Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 11

Suggestion on precedence
When the U.S. Constitution was first created they voted to approve a long detailed version with lots of nuances and caveats. Then a small group was appointed to go through and 'clean it up' a bit. Their mandate was to not change any of the meanings, but to shorten it. However, without all the details and nuances and caveats people inevitably take different interpretations of the text than they would if all that further explanation were still in there. Which is why, officially, the original text still holds and people still go back and quote it as the actual intent of the Constitution (e.g. the standards for impeachment of the President are given as "high crimes and misdemeanors", but in the original it was, "high crimes and misdemeanors against the state").

Given all of the above consternation about variations in wording from the 'merge' I'd suggest we do something similar here. The intent of this page was to merge the content of the 'Verifiability' and 'No original research' policies without changing their meaning at all. Thus, I'd suggest that we lock down those two policies and let this one go live with the understanding that 'interpretations' of the text need to square with the original policies that this one was intended to NOT change. Going forward there may be consensus to amend / alter this policy in ways that contradict the older two, but at present it should not be taken to mean anything different than the two policies it was derived from. They are still the 'original and officially approved text' which was established by community consensus. This page is then the 'working copy' which is intended to provide the same meaning as those more detailed texts in a 'cleaned up' and unified form. Make sense? --CBD 16:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that makes a lot of sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That would make any changes to this policy difficult, as they would have to be phrased as, well, amendments. This is exactly the kind of problem that the proposal to merge was intended to solve.  So, no, I don't think keeping the old versions as an aid for interpretation helps.  JulesH 16:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Changes to the policy would require consensus... just as they always do. Barring a consensus to change the intent/meaning of the old policies they would still be held to apply. It needn't be done as amendments. I'm just suggesting that rather than wrestling over whether the phrasing of this page projects exactly the same nuances as the two originals (it doesn't and never could) we accept it as 'good enough' with the understanding that those nuances are all still in effect and citable from the old policies until/unless there is an actual consensus to change them. --CBD 18:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Policy should always be changeable based on sufficient consensus. You could keep WP:Verify and WP:NOR as guidelines subordinate to WP:ATT, assuming WP:ATT does in fact replace them, and later demote them to historical when they get out-of-date.  This would probably make the transition more smooth than simply redirecting them in a week.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I like that approach. Rossami (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with any retention of the old policies (as Guidelines or anything), because to my mind it would defeat the point of ATT. V + NOR = ATT is a reduction of two pages to one. Good. Keeping the two former as supplements only means increasing "link-creep"--I have to go here, then here, then here, to understand. At present our policies are stable but still not as easy as they could be. One does have to click on links too much: from V to RS back to V and V over to NOR and back to V, etc. WP:ATT, IMO, was to solve this, and this merge (while certainly not solving it completely) was the first step. Marskell 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This policy sucks
The basic point of this policy, as far as I can tell, is that anything that is not a book or a newspaper or some such is not a valid source. Congratulations, you've just made it impossible to source anything related to Internet-only stuff as well as most pop culture/anime/TV things and so forth. I would be willing to bet money that we'll shortly see a massive amount of PRODs. Jtrainor 02:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a new policy. It is a merger of WP:V and WP:OR, there is nothing (or very little) new here.--Konstable 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This policy merely merged WP:V and WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The disputes on this talk page would seem to indicate otherwise. Jtrainor 03:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In general, Jtrainor has a point. In the past, editors on the policy and guideline pages have debated what is or is not published but, if I recall correctly, never reached a consensus on a definition. That failure is reflected in the failure of this policy to define published, even though forms of the word are used more times than I care to count. There is a substantial danger that some readers will only think of books, newspapers, and magazines as being published, and will not think of DVDs, CDs, computer programs, and websites as publications. --Gerry Ashton 03:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it is technically true that there is nothing new. However, that excludes the multiple deletions from the policies (which were somehow supposed to be a compromise?), and removals change things just as well as additions. -Amarkov moo! 03:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Published means published. Do we need to re-define what that means? Also note that we are not just discussing "published". We are discussing reliable, published sources. Add "reliable" to "published" and you have all what you need. See Attribution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

