, suppose Donald Trump stopped by for an exclusive interview with the NYT staff and they published it verbatim without additional comment. You think that would indicate they thought he was notable. I think it would indicate they're aware he's the frontrunner for the GOP nomination for president of the United States. He's already obviously notable, the subject of countless reliable independent sources and absolutely nothing about his notability hinges on what this interview contributes.

But that's not the usual case in an AfD. We're not usually discussing whether to have an article about a leading candidate to be the next US president. Those are usually pretty easy calls and rarely make it to AfD. The more typical scenario is the author of some how-to books on programming, including one on the latest Microsoft or open source whatever. We have a few weak sources (blogs, listings as a speaker at various conventions and so on) and we're asked to consider an interview somewhere on the web where he/she (usually he) talks about the new whatever and maybe his/her own personal life. Accompanying the interview is a short one-paragraph bio, usually supplied by the subject, rarely copy-edited except for length.

I don't think those interviews contribute to notability. Do you?

As long as it's published on a reliable source not connected the new whatever, the interview could certainly contribute to the notability of that new product. But it would not contribute to that individual's notability. To get that, you have to get other people writing or talking about him or his ideas or even just about the interview.

But once you do establish notability with those other independent sources, a lot of the interview material, even though primary, could be used to support various claims in the article, e.g., about the subject's personal life or views on the new whatever.

Re: your argument that it all hinges on the publisher's decision to publish, that would seem to apply to autobiographies as well. Publishers decide which of those to publish as well. But we don't accept them, either. You think we should? Msnicki (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment I agree with User talk:Msnicki Thparkth many people are mistaken about the GNG on this one and GNG does not consider the content of the article in terms of primary, secondary, tertiary, it states:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

1. The "significant coverage" must be in a reliable source(s)
2. The "reliable sources" must be independent of the subject
3. The significant coverage, meaning a significant portion of the work i.e. title, lede/closing paragraph, or significant subsection, allows us the presumption that the subject is, ...presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. -- before we ever evaluate the body of the referenced text.

Significant coverage addresses the visibility of the publisher and how much of the article's content is about the subject. An interview should be considered mostly secondary because it is not written by the primary source and "...author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts" inevitably leads to the next question. The author is largely interpreting the response, analyzing and then steering the interview content, not the subject.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

GNG goes on to state:

"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.

and then WP:PSTS on secondary sources states:

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event.

So again, the author is analyzing the content from the primary source and reporting on it. If the author does not like the answer to a question, it can be dropped and the author has the option of rearranging the sequence of the questions (during and after the interview) and shortening quotes.

Finally, for statements made in the interview, this is a matter of WP:SELFSOURCE, but if an artist is interviewed in Billboard magazine with her name in the title, the first paragraph, or is otherwise significantly mentioned, that artist has obviously gained some notability. 009o9 (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Required Disclosure: I guess this qualifies as an administrative area, I have to disclose that I do take paid work and disclose my client's identity etc. 009o9 (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've pinged a couple of editors here and there does not seem to be much interest, I'm going to take a go at the article per BE:BOLD. Concerning my paid editing disclosure, this is a completely voluntary and unpaid exercise for me. 009o9 (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious how you factor vox populi interviews into your opinion or understanding of policy. I know people who have been interviewed literally dozens of times between street polling and witnessing crimes and participating in Help a Reporter Out. Should they have their own articles? Woodroar (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Woodroar The primary indication would be, is the subject's name in the title or the lede or summary paragraphs? In your vox populi example (which I know nothing about the publisher), it's not really likely that a serial witness is going to be a prominent part of the story.

