Wikipedia talk:Reliable source examples

message: I've added a header about statistical data and puched the advice about electronic sources down the page, it's probably more useful to talk about subjects, then use the online advice to close off.  I've tried to make the electronic source stuff a little punchier and more readable.
We could do with slimmming down the various sections as they're quite verbose and text dense, not helping readability.  I can have a hack at the science stuff but it's a bit US centric, I'll try to come up with some business related stuff, but that risks being UK centric.  Someone with some knowledge could usefully hack the history and law sections.
ALR 19:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts

message: I feel like this proposed guideline is excellent, especially the section on avoiding citing the popular press. I used this guideline to support a point I was making, but another editor shot it down, saying that since this is a proposed guideline it can't be used to judge the validity of evidence in an article. Is that the case? If so, any idea when it will become official? Thanks!TimidGuy 12:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was never intended to be a proposed guideline... it should be considered a sub-page of WP:RS (which is already a guideline).  It was designed to assist the editor in interpreting that guideline as it relates to specific topic areas, by giving examples of things that are considered reliable and unreliable... hence the name... "Reliable sources/examples" Blueboar 13:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Blueboar. I wonder if this will be lost with the merger of wp:rs into wp:att. TimidGuy 16:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is excellent 

message: Why is this page labled inactive?  WP:RS is still an active guideline, and this page is simply a subpage of that active guideline... designed to give examples as they relate to specific topic areas.  It was never supposed to be a guideline on its own, but a further resource tied to WP:RS. Blueboar 13:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactive? 

message: The status of this - quite useful - page is unclear. I have added 'proposed' tag to confirm in the coming week this is acceptable extension of WP:RS by the community. Please also note that per my comments here and in places linked there, WP:ATT FAQ addresses some of the similiar issues, some form of merger could be considered.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the proposed tag. It's more useful for pages you would like to see marked . ;-) Otherwise I'm fine with it... let's see, didn't we have a clarification tag? --Kim Bruning 18:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Look at the history of this page and WP:RS: this subpage was created because the examples section of WP:RS was getting too big, along the lines of the recommendations in WP:SUMMARY. Anomie 19:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed that, thanks. So I guess the big thing is now how to merge it with the above part of WP:ATTFAQ; the concern the same thing and should be found in one place, I think. As much controversy as ATT has caused, I don't think that particular section was disputed by anybody...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed 

message: The following has been removed from main RS page, as there was no consensus on examples nor on their place in the main guideline. Please discuss them below and introduce to the main body if consensus is reached.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From RS 

message: "One exception being that film credits on IMDb, which are provided by the Writer's Guild of America, can be considered to be adequately reliable."
No. Absolutely not. The WGA does not provide film credits for non-American films and does not provide film credits for movies made before a certain date. Many earlier films especially don't have complete credits - some notable silent films have no credits at all!
It would be more accurate to say, "One exception being that film credits on IMDb from current United States films, which are provided by the Writer's Guild of America, can be considered to be adequately reliable. Credits on historic films (especially those released before 1945) and films produced outside the United States may not be complete or accurate." --Charlene 16:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Film credits on IMDb

message: What about book reviews?  The Jade Knight 07:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book reviews 

message: I'm troubled by the sentence "In general, journals published by prominent scientific societies are of better quality than those produced by commercial publishers."  It's not true in the fields that I'm familiar with, so I wonder what is the justification for this statement. Raymond Arritt 02:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to remove it, Raymond. There's a lot on this page that isn't right. By all means clean it up to whatever extent you'd like, though bear in mind that it's not a guideline, so it has no force anyway. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll clean it up a bit.  In my experience most editors don't recognize the difference between a policy and a guideline, so it's best to keep the guidelines in shape. Raymond Arritt 14:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commercial vs non-commercial journals

message: There are some websites that copy all the articles on Wikipedia and host them on their website.  While it is obvious from the common sense clause in WP:RS that these would not be RS, I have come across editors who want to use these as RS.  I think this article should explicitly add that these types of sites are not RS.----DarkTea 05:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sites that Copy Articles from Wiki

message: According to the Wikipedia, biological sciences are not included in physical sciences.  And, there is a desciption for "physical sciences, mathematics and medicine, but no biological sciences."    Is there any intention for that?
:Much of the content of that section also applies to biological sciences -- such as the examples of journals such as Cell, Science, and Nature. We could, I guess, alter the heading to include biological sciences. TimidGuy 19:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about biology? 