(<---)Migrating to this wording of policy will not change in the slightest the existing practice on Wikipedia concerning sourcing. It only makes clearer what we are trying to do. WAS 4.250 05:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If the sources are reliable, I wouldn't think it makes a bit of difference online or off. On the other hand, if we started seeing a "massive number of prods" on minor fictional-character bios and Internet fads, the downside to this would be...? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The downside would be that there's no point in removing stuff unless it's completely incomprehensible, malicious, or beyond improvement. This site takes up less than 2 gigs, after all, and pages no one visits don't use bandwidth. Yet, all too often, flavor of the month prods are done on all sorts of anime/game/pop culture related articles. Jtrainor 09:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This policy isn't about deleting articles. Determining what kind of article we should have is the job of What Wikipedia is not and its accompanying guideline Notability.  What we've changed here will not greatly affect the interpretation of those pages.
 * What this policy is about is ensuring that wikipedia presents the highest quality attainable. Now, I've argued in the past that we need to change the existing policy WP:V and its guideline WP:RS to allow a wider variety of sources in some articles.  But that's a thorny issue, and a lot of people don't like it.  So it can't happen here, not right now.  But later, I'm sure it will be proposed again, and we can start gathering consensus to make that change. JulesH 12:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the point Jtrainor and others are making, but like others have also said, we're not changing anything anything with this merge. The cause of the problem is not the merge. Don't object to the merge because it doesn't fix every problem at once. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The grand merge
Shouldn't this page also obviate the need for Reliable sources and Citing sources?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Citing sources is a style guide, and should probably remain as such. I think WP:RS can be replaced by a combination of this page and its FAQ. Whether that means the FAQ needs to be a guideline or not, I don't know. JulesH 12:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One step at a time. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was about to write "one bite at a time" but the edit conflict got in the way. Marskell 16:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Great minds think alike, though fools rarely differ. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. WP:RS contains a lot of guidance, much of it contentious, that would not be appropriate to include in a policy.  As it is, I think a bit too much of WP:RS is already in WP:V and WP:ATT.  As for Citing sources, that is a style guide, as JulesH said. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 18:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ABF, which parts of RS are in ATT and V? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The parts have obviously been changed some, but here's some examples:
 * Attribution and Reliable sources Post-signing due to comment split, Armedblowfish (talk|mail)


 * Yes, that has been added, after agreement, although as I recall it started life in V or NOR. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Attribution and Reliable sources Post-signing due to comment split, Armedblowfish (talk|mail)


 * This is from V and/or BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Attribution and much of Reliable sources. Also see WP:V Post-signing due to comment split, Armedblowfish (talk|mail)


 * This is from V or NOR. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I misremember, but I think WP:V used to be in WP:RS Post-signing due to comment split, Armedblowfish (talk|mail)


 * From V. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The first two are fine, in my opinion, although it might make more sense to summarise in WP:ATT, leaving the details to WP:RS, rather than duplicating and allowing forking. It is the third one I have a problem with because, having discussed it much on WT:RS, I disagree and have seen exceptions that seem to enjoy consensus.  Well, you saw my suggestion on WT:RS recently, so I guess I don't have to explain here.  If I were to suggest a part of WP:RS to be included in policy, it would be a summarised version of Reliable sources, but a lot of that material is new so it might not actually have enough consensus to become part of policy.
 * I hope that clarifies my position,
 * Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 22:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that people editing RS are not familiar with the content policies, which is why the page has become such a problem, and so they don't realize that the only bits of RS that matter were copied from V or NOR. And therefore those bits will be carried over here. They don't come from RS. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "The only bits of RS that matter"? Well, I guess the people who brought them from WP:RS to WP:V and WP:NOR thought they mattered the most. Post-signing due to comment split, Armedblowfish (talk|mail)


 * You've misunderstood. I added them to RS, because they were already in V and NOR, and RS had to be consistent with V and NOR. So they've now been added to ATT. But not because they were in RS. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The community pays more attention to policies than guidelines, but guidelines are still cited by many, and WP:RS is probably among the guidelines that are most often cited. Those parts might not come directly from WP:RS, but indirectly, I think they do.  Months ago, I don't remember WP:V saying much more than that if you used a dubious source, like the tabloid newspaper The Sun, you should use a prose attribution.  In any case, I am disagreeing with what was chosen, at least the self-published sources part, however long ago that happened.  Restoring original indentation due to paragraph split, and post-signing due to comment split, Armedblowfish (talk|mail)


 * It wasn't "chosen." This is a copy of V and NOR. The self-published thing is an important part of those policies. It has nothing to do with RS. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the most recent WT:V talk page archive, there is a lot of discussion about self-published sources, suggesting dissatisfaction with the current wording on the matter.
 * — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The self-published thing has a lot of support. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Refactoring note: I am sorry for refactoring a live conversation, but the replies in the middle of my comments are starting to get a bit confusing. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * On 16 December 2006 2005, WP:V did not contain the word "self-published", although it did mention a couple types of self-published sources. At that time, WP:RS talked about self-published sources rather extensively.
 * Regardless of history, there does seem to be consensus that use of self-published sourcs should be singificantly limitted, but the nature of that limitation appears to be contentious to me. More on this at WP:RS when I have time. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Concern
I'm concerned that a couple of editors are using the merge as an excuse to change the policy. PMAnderson's change, for example: the example is OR, which is why it's cited. Why would it only "probably" be OR?

