Wikipedia talk:Attribution

Editors, please note:

In February 2007, after four months of discussion at Attribution, a number of editors at Wikipedia talk:Attribution agreed on a means of merging Verifiability with No original research, while also streamlining Reliable sources into a simpler FAQ at WP:ATT/FAQ. In a wiki-wide poll in April 2007, the community voted 424 to 354 in favor of the merger (with 102 neutral or suggesting other compromises), which was not a sufficient majority. After this, at the suggestion of Jimbo Wales, the page held a unique quasi-official status as a "canonical summary".

WP:ATT is intended to be a cohesive version of the core content policies with which the Wikipedia community is already familiar, discussing how these core policies work together and support each other.

Use of term
In the past, I've used "attribution" to refer to the very simple idea that folks adding content should attribute claims, particularly opinions, not just for sourcing purposes them but to identify whose opinion is involved and provide some context to help evaluate it. Thus, in a dispute on some religious topic where secular scholars disagree with relgious claims. It's important to say something to avoid saying things like "some say C but others say Y", and instead say something like like "Bob Smith, a professor of archeology and Sumerian specialist at the University of A, says 'X', or "John Jones, a theologian and professor of bible at the B Theological Seminary, says 'Y'". It would be nice if there were a quick, simple policy link that would explain why attribution is important in covering controversial subjects and diverse opinions neutrally. This page used to be the one I used. The title is valuable and represents a simple but important idea. As a result, the page's conversion to an essay represents something of a loss. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree... but unfortunately several others did not. 00:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But there's a way: most of the language here was consensus. If you like something, propose it, or something which approaches it, at WP:V or WP:OR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect that Shirahadasha's desired use of attribution is more related to WP:NPOV and balance than to WP:V or to WP:OR. --Rumping (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Shirahadasha. I just discovered that WP:ATTRIBUTE redirects to essentially a less well-written copy of WP:V. What the heck happened, and where did that old paragraph go? II  | (t - c) 08:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

See the section Status March 2010 lower down this page for a further discussion on this issue.

Attributing in-text (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) compared to this page; retitle?
The paragraph Shirahadasha is looking is WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV/WP:SUBSTANTIATE. From looking at the history of these shortcuts it's not clear how or even if the WP:ATTRIBUTE shortcut ever went to that paragraph. But the title to that section of WP:NPOV, "Attributing..." has existed since at least July 2006, and the original NPOV page uses the word attribute frequently, always meaning in-text attribution of controversial statements.

Thus, when people talk about attributing something on Wikipedia, they generally are thought to mean attributing an opinion in-text rather than presenting it as fact. I think that this page (WP:ATTRIBUTION) uses the word attribute in a confusing way, particularly given the existing jargon in Wikipedia where attribute means in-text attribution. Better to retitle this page to something which indicates that it is a summary of core policies or something, as that's what it really is, then to use a word which has a particular meaning as a synonym for verifiable or reliably sourced. Unfortunately, I have no good title ideas. II | (t - c) 05:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we discuss the quality of a source?
Can we in addition to attributing authors discuss the quality of a source, ex. whether it discusses an issue in detail or just in passing? I raised the issue here. Comments appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a way to "discredit" sources... which is a subtle form of POV pushing. Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Rejecta Mathematica a reliable source?
Should Rejecta Mathematica be regarded as a reliable source? VictorPorton (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Doron Zeilberger has given his thumbs up for this journal, so it must be more reliable than Journal of Combinatorial Theory-Series A. Count Iblis (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Status March 2010

 * I only just noticed someone had put an essay tag on it. It's not an essay, but a summary of two of the key policies, so I've restored the wording we created for it. I'll look around for the paragraph you mention. SlimVirgin  talk contribs 09:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here we go again folks... (see the archives for previous itterations of this debate... essentially they come down to: "This page is a summary of policy"... "No, it's nothing more than an essay"... "No, its a summary"... "essay"... "Summary!"... "Essay!"... "Duck season!"... "Rabbit season!")... seriously, does it really matter? Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