Have a look at the article, I've taken a complete pass at it with the exception of the Who, what, where section, which can probably be extended. I'd like to take a break and go through it another couple of times in the next few days. Then put it up for RfC. I'd at least like to get some of the community to evaluate it (to reconsider the prevailing opinion in AfD) and we can revert if it fails. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It's okay to WP:BEBOLD but I don't believe you have consensus for your changes and I don't believe they actually match our guidelines. Consequently, I've reverted them. Let's keep talking. Msnicki (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Msnicki I don't believe there is a consensus here, just an essay with no evidence of an RfC. Was it listed at the Village Pump? What is more likely is that we have a WP:Local consensus that is based upon a misreading of the GNG definition of "significant coverage". Anyway, it looks like I was editing and walked on your revert. Since you object to working on the RfC here, I will be repeat your revert (I'm not warring restoring) to the state before I began editing. My working draft for the RfC will be here User:009o9/Draft Interviews Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

A bit late to the party, but I do find the OP User:Thparkth's argument convincing, for what are my two cents worth few months later :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#We_really_need_a_sentence.2Fparagraph.2Fsection_on_interviews. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Some questions about interviews:

1. Are question portions of an interview considered primary or secondary?
2. Are interviews considered primary sources for purposes of determining notability?

--Prisencolin (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

An interview is primary with regard to the subject of the interview but could be secondary to the topics discussed by the interviewee. In most cases, an interview is not helpful in establishing notability unless the interviewer has included additional material containing his own secondary thoughts and analysis. Msnicki (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with this. The whole point of WP:N is to see if independent reliable sources have taken note of the subject. And as such, interviews are fine evidence of that. If the NYT interviews you about you, that's a strong indication you're notable. Hobit (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest that notability, as a Wikipedia term of art, acts primarily in service of verifiability. That is, it is less a measure of if independent sources have taken note of the subject, and more a measure of have sufficient independent sources sufficiently (& independently) documented the subject. Interviews add to the former, they do not necessarily add to the latter. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this essay, I don't think doesn't capture the intent of WP:N nor does it reach a point that has consensus. In general the point of WP:N is that we are looking for topics that have "...gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large... . And it notes "we consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." I believe that if the NYT publishes an interview with a person, that person has clearly gained attention by the world at large. I think that the primary-source argument used for discounting those sources as not counting toward WP:N makes no sense. And, looking at the discussion above, I think that a number of people agree with me.

I'd like to see if we can't agree that interviews in independent reliable sources should, in general, count toward WP:N. Obviously the quality of publication etc. would matter, just as it does for non-interviews. Pinging everyone involved in discussions above (feel free to add someone if you find I missed anyone): @Msnicki:, @Prisencolin:, @Piotrus:, @009o9:, @Woodroar:, @Thparkth:, @Katangais: @WhatamIdoing: @Guy1890:, @Hostgeeky:, @Blueboar:, {{ping|Jc3s5h}, @Mr. Stradivarius:,@Titanium Dragon:, @Blue Rasberry:Hobit (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The ==Notability== section seems a little off. But I think that this might be the first place to start: "Two steps are necessary to determine the reliability of material in an interview. First, you must determine whether the material is primary or secondary as described above, and then you must determine the overall reliability of the publication."