message: I have been looking at the section "Science article in the popular press". It suggests that the academic literature is preferred over magazine sources. I have been thinking about updating the section to make it clear that books and articles written by a commentator can validly be used as sources on the views of that commentator (even views about science studies and science). Would anyone object to a change like that? I would like to know that such a change would fit with the consensus, given that this page is related to policy. Eiler7 23:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's in an article about the commentator, that should already be covered by WP:SPS. If it's in an article about the science, it's not particularly often that the views of a particular commentator are relevant; when they are relevant the article will probably say something like "Joe Commentator states X" and the "permission" to cite the source that way would IMO be more appropriate added to WP:SPS rather than here. Anomie 02:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I want the article to say "Joe Commentator states X". However, at present, this policy page says that the academic literature is preferred. WP:NPOV says that all significant views should be covered. As it stands, this policy page allows people to object to certain views that are not sourced to the academic literature which is not, I believe, the way we should operate. To give some more context to my query, the commentator I have in mind is James Randi and he writes about alternative medicine. I think it can be legitimate to include his views despite not being in the academic literature. Eiler7 20:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page says academic literature is preferred for sourcing experimental results. A person's commentary on a scientific topic isn't experimental results. The only obstacles are whether James Randi's writings are relevant to the article's topic and the criteria in WP:SPS. Anomie 21:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is a borderline case. Randi is claiming that a particular conclusion about TM is not true and pointing out that a replication attempt did not find it to be true. That seems like a significant viewpoint but it also relates directly to an experiment (the replication). I cannot tell from the current text whether Randi's view would be allowed or not. So I would like to update the text. Eiler7 11:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still seems clear enough to me with existing policies. Your quote isn't being used to cite results as fact, it's stating what this one (biased?) guy believes. So unless you're trying to distort the context to make it sound like the guy is reporting established fact rather than his own views… Anomie 16:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Here  is the change I did. Could you look over it and comment? I will be changing it to say "Randi reported that an investigation by Royal College of Surgeons experiments had been" and other making other similar changes but the diff captures the essence of what I want to do. Eiler7 21:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, you are trying to use the guy as a source for more than just his views on the matter. I also see issues with WP:WEIGHT and WP:CITE, and I suspect there is some weight to the claims on the talk page that more research has been done in the 25 years since that book has been written. Anomie 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am careful not to go beyond his views. All the text is essentially from his book. His view, as stated in the book, is that replications have been done and failed. As it stands, the casual reader might assume that the pro-TM research is all valid. I wish to add a skeptical view. If you have specific ideas on how to make it clear that all I am adding is Randi's view, I would be interested. Perhaps it would be sufficient to have something like "notable commentators have expressed doubts about the validity of pro-TM research, including James Randi" and make "James Randi" a wikilink. Eiler7 22:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it to the article's talk page. Anomie 02:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular press 

message: Are newspapers and other news sources reliable? Nurg (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a source of info for Wikipedia articles. Nurg (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends -- on the subject matter of the article, the reliability of the newspaper, and so on. It's impossible to give a yes-or-no answer. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example for history topic? --Ruziklan (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are newspapers reliable? 