SV after over a year and after a very long discussion you only just realized that since 23 July 2008 it had been marked as an essay. That was a compromise thrashed out by a lot of editors over a period of a year. I do not think you should have changed it without seeking a wider consensus than you did. I have put it back to an essay. -- PBS (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As you seem to have been absent for the second half of the conversations now archived see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 18 for BB's compromise solution which I for one was not keen on I wanted historical or rejected, but I could live with it if it put this page to bed. -- PBS (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

From the edit history:
 * 02:18, 21 March 2010 Crum375 (rvt -- this is not an essay; it is a summary of core policies, supported by a majority of editors; please do not change its status without a broad consensus)

Crum375: It was marked as an essay for well over a year after extensive discussions and only reverted by SV a few months ago without any wider consultation other than a statement here. So where is the consensus you claim exists expressed in an section on this talk page or in its archives? -- PBS (talk) 06:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, Philip, please don't start this again. It's not an essay. It's a combination of two policies written by large numbers of people. Please just leave it tagged as such, as was agreed at the time. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 10:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please show me where in these talk archives it was agreed at the time.


 * As I said above please see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 18 for BB's compromise solution which was the compromise which we came to and which prevailed until you unilaterally changed the banner form Essay to another one which was never agreed to other than as a temporary fix, I can find the exact discussion on this in the archive if you wish but I presume you remember it. --PBS (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You can't call something an essay that faithfully reflects two core content policies, and that a large number of editors contributed to over many months (and which was policy for a few weeks, remember). That's not how the word "essay" is used on WP. The current tag is completely accurate, so I don't understand the obsession about changing it. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 11:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The debate regarding what to do with this page (how to conduct the big poll, to be specific) was one of the most stressful experiences that I've had at Wikipedia, and to note that SlimVirgin and I didn't exactly get along swimmingly would be an understatement. But I must say that I was taken aback when I saw that the page had been labeled an "essay" (by which point I was too exhausted to argue, as I imagine was the case for many others).  I strongly agree that it simply doesn't make sense to call it that.  I favor tagging the page as a summary or similar, but even the historical tag (or a variant explaining the situation) would be less misleading than conveying that the content was written as an essay (something for which "no formal attempt to gauge [its] consensus has been made").  —David Levy 12:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am willing to have historical or rejected but the consensus compromise was essay and I have not seen that there is a consensus to move from that compromise. The whole point SV is this does not "faithfully reflects two core content policies" it never has and when I tried to make it do so, you reverted those edits. Rather than having to keep it up to date with the content policies it is better to leave it be or it just opens up another area for people to edit war over and to find inconsistencies with policy. SV I notice that instead of answering my questions you answer with a statement that included "so I don't understand the obsession about changing it" which suggests that it is only those who disagree with you have an "obsession about changing it". It was you who after a period of nearly 16 months when this was headed with a standard essay template who changed it from essay to a rejected status, without any form of consultation what so ever.  I have asked you to show me where you think that the archives show a consensus that supports you view that it has a special status. Please show me. Here is the archive sections were it was agreed to make the page as an essay: Archive 18 What about an "Essay"? and immediately following that section Protected (3). -- PBS (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In July 2008 when this was put to bed. Kevin Murray summed up my position on this issue and I still think it is true:


 * --PBS (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Philip, would you mind pointing out where this summary fails to reflect the core policies it summarizes? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is easy to do for example "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." primary sources may make other sorts of claims such as "the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life.", but that is not the point, even if this essay were fixed so that it perfectly reflected policy, a change to the policy page would have to be reflected here, which if it is to be taken as a summary would lead to just a much debate here as in the policy pages. For example if you disagree with me and think that "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." perfectly reflect policy, then the fact that we disagree on this point only goes to show that having this at any different status from essay or historic or whatever, just means that this another area of potential disagreement. -- PBS (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As SlimVirgin noted, this is a former policy. If it isn't an accurate summary or is unfeasible to maintain as such, it should be labeled "historical."  It absolutely isn't a text for which "no formal attempt to gauge [its] consensus has been made" (a quotation from Wikipedia essays).  In fact, it was the subject of one of Wikipedia's most extensive attempts to gauge consensus.
 * So if you're okay with a historical tag (or a custom variant explaining the situation), so am I. —David Levy 01:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But it's not historical. It does summarize those two policies. This was agreed at the time with Jimbo, that this would be describe as a summary, a canonical account. I find it bizarre that Philip is still discussing this after however many years it has been. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 02:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's an accurate summary, I agree that it should be tagged as such. The one thing that I'm certain it isn't is an essay.  —David Levy 02:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have just read it again, and don't see any significant discrepancy from the policies it summarizes. If there is consensus here that something needs to be fixed, then we should fix it, not toss out a very useful summary. Crum375 (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. PBS, why do you not think this summary is accurate? Jayjg (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I gave an example above. But please read what I wrote about keeping it up to date (and is also expressed by ImperfectlyInformed below). I really no want to wast time on this dodo. I thought it was dead and buried. -- PBS (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Philip and Kevin. Of the relatively small population of Wikipedia which are even aware of this page, it is obviously extremely controversial. It doesn't seem like we have the energy and time to keep this "summary" up to date and verify its accuracy. Therefore, it shouldn't be labeled as a summary because its accuracy may be questionable. Crum says he reviewed it and saw no "significant discrepancies", but anyone can say such a thing. At the least there needs to be a disclaimer that this page may not track entirely with the policy pages. Knowing Wikipedia, its decentralized system allows things which are supposed to track to very easily diverge. II | (t - c) 03:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All guidelines on Wikipedia must track their governing policies, and what we do in those cases (e.g. WP:RS) is clarify that in case of conflict, the relevant policy takes precedence. I see no problem in doing the same here: adding a note that since this page is a summary of the two parent policies, in case of conflict please consult the policies (and update the summary as needed). Crum375 (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Works for me.--Father Goose (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Crum375 you have been pushing for this page to have a special status for years why? SV please read /Archive 18#Status? the status of this page being anything other than an essay or historical depended on the Working party reporting back. It never happened, so under what justification do you claim a special status for this page? -- PBS (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Both its history and its content are pretty unusual amongst project pages. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to replace its tag (summary, essay, what have you) with a description of how the page came to be, what it was, and what it is.--Father Goose (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We could write at the top of the article: "In February 2007, after several months of discussion, Verifiability was merged with No original research and renamed Attribution, which became policy. After a wiki-wide poll in April 2007, the community voted 424 to 354 in favor of the merger, with 102 neutral or suggesting compromises, which was not a sufficient majority. Since then, at the suggestion of Jimbo Wales, the page has held the status of a cannonical summary of the two policies. In the event of disagreement between this page and the policies, the policies take precedence." SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 18:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Or we can be more honest and mark it as rejected: "This is a failed proposal. Consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable period of time." -- PBS (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be even more misleading than the highly misleading essay tag. The proposal to have the page supersede the pages from which it was derived was rejected, but the likely interpretation on the part of someone seeing the rejected tag is that the actual concepts were rejected.  —David Levy 14:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Even the word "rejected" is misleading here, since there was a clear majority in favor, though not sufficient to meet the needed threshold. And as David says, even those who opposed didn't necessarily object to the concepts themselves, since it was mostly a format issue. Crum375 (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I should invite Kim to respond you Crum375 ;-) "rejected" does not say a consensus not to implement something. The rejected template says: "Consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable period of time." Also David it does not say the the concepts have been rejected (they are present in other policies) it just say "This is a failed proposal". It is damaging to the project, because it is confusing to a reader who does not know the history of this page, to give an indication that this is in anyway part of the canon of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Given the length of time that has passed I would prefer rejected (or historical as it was policy for a very short time) but as essay was the last consensus compromise I am willing to support keeping that at the top of the page. -- PBS (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Why do you expect a typical reader to know that the concepts remain active on other pages? If one sees them on this page below the statement "This is a failed proposal. Consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable period of time.", the logical assumption is that the concepts were proposed here and rejected.
 * 2. You haven't addressed my point about why the essay tag is inappropriate. It's unhelpful to blindly abide by a past decision.  —David Levy 23:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (1)I can see how someone might infer what you have suggested, but that is not what it says. It is better that they ignore this page than mistakenly think it is part of the canon of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and worse still think it has some form of consensual status. (2) I support the tag essay although it is not my first choice because it was a compromise, and I do not see that a new consensus has emerge for a change, so until a new consensus emerges I think it should remain tagged as an essay. -- PBS (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. You "can see how someone might infer what [I] have suggested," and you're okay with that?
 * It isn't a problem if someone ignores this page. The problem is that they would ignore the concepts contained therein.
 * Please keep in mind that I'm fine with a custom variant of the historical tag. A custom variant of the failed tag (explaining that the proposal to merge the various other pages failed) would be okay too.  But simply slapping on the default text ("This is a failed proposal. Consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable period of time.") is unacceptable.
 * 2. You still haven't addressed my point about why the essay tag is inappropriate. If past consensus was misguided (and I await your explanation of how it wasn't), it makes no sense to cling to it.  —David Levy 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've put supplement, failed and a brief introduction. Other combinations will also cover the ground, and I don't really care which of them we do; but a dispute over tags seems one of the worst solutions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. But rather than combining the default tags and a separate introduction, I'll create a custom tag that covers the same ground.  We might not agree on a standard tag to use, but I think that we can agree that it makes sense to include a straightforward explanation instead.  —David Levy 22:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Big thumbs up on the custom tag. More informative and fitting than any of "essay", "failed", "historical", or other options so far proposed.--Father Goose (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record
I'd like to make clear for the record that the plan after the poll was to make this page policy because we did get a majority, even after a wiki-wide poll, which no one expected. The idea discussed with Jimbo was that I should set up a working party to decide how to implement it, while being careful to preserve the status of NOR and V.