Well, um, actually, no? You don't actually need to determine whether the material is primary or secondary. It's not usually one of the factors that decides reliability. WP:NOTGOODSOURCE has the list of criteria (taken from WP:RS), and "figure out if it's secondary" is nowhere on the list. Reliability is all about whether the source is suitable, both "at all" (would we ever cite this source?) and "for the exact statement in question" (Einstein's physics papers are certainly lovely, but they're wholly unreliable sources when you're talking about the price of tea in 15th-century China). WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Sounds like this is a proposal to change WP:INTERVIEWS to say what it already says.  This is the problem that comes from questions that are not tied to specific proposals.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm referring to the notability section (as WhatamIdoing discusses) where interviews are discounted as not generally being useful for WP:N as they are primary. I think that's wrong and would like to fix it. Hobit (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
    • You may be referring to discussions somewhere else and making assumptions about what is said here, or perhaps you haven't read the current revision of the section.  What is wrong with the current section?  Please be specific.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Sure: "Under this definition, anything the interviewee says about himself or herself or their own work is primary. If it's primary, our guidelines make clear that it does not contribute to notability." My take away from that is that an interview which is mostly Q&A about themselves or their work (which is most interviews IME) wouldn't count toward notability. I'm claiming if a RS interviews you, they have "taken note" of you and it does contribute to Wikipedia's definition of notability. Hobit (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
        • And it also says, "The essence of notability under our notability guideline is a more technical definition than in common language, and is the evidence that the subject has attracted sufficiently significant attention from the world at large over a period of time....An independent interviewer represents the 'world at large' giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
          • Yep, so IMO, we've got something of a contradiction. And people read the part that they like. I think the part I quoted should be removed--at the least it is contrary to the part you quote and I think the part you quote both has consensus and matches better with WP:N. Hobit (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
            • Ok, I'm starting to see.  When you say above, "My take away...is that an interview which is mostly Q&A about themselves or their work (which is most interviews IME) wouldn't count toward notability.", my reply is that there is part of the interview that does contribute to wp:notability.  I think we want to state that we want to ignore the primary part, as the primary part may be most, even while not all, of the interview.  In the last two comments in this diff, I have provided analysis from an interview.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
            • Google translate of the French interview.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• What is proposed? The NYT runs press release interviews sometimes just like many other publications, so just because there is an interview in NYT does not mean that it is reliable. Primary sources, self-published sources, press releases, and unreliable sources are not necessarily the same, but they often are. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned above, I'm objecting to the notion that an interview in a RS doesn't count toward meeting WP:N. WP:N is worried about the greater world "taking note" (as described above) and an interview is very much that. Hobit (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hobit It is difficult to generalize all interviews. Some interviews in some contexts can be reliable sources backing up certain statements. There is a huge variation in quality of interviews. I think that a thoughtful interview by a reputable journalist with no affiliation to the interviewee is usually a reliable source that would count toward N, but those kinds of interviews are not in the majority. The typical interview online is an email interview posted to a blog, in which the interviewer emails questions to a person and their responses are published verbatim on the blog. I would say that is not a reliable source for establishing the notability of the interviewee. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, but that has to do more with the nature of the source/interviewer than anything else and we need to weigh that source no matter if an interview or an article. Hobit (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it broadly true that any time an interview in a WP:RS publication addresses the interview subject and their work, rather than Punditry, contributed to the Notability of the subject? It seems to me that if they are about the subject they are evidence of notability whether or not they are Reliable or admissible concerning the facts presented in the interview. I would even argue that interviews in reliable source publications are of equal standing for Notability (though not for anything else) to secondary coverage about the subject. (Just another data point.) Newimpartial (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

see WP:ANALYSIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.174.237.94 (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• I heartily concur that interviews in reliable source publications should count towards Notability. And that Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability needs to be changed to reflect this. If anyone has the time and energy to put such a change in the wording, feel free to ping me to participate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Old section, but I just came across this and, like many above, was surprised to see some of the text in the notability section, and that it's marked as an explanatory supplement rather than an essay. I've changed the latter, given the former, and since that designation was added by the page creator on first edit. That's fine to do, but when something is clearly controversial (see all of the above), there should be explicit consensus to call it an explanatory supplement rather than an essay. Methinks an RfC is in order. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Two now-banned paid editors,KDS4444 and 009o9, edited this essay to promote the view of interviews as independent and reliable. You can see that in the history. The reason for this is obvious. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we've gotten all of that out (plus I removed a lot of general verbosity and redundancy today). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

This section contains a number of dubious points. It confusingly makes unclear statements about independence. I think the whole section should go under independence. Independence is much more important a quality to assess for interviews than is primary vs secondary source typing. The examples attempt to source type for things that are too small. While source typing can be done at the level of a sentence, it really shouldn’t be done for anything smaller than a paragraph. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Your claim that "Generally, the word “report” flags a primary source" is wrong. I have removed it. The words report and story and article are used interchangeably by journalists, but story is slang, and you won't find it in the press. That is, you'll hear reporters say things like "I'm working on the story about the mayor", but when it's put in print, if it gets a label at all (most don't), it'll say something like "Investigative report" or "Feature article", rather than story. The thing in which the editors of a paper express their opinions is an Editorial, not a "news story". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Put aside sloppy journalists. Articles may be reports or stories. Quality media distinguishes these. The New York Times is one example that does.