message: This section should demand the same high standards for scholarship as the other sections and direct editors to databases such as JSTOR and MLA. If those fail, then they can turn to reviews and DVD commentaries. However, we should not begin with the assumption that there is no scholarship on these topics (particularly "fiction"!). Some material I wrote up a while ago for the novel project that might be helpful here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines#Major themes. Awadewit | talk 08:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture and fiction section 

message: At first glance this would seem self evident, but my recent discovery of the mirror Reference.com used as an external link/ reference leads me to suggest it should noted here. I am fairly sure we have all seen at least one article with Google search results listed to support some argument or "fact" in the articles main space.  I was rather surprised to find the entry was not already here. 
:"Are search engines or mirrors reliable sources?"
:No, search engines and Mirrors can never be reliable sources per WP:SOURCES "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".  A search engine or mirror has no control over the addition of content of the articles nor do they have the ability to gain a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy on content that they do not control.
I am sure there are many editors here who can and will improve on the wording I have suggested. Jeepday (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the results of a search engine for a person's papers or similar matters can be a convenient source, but it really should have the key results copied over. The results of an appropriate search engine query can sometime document a numerical value, as the number of library holdings or the number of entries of a certain type in a database. And there are some bibliographic sources that for technical reasons cannot be cited in any other manner. Obviously great care must be used, so it will need some thought on the wording. DGG (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for new sub section "Are search engines or mirrors reliable sources?"

message: re:  Black Monday (January 2008).  It's extremely debateable whether January 21 has any special significance in financial market history, or more to the point deserves an article in Wikipedia.  Much of the problem comes from the sources, e.g. the Scotsman, Al Jezerah, AP via an Omaha TV station, a Toronto general (not financial) news commentator, etc.  Sources like the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Economist never called it "Black Monday" or suggested it was a "melt-down" or any nonsense like that.
One thing I would like to make sure of is that, when a headline (such as "Black Monday") is not repeated in the text of the article, then I don't think it should be considered as being from a reliable source.
Would it be ok if I suggest a "Financial news" heading, with text stating that WSJ, FT, Economist, etc are considered to be reliable sources for financial news, but that Al Jezerah, Omaha TV, are not?
Smallbones (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial markets 

message: I have bit of a conundrum with an article deletion but I think there is a broader issue that I can't really get settled: Are interviews of a subject by a third-party reliable sources? Do they establish notability?
My inclination is that as a source this is equivalent to a self-published work.
An interview is composed primarily of the words of the subject. They are not edited or reviewed by the interviewer. So if CNN airs an interview with John Smith, is what he say a reliable source? Is he notable for having been interviewed by CNN?
As opposed to  journalist conducting an interview as research for an article, where they will corroborate information from other sources, fact check, and have others follow-up and fact-check. 
In an interview, we hear it straight from the subject... does the reliability of the interviewer attach? --Marcinjeske (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: an interview in most news media is normally a collaborative creative work by the interviewer--the interviewer directs the conversation; the art is to direct it informatively and interesting, and the perversion of the art is to direct it misleadingly, and manoeuver the subject into expressing things otherwise than he really intends them. Some interviews, indeed, give the subject free play to expand at length, and just serve as a framework. I think that';s pretty rare in video media, and not that common in print either. DGG (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliability of Interviews

message: It's very good proposal. However, there is an issue which should be clarified. We have some problem for distinguishing primary and secondary sources. Some editors consider contemporary sources as secondary and old sources as primary. I think time is not a good criteria for this issue. We can consider the main theologians' works such as Thomas Aquinas, Al-Ghazali or Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī as secondary sources. In brief there are some books which are considered as the main sources of the religious issues in seminaries and among scholars of each denominations, these are not sacred or original sources but the most acceptable interpretation of those sources. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this proposal is limited in scope and doesn't address this issue among others. Perhaps you might have a proposal that addresses it. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Your proposal is better than mine.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary and secondary sources

message: Added both proposals to the project page. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added both proposals 

message: Can we presume that government agencies are RS? Presumably though some governments would be unRS at least on certain topics, due to national agendas, etc. But what is the criteria? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government agencies 

message: Are materials from recognized nonprofit organizations (e.g. Amnesty International, ACLU, human rights organizations, etc.) RS? What would make such a source unRS? What is the criteria? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonprofits

message: First of all, bear in mind my situation that I am currently working on getting the Croatia national football team a Featured Article. Extensive work has been put into it and I was thinking of nominating it again shortly. However, some of the sources (very few if it helps the cause) are written Croatian. It should be considered that the prime reason for this is because most English news sites (especially the major reliable ones) do not publish such stories which have been mentioned in the article. The Croatian sources are from highly reliable and established news sites from the Croatia, but I still think there may be dispute over their use (primarily when it comes to a Featured Article review again). I was wondering, how much will this diminish the chances of the article and what is the basic rules/reliability on foreign source references? Would really appreciate some help ASAP. 
Thanks a lot! Domiy (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not be a problem, although you might have to provide translations to reviewers.  Newspapers do not become unreliable simply because they're not written in English.  (Imagine a Croatian Wikipedia rejecting facts published in The New York Times simply because the source wasn't written in Croatian.)  However, if there are facts that could be just as easily supported by an English reference, then please use those sources (or use those sources as well).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem: more authors in the pipeline - less accuracy (at best). Always check the downstream version against originals. NVO (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign language sources as references? 

message: Should the published reports of Human Rights Organisations or written under oath eyewitness statements taken by a lawyer published by a HR organisation for a case can be considered to use as reference in a wiki article or not. Kasaalan (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try posting your question to the page dedicated to answering such questions.  Be sure to tell them exactly what the source is, which article you're editing, and what exactly you want to say.  That will help you get a prompt answer.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reports and Publishings of Human Rights Organisations 

message: I am wondering what types of maps can be considered reliable sources and which cannot.  Is there a policy/guideline somewhere that addresses this already?  --Lasunncty (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

message: if some wants to or already added info on an actors/actress page about them being in a music vid and they are the male/female lead (love intrest )in the videos or just making a cameo in what if any Reliable sources can be provided to show that it's not just the users opinon but an implied in how the video was flimed that the actor or actress is the love interest?  
how can you provide Reliable sources for that?  (Inferno17 (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: question on actors/actress appearnce in music videos

message: Since page creation, the History section has been unrevised.  I intend to revise it. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: We're getting to the point that not only are wiki's considered unreliable by wikipedia, but now open source projects are being deleted, even though F/L/OSS is one of our world's most progressive cultures of transparency and openness. Wikipedia, as one of the world's first free/open content projects, is a member of that community itself, our people regularly attend open source conferences, and open source leaders visit ours.
Ok, so starting a deletion wave against OSS is definitely taking things a little too far.
So I'll point out the elephant in the room: We need to re-examine what is a reliable source. During the time that wikipedia has existed (and partially due to the existence of wikipedia itself, I might say with some pride. :-) ) dead-tree works are ever so slowly falling into disfavor, and often net-based sources are becoming more professional and reliable over time. 
We need to start using our brains more again. People need to actually asses the quality of a source, not just act like zombies going "Dead tree good, 'live tree' bad". How can we stimulate this?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: While FLOSS projects tend to be fairly open the problem is with third party sources. Their descriptions of themselves tend to be far from trustworthy so third party sources are needed. Unfornately most get written by well fanboys with the occasional person who forwhatever reasont he project has annoyed thrown in for flavour. Building a set of neutral descriptions from that mess would be nice but doesn't fall within our remit. While more use could be made of expert blogs the general lack of third party reports made by people halfway neutral limits any possible progress in this area.©Geni 00:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  When we looked at FLOSS articles written before current RS was implemented, the articles were pretty decent. OSS is really just an example though. More and more things are slowly moving on-line. Over time, dead tree sources will slowly become obsolete. At that point, we won't be able to create new articles at all! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "$Open_Source_project must be deleted, because there aren't any reliable sources" -- WHAT? 

message: "Usenet is typically only a reliable source with respect to specific FAQs..."
Which FAQS would those be? Marasmusine (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also very interested in knowing the answer to this question. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

text: One of the primary methods of publishing on the internet prior to the WWW was Usenet.  I'll give an example:  There was a question about the dating of a certain software.  It was pointed out that the author's claim on their own website to have published it in 1988 was unreliable.  However the complete sources were found in messages published in November 1988 on comp.os.unix.game.sources.  Most of the internet RFCs including the ones that allows Wikipedia to run were originally published on Usenet.  Godwin's_Law and the Tanenbaum–Torvalds_debate are other examples I would point out.  The guidelines are meant to be used with a strong dose of common sense.  I don't even think the use Usenet references "rarely" is an accurate guide, as more often than not Usenet references are pretty good ones especially when attempting to find sources of things that only exist on the early internet itself.  I would also add that much of the print journalism of the 80's and early 90's concerning the internet is often full of significant errors because those writing articles about the internet in magazines and newspapers were often laughably ignorant of anything to do with computers and networks, and their editors even more so. - Jlambert (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Usenet