That didn't happen because I couldn't stand the pettiness and I walked away from it. It saddens me to see the same attitude continuing over what to call it. This is not historical because its contents are currently policy; and it's not an essay because of the degree of consensus it attracted, the amount of work a large number of editors put into it, and the fact that it was policy for a short time. It is unique. It would be policy today had it not been for an intervention from Jimbo. And that only happened because we inadvisedly stuck a "superseded" tag on the NOR page, which when Jimbo saw it made him think NOR had been abandoned. During the following truly insane discussion and poll, a lot of people didn't understand what was being proposed, and those of us trying to explain were half exhausted, half demented, and couldn't get the message across. And so the day was lost. What happened really was a case of "all for the want of a horseshoe nail".

I appeal to Philip Baird Shearer to let his three-year campaign against this end. You won. It isn't policy. Instead we're stuck with two core policies that should be combined, because they only make sense when they're read together. But that's Wikipedia for you.

There doesn't have to be a tag or a template for every single thing in the world. Please allow the top of the page to describe what it is with words that don't involve squiggly brackets. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 18:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not take part in the poll over whether this should be policy or not, so I did not "win" anything (and I don't think that such terms help to build a consensus). I was in favour of the concept, but not the specific wording or the initial procedure that was used to implement it, so I abstained.


 * The archives show that without a clear label like essay or some similar some editors are confused and link to this page from policy and guidelines pages as if it were policy.


 * If it is marked as a (live) summary then it has to kept up to date, and that probably means as many debates over its content as those on the pages it summarises. Just look how much time we are wasting deciding on its status let alone the content to the page. Lets put it back to the essay status it had (as a compromise wording) for fifteen months and let it slumber on. -- PBS (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This page is not consensus as a whole; it is unlikely ever to be. Large parts of it are consensus, are well-phrased, and should be recommended to WP:OR and WP:V as amendments to existing policy. This page is not a current summary, but it could be a very useful mine.