Please, no more changes. There's a consensus for a merge, but not for change. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Then don't change it; or preferably, be consistent about changing it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing has been changed. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the change to "Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source.", but I do not see it in either source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the distinction this page draws between OR and unsourced material, which is a good one - and sharper than it used to be- is that original research cannot be attributed to a reliable source. Phrasing it as at present destroys this distinction; it is probable, but not certain, that the example paragraph is some editor's own opinion; it is possible that he saw the CMS cited in some reliable source's comment on the Smith-Jones matter, and has forgotten to cite it. The existing text also leaves unstated that the implied conclusion is what may well be OR. Both of these have been discussed on this page before.  I strongly oppose letting this policy go live with this confusion.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with PMA on this one. Clarity is key. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you mean. In this case, however, it's clear from the writing that it's the editor's argument, and in a case like that, we assume that it's OR until the editor shows that it's someone else's argument. Otherwise, we'd never be able to call anything OR, because it's always possible that there might be a source out there somewhere, not yet found. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's a reasonable inference; but the existing text goes on to discuss the possibility of finding a source, when we have just defined OR as making that impossible. As far as I am concerned, this is a matter of phrasing, not of policy; it may be sufficient to state the assumption SV makes to avoid misleading those who will read this policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have modified this to explicitly make Slim Virgin's assumption. I believe it was true of the actual case from which this is adapted, but it was not certain of the hypothetical; now it is.

Would it be useful to add: "The conclusion would be OR if stated; it still is, as an implication"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The following material is a change;  it is a good change but as long as it stands and is not used consistently on this page at a minimum, this page is not fit to be policy. Policy should, at a minimum, be coherent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unsourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source.
 * Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source.
 * I would appreciate it if Slim Virgin would explain what policy change she sees in this edit. To the best of my ability, I expressed present policy in terms of the definitions above, which are a change from WP:NOR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The wording in question is:
 * This entire paragraph is original research, because the editor has put two (citable) assertions together in order to imply the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. If there were a reliable source that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism, it would not be original research; but should express the conclusion as that source's opinion, not Wikipedia's.
 * Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to change criteria for inclusion of self-published sources on WP:RS
Hello, on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, I suggested changing the criteria for inclusion of self-published sources to something simpler, and, in my opinion, more to the point. Anyways, since WP:V and WP:ATT discuss this and say what WP:RS currently says on the subject, and policy overrides guideline, your input on this would be wecome. Thanks!

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 18:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cross-posting to WT:V.

Redundancy
The article layout has a serious redundancy problem. The key principles are stated twice in different formulations. This is not a good idea. The two iterations need to be combined so there is one definitive statement for each. I think the best way to do this is to refactor the headings from:

1 Key principles 2 No original research 3 Reliable sources

to:

1 Key principles 1.1 No original research 1.2 Reliable sources

Any objections? Dhaluza 01:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it works as is. The first section "1 Key principles" is a summary of the following two sections. Good for these people that want just to read the basics. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly -- this is inverted pyramid structure, which is useful. JulesH 09:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My background is in tech writing (especially specs) so I may have a different approach. But I don't think the news style is appropriate for a guideline. My experience is that if you define something twice, you don't get the sum of the two definitions, you get the least common denominator. Dhaluza 12:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that a brief mention followed by a more detailed description would be useful, what we have is the opposite:


 * Wikipedia does not publish original research
 * Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources.

followed by:


 * No original research
 * Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.

--Dhaluza 11:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think this needs to be addressed. Are you saying the definition should come in the first appearance or the second? Dhaluza 23:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