The concept of distinguishing reports from stories is old and much more widespread than newspapers, although the distinction is cleanest in quality newspapers. Let’s give this a separate section below. It is tangential, not being directly related to interviews. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

About this:

• Alice Expert says that Localtown's name is the result of a transcription error in 1792: secondary source for history^{[dubious – discuss]} (also independent)

In this example, Dr. Expert reports that she has done an analysis that, in her view, shows that Localtown's name is the result of a transcription error. That is, she has used primary sources (e.g., 18th-century documents), and analyzed and interpreted them to draw her own conclusion. Using the definition of WP:SECONDARY source as something that:

• provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them

do you think that sounds like what Dr. Expert has done? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

No. I think Alice has done investigation, and has uncovered proof that a transcription error occurred and proliferated. This is a fact. This is not analysis, but data processing. There has been no transformation of information. This does not generate secondary source material. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to suggest a clearer example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

RE this revert on the real-world distinction between reports and stories, including for news, including newspapers. The “report versus story” is a real-world distinction. Eg:

“A report is a formal, factual account focused on what happened (data, events, observations) with an objective tone, while a story uses narrative, emotion, and character to explore the human experience and meaning behind events, making it relatable and engaging, often with a plot and personal journey.”; or

“A report and a story can be the same thing, but a report is usually just facts and a story usually makes it interesting with other things, like very detailed description.”

• https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/three-differences-between-business-storytelling-reporting-bill-baker
• https://www.ryanleach.com/blog/2017/09/05/report-vs-story

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

• “Report” implies data, accuracy and reliability. This implies primary source material, even if has bee collected, collated, sifted and sorted. The essence of the content of a report should be independent of the author of the report.
• “Story” implies a human element, crafted by the author. This implies transformation, and the creation of secondary source information.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

...according to a person who sells "business storytelling workshops" and a musician, neither of whom mention news at all.

Story implies a narrative, and especially a fictional narrative. Story suggests sitting down with a Dr. Seuss book and a preschooler and saying "Do you want a bedtime story?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

This is how words work. It’s real world. A report is about the facts. A story is about creation of a narrative. Take a news report, it’s the facts, historiographically primary source material. Later, write a story, create a narrative to wrap the facts in meaning, that’s a secondary source.

In a newspaper, they still exist, the front pages contain reports, and inside you find stories. Good journalism doesn’t mix the two. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

https://www.salon.com/2020/06/28/journalists-believe-news-and-opinion-are-separate-but-readers-cant-tell-the-difference_partner/ Is like what I’m getting at.

News, usually called reporting, and opinion, sometimes called stories, the writers often call columnists, should be able to be distinguished by people who understand the GNG.

This is frequently important for borderline notable new topics, because newspaper articles are the least good, easiest to find, acceptable sources. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

If "news story" means that it's something in a newspaper (or equivalent online outlet) that "uses narrative, emotion, and character to explore the human experience and meaning behind events", then you should be able to find a journalism textbook or some similar source that actually says that, using the exact words "report" and "story" and saying something like "these words are not interchangeable".

You can find the full text of some journalism texts in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library via Perlego. Here's two to get you started:

• Waisbord, Silvio (2025-06-09). An Introduction to Journalism: Thinking Globally (1 ed.). Polity. ISBN 978-1-5095-6273-2.
• Smith, Angela; Higgins, Michael (2013-06-20). The Language of Journalism: A Multi-genre Perspective (1 ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-78093-228-6.