 * essay is an incomplete description of this page, but it is accurate: some (even many) editors do agree with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please explain how it's accurate to claim that "no formal attempt to gauge [the page's] consensus has been made" (a quotation from Wikipedia essays). —David Levy 23:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anything about the infinite pages of WP space; what essay says is This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. And every word of that would be true of this page. (Would adding that an attempt has been made and the result was not consensus help anybody? Those who care know that already.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Infinite pages of WP space"? I'm referring to the one linked via the wording that you just quoted.  The information contained therein describes the widely understood nature of Wikipedia essays.
 * Whether active or historical/failed, this is a former/defunct policy. (Whether it's a butterfly or a moth, labeling it a hornet is not a sensible "compromise.")  —David Levy 16:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Upon consideration, the quotation from WP:Essay is like much of Wikipedia space: the flat statement of a generalization, usually but not always true. How many attempts have been made to gauge consensus for deletionism or inclusionism? We all know the tesults: Neither pure position has consensus; both have advocates. Yet there are many essays explaining both positions, and shades in between. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a non-trivial distinction between something written to express an opinion (with knowledge that the general concept has been discussed) and something written to serve as an official set of actionable rules.
 * Apart from Attribution, what pages bearing the essay tag were formally proposed as policies (let alone made policies)? Do any comprise content derived primarily from active policies/guidelines?  —David Levy 19:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But, whatever this is, it's not a set of actionable rules, and it is not consensus (although, again, parts of it are). It is the opinion of several editors, controverted by others.
 * Many essays have indeed been policies or guidelines; the only example I can think of off-hand is WP:MOSMAC, since abandoned. It is true that this tends to be a transitional state; but it need not be.
 * On the other hand, many essays contain content "derived primarily from active policies/guidelines"; some, like WP:Official names are designed that way, to serve as a summary of the policy pages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. I don't assert that Attribution is an active page backed by consensus. But it was proposed (and briefly implemented) as an actionable policy.
 * 2. Naming conventions (Macedonia) is tagged as a guideline. To what essay are you referring?
 * 3. Official names is labeled a supplement. I created that template, so I obviously am aware that many essays expound upon policies and guidelines. By "derived," I was referring to the situation in which Attribution was compiled from other pages with the intention of merging/superseding them.  —David Levy 15:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1 That's an argument for failed, which seems...incomplete.
 * 2. Ah, I see there has been some rearrangement. I meant the guideline much discussed at WP:ARBMAC2 which used to occupy that space; it was proposed, accepted, much considered, rejected, made into an essay, accepted briefly, and rejected. Where it is now, I do not know.
 * 3. supplement would be acceptable for this page. I know ATT's origins, but there is no consensus that it should merge or supersede policy; and much dissent on specific provisions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. As stated above, I agree that the standard wording of failed is inappropriate (because it might mislead readers to believe that the actual concepts were rejected), but if there is not consensus that Attribution is an active summary, I'm fine with a custom tag based on failed explaining the page's unusual nature/history.
 * 2. I'm unfamiliar with the page in question.
 * 3. The supplement tag is intended for pages that expound upon policies/guidelines, not ones that attempt to summarize them (essentially the opposite). —David Levy 22:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Vacate this page
no consensus to move. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Attribution → Attributing statements — I think that Copying within Wikipedia should be moved here. – xeno talk (originally written at 18:23, 30 March 2010, resigned after it was made into a formal move request) 15:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Attribution generally refers to the copyright concept around here, not to citations. Gigs (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Made a formal requested move: "Attributing statements" can house this historical page. – xeno talk 15:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This page is not historical, but is a summary of two of our core content policies, and "attribution" is a key concept regarding sourcing on Wikipedia. It was recently decided to work on this page further, and repropose it to the community as policy. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 16:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've nothing against this being re-proposed as a policy, but I would suggest a less ambiguous name. "Attribution" on-wiki is more commonly understood to mean attributing edits in terms of licensing requirements. – xeno talk 18:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Xeno, for content contributors, "attribution" refers to sourcing. I don't know what else we could call this if not Wikipedia:Attribution, as the point of the page is to highlight that aspect. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 22:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like "attribution" has only been a "key concept" since April 9th, when SlimVirgin herself changed WP:V to emphasize attribution rather than verifiability.  Gigs (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Gigs, I don't even know where to begin with that comment. That's what verifiability means onWP, and always has. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 21:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. "Attribution" on wiki primarily means the citing of material to reliable sources, per WP:V and WP:NOR. All material in article space must be attributable to reliable sources, and anything challenged, likely to be challenged, or quoted, requires inline attribution. All other uses of the term "attribution" are secondary. Crum375 (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You may think that, but then you are heavily involved in editing the policy pages. For others they may notice at the bottom of every Wikipedia page is the following link Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and that links to Attribution (copyright) not to this page (see the sentence: "Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author". -- PBS (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This page is a summary of two of the core sourcing policies which describe the need for attribution, WP:V and WP:NOR. As I noted above, the term "attribution" on Wikipedia is primarily used to refer to the citing of reliable sources to support material in article space. All other uses of the term "attribution" are secondary. Crum375 (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Can you verify that somehow? What I can verify is that the word "Attribution" - in the licensing sense - appears at the bottom of every single Wikipedia page. See also Attribution. Note the first entry. – xeno talk 19:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See also Attribution. Copyrights, although important, are secondary to the need for attribution of everything we write in article space. The V nutshell says: "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." And the NOR nut says: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source". This is the key to our sourcing requirements. Crum375 (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But that concept has nothing to do with this page or the name of this page, This page is a failed policy page. If you do not know that then I suggest we put one of the more explicit headers back onto this page so that there is no confusion over this issue. -- PBS (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The concept has everything to do with this page. This page is a summary of V and NOR &mdash; two of the three core content policies. Both these policies are built around the concept of attribution, as shown in their nutshells, which I quoted above. Although the majority gained for this page as a policy was not large enough to be considered a "consensus", there is ample consensus to keep it as a summary of these two policies, and since attribution is what they are all about, so is this page. Crum375 (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It has never been an accurate summary, that is one of the reasons it has never gain a consensus. From what you are saying it looks as if the custom box at the to needs to be augmented so that there is no confusion that this is now or has ever been gained consensus as an accurate summary of V and NOR. -- PBS (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "It has never been an accurate summary": Would you mind pointing out one item in WP:ATT which doesn't properly summarize WP:V and WP:NOR? Crum375 (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comments the archives, and my edits in edit history. It is more trouble than it is worth arguing about how to make it accurate and keep it accurate. -- PBS (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I participated in that discussion and don't recall a single example. Since you made the claim again above, would you mind just pointing out one example for us here? Crum375 (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See for example Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 15 -- One that you did not participate in. -- PBS (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I read it. I still can't see any example why ATT is not a good summary of NOR and V. Can you mention just one such example? Crum375 (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said "See my comments the archives, and my edits in edit history. It is more trouble than it is worth arguing about how to make it accurate and keep it accurate." -- PBS (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. When a policy proposal fails to gain consensus, we mark it rejected.   There's no need for a failed proposal to take up valuable policy shortcuts. Gigs (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This was a special case. It was not a new policy &mdash; it was a merge of two existing policies into one, for simplification. It did get a majority, but not the super-majority required for the change to the new version. It was then agreed, with Jimbo's blessing, to retain this page as a "canonical summary" of the policies, to help newcomers understand them better. Crum375 (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed by whom? Gigs (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The community. Crum375 (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Where? Gigs (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mostly this talk page. Read the archives. Crum375 (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It was agreed to have a working group to look at it. But the working group never reported back so after a lot of back and forth, for a year and a half it was marked as an essay as a compromise. towards the end of last year SV altered its status, and more recently after another debate the current banner was added. --PBS (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I noted when you raised this issue before, the ATT page header says: "Please defer to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research in case of inconsistency between those pages and this one." This ensures that even if some inconsistency creeps in, the official policies will override. And if you can't find a single inconsistency at the moment as example, I guess that's a good sign. Crum375 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said above "As I said 'See my comments the archives, and my edits in edit history. It is more trouble than it is worth arguing about how to make it accurate and keep it accurate.'" -- PBS (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support since we are doing the bolded vote thing, if it wasn't clear already from my comments. Gigs (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Attribution" among researchers, editors, and writers does indeed refer to sourcing. The current name is certainly appropriate and applicable. I see no pressing need or overriding consensus to change it. -- Cirt (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose—As an FAC reviewer I have used this page as a resource. While it needs a bit of work, it should stay as is. It contains advice on key issues. Tony   (talk)  02:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, I think that WP:Copying within Wikipedia is fine at its current name. I worked on rescoping/renaming it for a few days a while back (WT:Copying within Wikipedia), but gave up. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose because eventually we are going to realise that this pages explains things to newcomers better that WP:V and WP:NOR do separately, and Wikipedia:Attribution is the best name for it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A versus B