RS guideline
The WP:RS guideline is a seperate issue and no comments about it make any difference as to the acceptance of the wording of ATT replacing the wording of V and NOR with the understanding that it is only wording being changed and not actual policy or implementations of policy being changed. In short arguments about RS are not arguments about ATT. WAS 4.250 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Invoking an understanding does not affect that changing the wording does change the policy for anyone who hasn't read it before. -Amarkov moo! 05:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. If they have not read it before it can not be a change from what they read before. You are simply trying to be clever and failing at it. WAS 4.250 07:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Great work
This is readable, concise, well-organized, and easy to understand. Kudos to everyone that was involved. Now let's see if we can keep this from becoming a complete mess within a few months... --Spangineerws (háblame)  05:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Questionable sources
Forgive me if this was already discussed, but what is included in "Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves"? Assuming the criteria from the first exception are met, it's obvious that we can use the homepage of a person as a source for the article about the person. It is also somewhat obvious that we can use the homepage of a company as a source for the article about the company. So far, so good, but there are also enough unclear cases, IMHO. Can the homepage of a person be used as a source for an article about a band that the person is a member of? Can the homepage of a person be used as a source for an article about a book/song/painting the person created? Can the homepage of a small subculture be used in the article about said subculture (For example: Can http://www.otherkin.com/ be used as a source for Otherkin)? --Conti|&#9993; 02:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My views about Conti's questions:
 * Bandmember's home page in article about band: limited to that member's role in the band
 * Author/artist home page for article about book/song/painting: yes, if properly attributed, but not to state information from books as if it is an established fact, unless one of the other exceptions to using self-published sources applies.
 * Small subculture web site in articles about the subculture: no. (But if it can be firmly established that the subculture website is truly representative of the subculture, the web site would then become a reliable source.) --Gerry Ashton 03:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict - independent opinion)
 * IMO the current policy covers these situations, in that self-published sources "[do] not involve claims about third parties" and the claims "[are] not contentious". Using this for your questions, I would say that the band, which includes persons other than the writer, would be 'third parties' hence excluded. If it's some work created by the self-publisher, s/he could opine about it in the web page, as long as the opinion is non-controversial. I would say that an organization's self-published web site can be used as source about the organization, again with the above caveats: not about others, and only non-controversial facts. Bottom line: your examples are covered in the current policy, AFAICT. Crum375 03:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to change the following sentence in Questionable or Selfpublished sources "Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking." to "Editors should exercise caution as the information has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking." The argument that if the information was worth reporting, someone else would have done so seems to be a particularly poor guideline to use. Epameinondas 21:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with the current wording, because many editors, upon seeing a blogged source, give up on looking for any more sources. As WP we would like the best possible sources, and by telling editors that there are good odds that a fact worth reporting, if true, is likely to be found elsewhere on a better source than a blog, we are encouraging them to look harder, wider and deeper, and improve our content. Crum375 21:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why should a source with no editorial oversight be used anywhere, on an article about itself or somewhere else, unless there is evidence that said source's opinion actually counts for something. What do you think of this essay?  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 22:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * While true, it still does not make a good guideline, how about "Editors should exercise caution as the information has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking and try to verify the information from a souce that is reliable." Epameinondas 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No opinions on this? Epameinondas 11:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language sources and "assuming equal quality"
On WP:V, we see that "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." On this page, the language reads, "English-language sources should be used whenever possible, because this is the English Wikipedia. Sources in other languages are acceptable when there are no English equivalents."

I would like to see the phrase "assuming equal quality" restored by changing this sentence to "Sources in other languages are acceptable when there are no English equivalents of equal quality." I fear that the current wording on WP:ATT will cause editors to favor (or push for) inferior English-language sources — often translations of the originals — over foreign-language sources which can be more accurate and/or reliable. Any thoughts or objections to this? Dekimasu が... 18:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say that "equivalent" implies "equal quality", as if the quality of the sources is not the same, they are clearly not equivalent. JulesH 19:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Rephrase to "no equivalent English sources" to avoid this confusion? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that "whenever possible" tends to deprecate the use of foreign-language sources regardless of their quality prior to the ending qualifier. Equivalence could mean simply the ability to act as a citation for a certain statement, as opposed to being a description of the quality of the sources. This is more a question of clarity than anything else; I fear an increase in the number of editors who, for example, say that WP:V or WP:N have not been met when an article contains only foreign-language sources. Dekimasu が... 03:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the policy should recognize that different editors have different sources available to them, and different abilities to search for sources. A phrase like "when there are no English equivalents of equal quality" can be interpreted to place on each editor the burden of searching the entire English-language literature to make sure there is no source as good as the foreign language source that the editor has convenient access to. I would like to see that section restated to say that when several sources of equal quality have been found, the English language version should be used. I have no objection to waiting until the merger issue is settled for such a change. --Gerry Ashton 20:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right about the burden on the editor. How about, "If English sources of equal quality have not been cited (found? referenced?), sources in other languages are acceptable"? Dekimasu が... 03:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. English language sources are prefferable, but non-English are acceptable, particulary when no English ones are available - that's the bottom line. And sometimes non-English may be of higher quality then English (particulary when dealing with history issues).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I like that wording, "If English sources of equal quality have not been cited (found? referenced?), sources in other languages are acceptable" High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Located? Uncovered? Which word would you suggest? This seems uncontroversial, so I don't see much reason to wait to make a change if we can agree on the wording. Dekimasu が... 17:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My attempts to change the wording here have been reverted three times now, twice referring to the idea that this represents a "change in longstanding policy" and once referring to a "lack of consensus". I brought the issue up here, and received positive feedback before adding the changes. As per my first post above, the changes were meant to better represent the longstanding formulation of WP:V than what is currently on ATT. Meanwhile my requests for further comment on the reversions have gone unanswered. It seems, frustratingly, like the longstanding policy is actually to prevent any edits from being made to ATT. Please present feedback here. Dekimasu が... 15:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have restored Dekimasu's edit. I suspect Jaygj did not notice this section of the talk page when reverting the change. --Gerry Ashton 18:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Equal quality" are not the same as "English equivalent". For example, we can have two books of equal quality wriiten by two equally distinguished scholars, but with opposing POVs. One book is in English, another one in French. The "equal quality" clause will rule out the French source because an English one of the same quality is available. However, the "English equivalent" phrase will allow both sources because there is no English book written by a similarly distinguished scholar and representing the same POV. "Whenever possible" are also crucial words here. Many editors of the English Wikipedia do not speak languages other than English and often cannot possibly verify the quality of sources in languages other than English unless the sources have reviews in English. Beit Or 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't interpret the sentence as Or does; to me, every significant point of view should be included, and the fact that one point of view has an English language source and another has a French source in no way prevents the latter POV from being included. The phrase "English equivalent" could be interpreted in a variety of ways too; if two sources convey the same information in a science article, but the one in French is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, while the one in English is a popular newspaper, some people might argue the newspaper is an English equivalent and the French version should not be cited.