Don't bother looking at The New York Times' style guide, as it disagrees with you ("In writing about news reports that are mainly text, ordinarily use the more precise term article rather than story, except for effect: How Nellie Bly got the story. A work of fiction is a story. But note that report or story is acceptable when referring to digital journalism that includes video, photography, graphics and other multimedia in addition to or instead of articles...").

You'll also need to avoid any sources that talk about the Lead story, as what they're putting on the front page and calling a 'story' is what you're calling a 'report'.

I think you have your work cut out for you, but if you want to keep claiming that this is true in the news industry, rather than just part of your own headcanon or among school teachers who aren't talking about the news, then I'd like to see some sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The news industry is pretty sloppy. I prefer the line that these are the proper uses of words, reports vs stories. Funny that “article” is more “precise”, I reckon the exact opposite, an “article” is the more generic word. Headcanon, made me smile. Did you mean that kindly? It is definitely a correlation that I see, news reports tend to be all primary source material, news stories tend to be more than just primary source material. Front pages stories tend to be more than reports. Thanks for the links above. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Journalism is also a scholarly field that people get PhDs in.

I think article is more precise than story. Crime and Punishment is a story. The Cat in the Hat is a story. Article tells you something about its size (shorter than a novella) and context (in a periodical). WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree about journalism. I lament the decline of journalism in the news industry.

In terms of length, an article is more precise. In terms of source typing, a “news article” is non-specific, while a “news report” is likely to be primary source material. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

This:

• Harcup, Tony (2014). A Dictionary of Journalism. Oxford Paperback Reference. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-964624-1.

won't do your 'story' any good, either. First it defines reporting as "The process of discovering, recording, and/or verifying fresh information about topical and newsworthy events, and turning such information into stories in a timely, accurate, and appropriate manner..." and then it links to story in that sentence, which it defines as "The way that an item of news or other piece of journalism is conveyed, which tends to be in the form of a narrative designed to hold the attention of an audience in addition (and as a prerequisite) to providing them with information. Although journalists tend to see themselves as story-tellers, journalistic stories do not necessarily follow all the conventions of traditional story-telling..."

In other words, all reporting is stories. This dictionary contains no entries for report or article.

• Stevenson, Angus; Lindberg, Christine A., eds. (2010). New Oxford American dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-539288-3.

defines story as "a report of an item of news in a newspaper, magazine, or news broadcast: stories in the local papers". That also contradicts your belief that story and report have different meanings in the context of news. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

It think this has strayed into cross points, and I should go back and review what edit we are talking about. I maintain that “news reports” tend to be about reporting facts, and “news stories” are more than facts. I am not about harmonising all dictionaries. Some dictionaries are loose and sloppy. My preferences are for the oed.com and m-w.com, and then I go to wiktionary. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I maintain – and have reliable sources to back up my view – that news reports and news stories and news articles are synonyms.

I don't have access to OED. Does it have an entry for "news story"?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/story has a news-focused definition: "a news article or broadcast". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/report offers "a usually detailed account or statement" and gives the example of "a news report". These do not support your claim that a report is different from a story, or that a report is a primary source.

Wiktionary says a story is "An account of real or fictional events" or "A sequence of events, or a situation, such as might be related in an account" (example: "What's the story with him?" and "The images it captured help tell a story"), and that a report is "A piece of information describing, or an account of certain events". None of the definitions are focused on news.

If I were inclined to go with some instinctive view of the words themselves, I'd expect story, as in Human-interest story (which frequently combines narrative style with opinionated statements, or at least implies opinions), to be considered a primary source, since WP:PRIMARY defines "editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews" as primary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

We maintain:

1. “news reports” tend to be about reporting facts, and “news stories” are more than facts.

2. news reports and news stories and news articles are synonyms.

