Wikipedia talk:Increase your chances

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

This could be clearer:

A source that does not include the statement in the article is not contradictory; for example, a source about the sky which doesn't include the statement that the sky is blue can't be used to contradict the statement that it is.

Is this meant to convey that a source which merely states that the sky is grey can't be used against the statement that the sky is blue? That you would need a valid source which directly states that the sky is not blue? Small Jars Lack Gold (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the statements were mutually exclusive then that would be a contradictory source. But in your example, with the sky color, that would not be contradictory since the sky can be both grey and blue. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your primer already uses the sky color as an example. Maybe it could say "A source which states that the sky is grey does not contradict a statement that the sky is blue"? The way you have it now, talking about "not including the statement", seems confusing. Small Jars Lack Gold (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just made an addition: [1]. I wanted to leave in the original statement, because I have also seen people make the argument that "this article describes its subject as X, but this source doesn't say that". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would still rephrase that part. Maybe "Just because a source does not include a particular statement does not automatically mean that the source contradicts that statement". Small Jars Lack Gold (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point, but the primer repeatedly refers to WP:RS as a "policy", when it is in fact classified as a "guideline". I see that the policies do have a lot to say about reliable sources, so there probably isn't much practical significance. Just pointing this out. Small Jars Lack Gold (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A situation not yet covered here is when a statement you want to challenge is apparently sourced, but is perhaps not actually supported by the cited source. I am hesitant to attempt any such addition, as that could complicate the page significantly. Small Jars Lack Gold (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]