 * My real preference, when both English and non-English sources are available, is to cite both of them, unless the non-English source is merely a translation of the English source. More information is better.


 * In any case, the emphasis on sources that have been found, rather than sources that exist, should remain in the policy, because we can never know if we've found all the soruces. --Gerry Ashton 19:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If we are to cover not English language topics at all, the best sources will often--perhaps even usually-- be in the language appropriate to the topic-- either by being available in translation or if necessary having them translated, as is in the current (ideal) practice. The pattern of using lower quality sources because they are in English is like the practice of using low quality internet sources because they are easier to find than print: to some extent its a practical necessity, but if challenged the best sources must be followed.DGG 05:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarify that O.R. is OK on Talk pages.
A very frequent mistake made by editors is thinking that you can't do O.R. on Talk pages. I believe it would be useful to include the following paragraph:

Original research is allowed on Talk pages

A large amount of Wikipedia activity takes place on the Talk pages, and users sometimes believe that the prohibition to use original research applies to those pages as well, which is not the case. Actually, original research is not only allowed, but also necessary on Talk pages, particularly when an editor argues for or against the use of a certain source. In those cases, the editor may do some research about the source, find that it is reliable or unreliable, and argue for using it or not based on his research. Other users participating in the Talk page may accept or reject his arguments, but may not refuse to consider them on the grounds that they constitute original research. --Abenyosef 19:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are for discussing the article and not for discussing the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the Talk page guidelines clearly says "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research." Friday (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe you misunderstand wikipedia's idiosyncratic use of "original research". We are supposed to do research to understand the subject of an article, the nature of the sources and the qualifications of the authors of those sources. This helps us in making editorial decisions such as what is or is not "original reseach"; such as what is a neutral way of phrasing something; such as what not to include as if it were a fact because the author is a liar or fraud or an incompetant. In short, research is how we know what is original research or not. WAS 4.250 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, but note that talk pages are an integral part of an article, and they are indexed by Google and other search engines. We can discuss the subject, assess sources, etc., but we should not encourage "forum discussion" type of engagements between editors. Rather, talk-page discipline focused on how to improve the article should be the modus operandi. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, your answer is proof of why my proposed paragraph is necessary. Talk pages are not (NOT!) an integral part of an article. That's a big confusion many (if not most) editors have. In talk pages we discuss the articles and we may do as much research as we like for discussing what gets and what doesn't get into the article. What we don't do is publish that research in the article itself. I may do a lot of research to conclude that Fulano de Tal is not a reliable source on Rioplatense Spanish, and thus convince my fellow editors that he mustn't be used as a source. What I can't do is write "Fulano de Tal is not a reliable source" into the article on Rioplatense Spanish.--Abenyosef 15:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't add confusing sections to the policy that have no consensus and contradict existing policy. Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I found myself involved in a discussion on this very subject not long ago, after I decided to challenge a source that was being used in the "New antisemitism" article. I held that the source was inappropriate, as it included material that was both demonstrably false and irrelevant to the subject matter. (Click here for details. The relevant sections are those marked "Source Credibility" and "Demonstrably Poor Scholarship").

I thought I had a pretty strong argument: after all, I was able to show that one of the statements included in the article was outright false. Most contributors seemed to agree with my position. Nevertheless, two editors chose to advance the view that my criticism of the source was irrelevant, as it constituted a form of Original Research. (I've responded to this accusation, but my interlocutors have not revised their initial position.)

It's now been almost a month since my original post appeared on the discussion page. The "New antisemitism" article continues to include factually inaccurate information, and efforts to remove it have been met with resistence. The matter is currently before informal mediation, although neither of my interlocutors have contributed to this process as of yet.