message: There are many music-related items whose only sources are Youtube. What do you do for this, as Youtube sources aren't considered reliable by Wikipedia?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snesiscool (talk • contribs) 02:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only source is Youtube 

message: "In many cases, no. Most private weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability."
What these days meets those almost impossible barriers?  Certainly not most mainstream media.  Does even the new york times meet this standard?TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs not reliable because they are fallible, and don't always fact check...  unlike?!?!? 

message: Patent authorities aren't actually publishers in any traditional or meaningful sense.  The fundamental characteristic of a publisher is having a meaningful choice about whether to make the material public.  The patent authorities have zero choice over this.  The inventor is in total control.  The inventor is the one who decides whether to make that material public (in return for a limited monopoly).  The patent office cannot stop the publication of a patent application (including applications they've denied) and cannot force the publication of a patent application (although the inventor will have to give up the monopoly rights in that case).
That means that the PTO is not actually "the publisher" any more than YouTube is the publisher for millions of videos.  The PTO is basically a glorified printing press for this aspect of the patent process.  They release to the public whatever the inventor tells them to, whenever the inventor tells them to do it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The difference between a publisher and a printing service 

message: I am wondering if opeining and closing credits are reliable sources? My opinion, is that it is not reliable at all. However, Wikipedia does not work with opinions. Therefore, is there somewhere I can find my answer? Is it in this article or another? Thanks.  — SoapFan12 (talk,  contribs) 10:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opeining and Closing Credits 

message: I think the current guidelines are misdirected. A patent application eventually receives an ISR  [international Search Report], where the patent examiner makes his comments on the novelty of the application with regard to the prior art and also makes comments about its patentability.  So there is oversight of all applications and if a link to the patent includes the published ISR then the weight of reliability can be judged.  To say that links to patents are unreliable is  a biased view.  Say for example in a technical field where there is a device commonly known to work or with independent verification that it does work,  then, a link to the patent or patent application for that device is perfectly logical.  In this way the technical background describing how the device works becomes available by linking to the patents office records and descriptions / interpretations by editors are not required.  Please make commentsCambering (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline seems fairly clear to me: patents are reliable sources for simple descriptions and attributable claims about their contents. They are not equivalent to publications in peer reviewed scientific and engineering journals nor are they technical manuals. In that regard patents are suitable sources for describing the purported function of the device, not how it works. Betty Logan (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are patents reliable sources  

message: There is a request for comments at [ Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? ].
At issue is whether the lead paragraph OF WP:MEDRS should remain...
:"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."
...or whether it should be changed to...
:"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical and health information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."
This has the potential to change the sourcing policy from WP:RS to WP:MEDRS on a large number of Wikipedia pages, so please help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC announce: What does [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)]] cover? 

message: Remind me again why something like a livestream on YouTube would be an unreliable source? 
Is it really reasonable to think that a live video would be so digitally manipulated? Benjamin (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I used a YouTube video as a source in Wild Fire (band) to prove a release date. But that's it, I think that's as reliable as it could get. It's directly from the source as well, in my case.--◂ ‎épine Ⓥ 20:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends who the video is by. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube 

message: "Government patent authorities, however, do not fact-check, edit or endorse any material in the patent application. "  
The priority (at least in the country of patent office) was fact checked, and after that the patent was granted. Sometimes a patent was granted by US. patent office only after long-long years passed.
MAybe it changed in recent years, but many decades ago, itself the fact-checking caused many, many years of delay between submission and patent granting. Old patents were fact-checked and priority checked at least in the country of the patent office. It is especially important info regarding older inventions--Peddigsten (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It means they do not check them for scientific or biographical facts. They check to make sure no one else has already claimed the patent. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: False statements in WP:Patents