 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.

Here's something interesting to think about: how do we determine if a published source is reliable? Do such sources tend to be considered reliable if they publish true things? If so, isn't truth still an influence on inclusion threshhold? Ranze (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk page transclusion: is it a COPYVIO or ATTRIB problem?
Feedback of knowledgeable editors is sought regarding the transclusion of one talk page discussion to another, wherein

(1) all talk page comments have been previously signed and dated by those editors participating in the discussion; and

(2) the following notation is included in the transcluded discussion:


 * "This ongoing discussion is transcluded from Talk:__________. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to this discussion.


 * "The foregoing discussion regarding this template was started on another talk page (see link here), and transcluded to this talk page on __________, 2015, in order to give all concerned editors the opportunity to participate."

Question: given (1) the existing signatures of all participating editors and (2) the specific notation of the transclusion and hyperlink to the original talk page discussion, does the transclusion constitute a violation of either WP:COPYVIO or WP:ATTRIB? Thank you, in advance, for any feedback provided.

Please note: I a simultaneously posting this request for feedback here and the talk page of WP:COPYVIO. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This is definitely not the place to post this. This is the talk page for a failed proposal to merge Verifiability and No original research which did not gain a consensus. -- PBS (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I can find this...
I just realized that I have been citing this page as the reason to keep edit histories of merged from/redirected pages, but I cannot find where in this page that information is located. Is this information here anywhere, or us on another page? Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ...Possible WP:CWW? Steel1943  (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Where was the rationale for this change specifically discussed?
This 2007 edit changed "surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media" to "surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography". thx, Humanengr 15:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The edit summary does not provide rationale for that part of the edit, particularly the change from 'reliable' to 'mainstream'. Perhaps I missed it, but I see no reference to that change in archives here. Humanengr (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Who cares now 12 years later? This is a dead project. For it to be properly maintained, it must be kept in sync with current policies. Certainly since 2007 our policies changed A LOT.
 * Anyway, do you see anything wrong with this change? IMO it is OK. Current events are a red flag per se (i.e., beware fake news). Staszek Lem (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * AFAICS, this was where 'mainstream' was introduced on the way to its inclusion in WP:EXCEPTIONAL. For historical purposes, I'm trying to track down the rationale. Any help would be appreciated. thx, Humanengr (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Not an accurate summary
This page is not maintained see the diff between Revision as of 22:15, 25 March 2010 and Revision as of 09:27, 20 June 2019.

So I have removed the sentence from the nutshell that was added some time between those edits that stated ""
 * 1) Because this talk page clearly show that there was no consensus for such a statement
 * 2) The diff shows that in practice this page is not maintained so it is not going to be an accurate summary of the to content policies it was supposed to replace.

In fact one of the reasons it failed to replace V and NPOV was because it was not a "cohesive summary" and never has been. -- PBS (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Seconded. This is a historical page and let it be as such. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:A" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:A and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 7 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  interstate five   17:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)