I remain confused by the adamantine efforts of certain editors to retain false information in this article. I can only imagine that these editors have concluded that (i) "false, but verifiable" is an acceptable standard for the inclusion of information, and (ii) any efforts to demonstrate the falsehood of such information are contrary to Wikipedia policy. In the back of my mind, I cannot help but wonder if the "No Original Research" policy is being abused in some way. CJCurrie 00:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is WP's core policy that we strive for "attributability, not truth". It is not a view held by 'certain editors', but by WP as a whole, by consensus and policy. Regarding the specific issue of OR on talk pages, as I replied to Abenyosef on his Talk page, the key point is that we don't vet authors or their work - we vet the publishers and publications. Once we deem a publication/publisher as acceptable, we leave it to the editors and publishers at that publication to vet the authors and provide an editorial oversight, while we summarize and cite the work. Trying to vet authors and their work in Talk pages is OR and is wrong, we need to focus on the publication. Crum375 00:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The policy you're referring to is, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and it's a policy with which I strongly agree. This policy, however, was designed to ensure that "accurate, but unverifiable" information would be excluded from Wikipedia, not to allow "demonstrably false, but attributable" information to be included.

Beyond this, I cannot agree with your arguments on Abenyosef's page concerning "tests of verifiability". If the NY Times or a major scientific journal prints a statement which can shown to be false, there is surely no obligation on our part to convey the statement as fact.

In any event, I raised concerns about the method of publication in my initial post on the subject. CJCurrie 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with a policy, which of course is perfectly legitimate, you can certainly work to revise it. But as long as the policy is in force, we must all respect it and abide by it. I think that WP's strength is in not trying to be 'accurate' or 'truthful' but instead to present attributable information, in a neutral and balanced fashion. An encyclopedia is not a religious document that we accept as gospel - it is a collection of summarized published information, properly balanced and attributed to its sources. If the NYT reports that the moon is made of green cheese (to use SlimVirgin's example), once we deem the NYT as an acceptable source, we could hypothetically report that the NYT said that, and perhaps with due weight show that it is in a small minority (and possibly even exclude it if it is on the fringe). In a less extreme example, we would include information published by an otherwise reliable source, and cite it to that source, even if some of us at WP suspect it is false. Crum375 01:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What if we know that it is false?


 * The "New antisemitism" article currently includes the following statement: "[Edward Flannery] cites historian Zosa Szajkowski, who writes that he could not find a "single word on behalf of Jews" in the entirety of French socialist literature from 1820 to 1920."


 * There's a serious problem with this statement. Edward Flannery does, in fact, write that Zosa Szajkowski could not find a "single word on behalf of Jews" from 1820 to 1920.  The problem is that Szajkowski himself did not make this statement.  I looked up the Szajkowski article cited by Flannery, and found that Flannery had misstated Szajkowski's position: ZS's survey ended in 1886, and he spoke of French socialists opposing antisemitism in 1889.


 * There's no ambiguity on the matter: Flannery's statement is not merely suspect or falsifiable, but false. Why then are we still presenting it as a statement of fact?


 * I would submit that any Wikipedia policy that allows retention of this demonstrably false statement is fundamentally flawed, and is at the very least in need of clarification. CJCurrie 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't. Quote Szajkowski's actual words, in translation if necessary, and then Flannery becomes an unreliable source on this issue. That's why we don't quote him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify my initial remark about 'truth', I believe that your interpretation of the policy that it implies rejecting "false but attributable", is your own novel take on it, which I don't see in the text. The way I read the policy is very simple - we don't look for truth - only attributability. Crum375 01:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose of WP:NOR was to seek assurances of verifiability, not simply of attributability. The policy was never designed to permit "false, but attributable" statements to be presented as fact, even if this was never explictly clarified.  CJCurrie 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:NOR was designed to prohibit Wikipedians to perform their own research and/or present their own results or opinions. Perhaps you meant WP:V? Crum375