I think both are true. #1 requires attention to the soft wording. I don’t dispute #2 and never meant to. I comment on what I infer people mean when they write certain words and not others. These are nuances of interpretation, and I personally hold to #1, as tendencies not hard rules. Certainly not defined terms in the news industry. I do like to read between the lines to infer what the writer really means while noting their perspective and bias, and I believe from our prior conversations that you don’t approve.

Sometimes, it seems that when I try to explain my comments, you interpret this as me digging in heels and continuing to assert truth. Reviewing, this looks like my fault, and I will try harder.

When I browse editors’ use of the exact phrases “news report” and “news story”, in the talk namespace, Wikipedia talk namespace, and AfD discussions, I find it reinforces my observation of the tendency for editors to use “report” for sources that are pretty much sources of primary source material, markedly differently to when editors use the word “story”. However, as you have objected to the putting of my inferences into the essay, I won’t try to do it again. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Even if we were to stipulate that this tendency is real, I don't think it would help editors understand whether (or which parts of) an interview is a primary vs secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

oed.com. Personal access is expensive, but some university libraries and public libraries subscribe and allow remote access.

All of “news report”, “news story” and “news article” are listed as compounds under the word “news”. They were first used in 1852, 1905, and 1855. Definitions are not given. There are eight quotes. I could copy them. They weakly support my inference that choices between different synonyms conveys different nuances. I am challenged by one, a quote from 2000, “a very biased news report … on-going battle against globalisation” The Big issue 20 March 33/2, which I don’t find online. The referenced report might be primary source material allegedly selected for impact to support a bias, but I think “bias” implies probable author opinion present, and author opinion in the published material means it is a secondary source. The selection of certain data from a dataset to re-publish with intended bias, this can be called a “secondary source”, but I prefer to first call it “dishonest” and then to stop.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

That source is presumably https://www.bigissue.com/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but I couldn’t find the article from 2000, to find the source it references. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I propose restructuring.

Wikipedia:Interviews

lede

Who, what, where (introduction)

Independence

Reliability

Source typing, Primary or Secondary? (was “Primary or Secondary?”, moved down two sections)

Notability

Trivial content (I’m unsure that this section is worth inclusion)

See also

I think that the source typing goes third, as it is less important than questions of independence and reliability. Notability is important, but it requires the sections above to be covered first.

-SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

1. I don't think you should rename the section to "Source typing", because nobody knows what you mean by that.
2. "Trivial content" is a problem that we particularly see with interviews when someone's trying to hype a BLP (He's got to be notable, since he got interviewed! Wow, what more could you want, than to know that someone was interviewed. That's sooo much better than someone who only got quoted briefly in an article.).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Maybe people who don’t know “source typing” should not be encouraged to think they know what primary and secondary means.

Do we agree that independence is usually more important than primary versus secondary source typing? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

• Firing >95% of the volunteers at AFD/AFC/NPP doesn't sound practical to me.
• More important for what purpose? For notability, I believe that the independence of the source from the subject is second only to whether the source is WP:Published. For certain kinds of facts (e.g., does the accumulated public literature indicate that this drug works for that condition?), I think being a secondary source can be more important than being independent.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I do not think that encouraging editors to understand that primary vs secondary source typing is largely an esoteric academic excercise, with little, albeit very important, application to anything but WP:GNG and WP:PSTS compliance means that they must be fired from AFD/AFC/NPP.

So, do you think, for the assessment of notability evidence from interviews, the order of importance is 1 Reliability, 2 Independence, 3 Primary vs Secondary source typing?

Comparing with WP:42, and it’s history and talk page history, Primary vs Secondary source typing currently is not present, and continues as implied by the words “significant coverage”. I submit that “coverage” implies “secondary source coverage”, that pure primary sources do not provide coverage of a topic as expected for an encyclopedia. 100 years of census data for a town is not significant coverage, even if it is a massive amount of data, broken down by addresses and families and names, with ages, genders and occupation data included. Is this partially or widely agreed?

While I argue often that primary vs secondary source typing, and the inclusion of a balance of secondary source content is important, as stated by WP:PSTS, it’s importance has often been overstated to the point of confusing non humanities educated Wikipedians. Could you agree that toning down references to primary vs secondary source typing might be a good idea, for the sake of comprehension of what’s important by the readers of this essay? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the order of importance is probably:

1. Published
2. Reliable (in the sense of "reputable" or "generally reliable", not "reliable for this particular statement")
3. Independent
4. Significant coverage
5. Secondary

...and only the first three are absolutely necessary for all sources. (WP:NPROF supporters would say no more than the first two.)

I submit that coverage means wikt:coverage #2, "The amount and type of attention given to an event or topic in news media or other media" and that significant means "a lot of it". A century of census data is significant coverage. Whether it is sufficient coverage, or the right kind of coverage, is a separate question, but it is significant coverage.

My objection to "source typing" is that nobody uses those words. Here are the search results for every single discussion page that had a comment posted last year that didn't involve you and that contain the words "source typing". There's just one result, and it's a coincidence of one sentence ending with the word "source" and the next beginning with the word "typing". You might say that everybody "ought" to know those words, but they don't, and that means it will be misunderstood by some well-intended editor, who is going to think that source typing is something completely different from whether the source is primary or secondary. We need to avoid creating any new jargon here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your order of importance. Do you think “secondary” should be considered a subtopic of “significant coverage”? Is it the right sort of coverage?

Source typing. Embarrassing, but, it was in use in previous years, and was even popular in 2007. I take your point.

Maybe “secondary” should be covered under “Significant coverage”, without a subsection heading? When I read wikt:significant, #1 “carrying meaning” implies to me something akin to “secondary source content”. It’s not until #3 before you get to being quantitative. From oed.com, all uses from 1566 until 1614 refer to meaning or value, when it then acquires usage related to mathematical precision. As a synonym of “a lot”, that first appears in 1898.

I think we are well agreed to diminishing the apparent importance of “Primary or secondary?” in this essay on interviews?

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that secondary and SIGCOV should be handled separately on this page.

More generally, about SIGCOV, I think that we want to establish (i.e., document) something like this:

• SIGCOV means there's a lot of coverage.
  • But you only get to count coverage that's realistically useful in an encyclopedia article.
    • So sometimes a really long source isn't useful, and therefore it's not SIGCOV.
    • And sources that all say the same facts as each other won't let you put additional information in the Wikipedia article, so even if they're really unrelated, they don't actually add up to any additional coverage.
      • But if separate shorter sources did provide additional information (e.g., one source is about a subject's early sports career and another is about his later political career), then these shorter sources could be added up to produce SIGCOV overall for the subject.
        • But the short sources still have to be realistically useful for writing an encyclopedia, which means you can't WP:SYNTH together one short source saying "He got married today" with another short source that says "He's in Las Vegas today" to claim that he got married in Las Vegas, because that would be a policy violation. Short sources can be counted as SIGCOV in aggregate, but only to the extent that they are actually useful for adding new, policy-compliant information to the article.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

About primary vs secondary:

Some times, this distinction is going to be important. I think the biggest problem for this page to address is editors who have a narrow notion of interviews. By this I mean that when they say "Oh, interviews are bad", they're usually thinking about a list of promotion-friendly questions in (e.g.,) an entertainment magazine:

• Rae Reporter: "I heard that you are releasing something special next month. What can you tell us about it?"
• Chris Celebrity: "Yes, my new music video will be coming out. I'm so grateful to all the fans for supporting this, and of course a big shout out the executives at Exploitative Label for making this possible."

but we need them to remember that interviews are a format that is commonly used on radio, television, and video sources, so you can't dismiss all of them as "Oh, interviews are bad". Some interviews are hopeless, but others are really excellent sources.