 * I'll restate myself: The purpose of WP:NOR was to *ensure* compliciance with WP:V. Returning to the specific issue, could you address my concerns regarding one author's misattribution of another's statement?  CJCurrie 02:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We may have to disagree on the purpose of NOR - to me it explains that we may not create any original research, and that OR can be as simple as putting two well sourced facts together to advance a position, if those facts have not been previously juxtaposed by others. This point, called synthesis, is not covered directly by WP:V. Regarding your example of source A misquoting source B, I accept that when we present a statement that appears to be self inconsistent or contradictory, we may carefully mention that fact to prevent reader confusion, bending over backwards to be extra neutral and use minimal verbiage. Of course if a third party already remarked on that inconsistency, that would be infinitely better. Crum375 18:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Crum states: "The way I read the policy is very simple - we don't look for truth - only attributability"... I think many people misunderstand the difference between "truth" and "accuracy"... Truth is subjective. Accuracy is not. NPOV tells us that we must not choose one version of "Truth" over another... but we can and should choose accuracy over inaccuracy. Blueboar 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...
I dont like this. No original research and Reliable sources state their meanings in their titles alone, even if you don't bother to actually read the policy itself; and as such will make far more sense to a newbie that Attribution. I don't like this at all. Glen 10:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely we can't title our policies with the expectation that nobody will read the text. If anything, the title "No original research" is misleading, because the OR policy is not about research in the common sense of the term; if readers only look at the title, they will never understand the OR policy. CMummert · talk 12:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, a user cannot simply look at the title of the verifiability policy for example and be expected to understand it. I think the title Attribution explains a difficult concept more accurately, though perhaps less intuitively. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (conflict -- response to CMummert) No, but on the other hand it is useful if the title is a convenient summary of what the policy requires.
 * I think, however, that that is achieved here: We can say, in the case of either "unverifiable" or "originally researched" contributions, the they "lack attribution".  And this makes a lot more sense to somebody who hasn't read the policy than either of the other two terms do -- those names don't carry an implicit understanding with them of why they're bad.  Attribution, I think, does. JulesH 13:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It has always been a challenge to distinguish between original research and unverifiable edits. This policy resolves the confusion. Beit Or 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think that from the title significance alone, this is a major step forward. It clearly tells editors that our statements must be attributed or attributable (depending on the controversy level) to some other published source. I think that is the core concept of Wikipedia's content - that we are here to summarize what has been published elsewhere. None of the previous titles so clearly conveyed this critical point, IMO. Crum375 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Our policies are a lot more nuanced than even the nutshell intros can explain. There is no way for that to make sense in the title. SchmuckyTheCat 20:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, it would be nice if we could find a title that was more active. Perhaps Wikipedia:Everything must be attributable?  Or even Wikipedia:is a tertiary source?  Rossami (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:is attributable? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Per my comments above I think we should simply merge this into WP:V, that title is quite clear and already known to most Wikipedians.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the problem with 'verifiability' is that it is a constant source of confusion. Many editors interpret 'verification' as digging into the 'truth' of a source, as in verifying its veracity. OTOH, the term 'attributability' clearly conveys that we as WP are not interested in truth per se, only in faithfully and neutrally reporting what reliable sources are saying about an issue, and attributing it to them. I personally consider the term 'attributability' a major step forward in clearly explaining our core content policies. Crum375 00:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes again
Do people understand that if this keeps being changed, it will fail, or is that the point? Pmanderson, I've not seen you help to maintain V or NOR, and yet you've turned up to make changes to them here. Can you explain why, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not my primary interest, but I have maintained them: check the history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You asked above of this diff what the problem with it was. As follows: (1) What is a citable assertion? (2) It doesn't "imply" the editor's opinion, it expresses it, as the original says. (3) "but should express the conclusion as that source's opinion, not Wikipedia;s [sic],": yes, but it's poor writing, so why change the original? It's also confusing because you move from talking about the editor's opinion to WP's opinion with nothing to explain the transition.
 * One for which there could be a citation (if the example, as it might, cited the CMS, we could have said "cited"). The point of this much-worn example is that two statements can both be attributable, as here, but their conjunction constitutes OR.
 * No, it doesn't express the editor's opinion; or else the whole paragraph wouldn't be OR, just the words in which that opinion was expressed. I should have stated the opinion as "that Jones did not actually commit plagiarism."
 * Please try to improve poor writing, not remove it; that's the wiki method. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The writing is fine, but you're causing it to deteriorate, so reverting does improve it.


 * A citable assertion is one that can be cited, not one for which there is a source. The whole paragraph is OR because the point of the paragraph is the conclusion, obviously, and the conclusion is OR. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the whole paragraph is OR because the point of the paragraph is the conclusion, obviously, and the conclusion is OR; but the text you are defending doesn't actually say that. I think it should. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The point you are trying to make &mdash; that if a source can be found even in principle, it's not OR &mdash; is true, but trivially so. Every single meaningful combination of words imaginable might have a reliable source for it, somewhere, some day, so we couldn't ever call anything OR if our definition of OR is that we know there's no source. So it's trivially true that, although OR is material that isn't attributable, the state of our knowledge is going to be imperfect.
 * It will not be obvious to all readers what is OR here (the argument that Jones is not actually a plagiarist); nor is it obvious that the editor's argument is OR rather than unsourced; let's state that assumption. There will be people who read this page without Slim Virgin's long experience reading PoV-pushers' abuse of Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your changes make it murkier, and anyway, the point is: the policies can't be changed on this page. Please go to WP:V or WP:NOR if you want to propose changes. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I repeat: I'm not trying to change policy, I'm trying to express the same policy. The old words were never clear, and this page has now changed the definition of OR. 21:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You could change "a source is needed" to "a source would have to be found" to make exactly the point you're trying to make, emphasizing the conditional nature, but without messing up the rest of the paragraph.
 * I will consider that; I'm not sure it makes either point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response; it is this sort of dialogue which should be had over this, and over the question of "equivalent sources". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but do you see how time-consuming it is, and how little is accomplished? Do you agree that that tweak would achieve the same point? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have asserted that this policy does require attribution to the source, when found. This is repetitious, but (I trust) harmless; we don't want to say that attribution on the talk page is "consistent with this policy". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What does "attribution to the source, when found" mean? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What I actually wrote was "provided the opinion is then attributed to that source": by adding to the sample paragraph: "as Robinson argues,13" or some such.