For this page, I think that the primary/secondary thing needs to be included, and it needs to make the point that whatever the format, the rules are the same. if the same person, saying the same words, but in a non-interview format (like a book or a magazine article), would be considered a ____ source, then that person saying those words in an interview format is still a ____ source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

At WT:N the following was posted:

Requiring independence is a core aspect of how we judge notability. Nearly all topics likely have dependent sources that would support its own notability, we want people not tied to the topic to explain to us why the topic is actual notable. Certainly asking for independence of sources is not a circular argument. Masem (t) 19:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The issue at hand is whether an invited interview, where a notable organisation (such as the BBC or The Times, for example) invites someone to discuss in a high-profile programme or article their work or other achievements is or is not "independent". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Andy's raising a question that I don't think has been explored enough.

One way of formulating this question might be to separate "the source" from "the contents". For example:

• A magazine decided to publish an article about Joe Film. This decision was made in the ordinary way, i.e., an editor looked through the information they had had and decided that they could sell magazines by having an article about Joe Film, so they assigned Rae Reporter to collect information about the actor and write an article.
  • The article is an independent source, using the definition of "source" in WP:SOURCE, "The work itself(the article, book).
  • The author of the source is an independent source, using the definition of "source" in WP:SOURCE. "The creator of the work (the writer, journalist: "What do we know about that source's reputation?").
  • The magazine is an independent source, using the definition of "source" in WP:SOURCE, "The publication (for example, the newspaper, journal, magazine: "That source covers the arts.").
  • The corporation that owns the magazine is an independent source, using the definition of "source" in WP:SOURCE, "The publisher of the work (for example, Cambridge University Press: "That source publishes reference works.").
• Inside the magazine article, Rae Reporter quoted Joe Film a couple of times ("I grew up in a very small Hollywood mansion") and repeated some information that he got from Joe's publicity agent ("The new film will be released next Saturday").

Do the contents of the work itself cause the work itself/creator/publication/publisher ("the WP:SOURCE") to become non-independent? For example, if Rae quotes Joe, does that turn Joe into a non-independent co-author?

Here are three thoughts that I have, which you might agree or disagree with:

1. I think that the contents of an article might sometimes make us re-assess some claims to independence. To give an extreme example, if [we somehow knew that] Joe Film's publicity agent had ghostwritten the article, then we would say that the author of the source was the publicity agent rather than Rae. The publicity agent isn't independent; therefore, the article written by the publicity agent isn't independent.
2. In a live/unscripted interview (i.e., "the work itself" is the interview), we might decide that the interviewer and the interviewee were building something together, thus making the interviewee a co-author. In such a scenario, we might assess independence against both the interviewer's and the interviewee's connection to the subject of the interview: Rae Reporter is independent of almost everything, but Steve Martin isn't independent of his own books and films, so if the interview is about Martin's career, then what Martin says about himself is non-independent. However, the comedian is also very knowledgeable about fine art, and if their interview is about paintings, then the interview is still independent (of the subject of fine artwork).
3. I don't think that the independent decision by an independent author to incorporate some facts received from the subject into an independently written article in an independent publication makes the article non-independent. There might be a temptation here to say "If x% of the article is information from the subject, then the whole thing is non-independent", or "Only count the percentage of the article that is definitely not from the subject", but I don't think that holds up under scrutiny. (Try applying that to ordinary news articles and see how silly it sounds: "Here's a huge article in The Daily News about Paul Politician's big campaign speech" – "Nope, you can't use that. It contains information about him, directly from his speech! You can use the bit about what his crazy neighbor said, though.  That's independent.")

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I think there are some important ideas to work through, and copy it here, to do so, should WT:N move on without doing so. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Looking at this today, I'm struck by the difference between the four definitions at WP:SOURCES and Template:Source assess table, which tries to label independence but doesn't address who is independent of what. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

See Draft:Winston Weinberg for an active test case of this essay, a new editor, and a challenged new article (deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winston Weinberg, challenged and near-endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 January 1. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)