 * You mean a prose attribution? But that's a policy change; prose attributions aren't necessary in all cases. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but they would be necessary in the hypothetical; the opinion that Jones didn't commit plagiarism can't be consensus of the sources. However, if both wordings could be misleading, we should stick with the old one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The present wording only seems clear to Slim Virgin because she's seen it so often; it is not. In combination with the new definition of OR, it actually changes present policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the change from current policy exactly? There is no change in the definition of OR. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The expression "cannot be attributed to a reliable source" does not occur in WP:NOR, and I see nothing equivalent to it. I join the consensus on making this change; I even agree it expresses best present practice; but it is a change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Pma, I apologize if a tone is creeping into my posts. Your questions are perfectly legitimate. I'm just frustrated because a lot of work has gone into this, and I'm not understanding your points, but that's almost certainly my fault, not yours. Please bear with me. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And I don't mean to take up the tone; thank you for taking a breath. I think my last edit solves one problem; and I owe you the wording. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ""cannot be attributed to a reliable source" is the same as saying that there is no verifiable source to which we can attribute the material. WP:V speaks of "material that has been published by reliable sources", I do not see a change in policy, just a change in wording. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree there has been no change of policy yet, just a shift in the range of what is OR; but therefore we must watch how we use "original research". In this case, we should, and I think the explanation now does, postulate that the conclusion that Jones isn't a plagiarist is OR in the narrow sense; or else say it was the case in the original dispute we are modifying.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What would people think of giving the next sentence an active voice, thus: "If the same opinion were attributed to a reliable source that specifically commented on the Smith and Jones dispute and made the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism, that would be consistent with this policy."? That's the only possible improvement I can see. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think this tweak is a good idea; and it would satisfy all my concerns. At this point, I'm content. If anyone still thinks the result unclear, or a change in policy, I don't intend to fight further, but I would like an explanation of the difference here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This Policy Reinforces Stereotypes
For every stereotype it is not hard to find a source attesting to it.

It is often not easy to find a source refuting it.01001 04:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do remember the sources have to be reliable. We're not just talking something someone posts on h(is|er) blog, we're talking fact-checked, editorially-controlled publications or scholarly peer-reviewed journals. And we certainly can use statistical information. So if a sociologist does careful research and publishes a peer-reviewed paper stating that a given stereotype really is correct 73% of the time, we use that. On the other hand, if they find it's totally bogus, we use that. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does. The reliability of sources will to some extent counteract that; but if we were doing Wikipedia in 1911, we'd wind up with the 1911 Britannica, more or less. But the solution is not to make Wikipedia a crystal ball, to forecast the science of the blessed, bias-free future; it's to go out and write the reliable sources that debunk stereotypes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeats of source information when using summary style
We acknowledge that Wikipedia can't be used as a source. Howevery, do summary style paragraphs have to repeat sources made in primary articles? For instance, if we have a main article called "Religion in Fictional Country" and then a summary link about religion in the article about Fictional Country, do the two or three sentences in the summary need to be entirely resourced? I just watched someone do a wholesale wipeout of 30 or so entries from a summary list where each entry had it's own (presumably sourced) article because "the entries weren't sourced." I think the original articles sourcing should stand up when repeated in summary articles - or at least, if an existing summary exists with a link to the main article, it's bullying to delete it without checking the main article for a source. SchmuckyTheCat 22:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This was discussed at WT:V a while back; the general consensus (IIRC) was that the risk of the two articles getting out of sync with each other was too high, so the policy shouldn't make any allowance for it. Each article must be sourced, rather than relying on the sources of other articles.
 * Deleting the information without making a good-faith effort to look for a source isn't particularly great editing, but it doesn't violate policy. JulesH 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But that depends on the nature of the summary. If, as is common, the summary is one paragraph, taking the non-controversial points of a whole article, then it will fall under the "not likely to be challenged" exception. Insisting on sourcing 1492 in a summary of exploration of the Americas is not helpful to the encyclopedia; adding a footnote is silly; removing the information is actively harmful.


 * I am assuming that the summary, as it should, is simply stating Columbus's date. Claims about "first discovery" are controversial, and stating the claim with enough precision that it becomes unquestionably accurate belongs in the summarized article, not the summary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Can information be both verifiable and demonstrably false?
I have serious concerns about one particular aspect of the proposed WP:A policy.

The essence of the old WP:NOR policy was that "Articles may not contain any unpublished material, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." This policy established that verifiability, rather than truth, was the standard for determining whether or not information could be posted on an article page.

The purpose was to ensure that "true, but unverifiable" information would be excluded from the project, so as to prevent contributors from posting personal knowledge and/or novel theories and approaches.

I have concerns that the new WP:A policy could be misused, and invert the principle of WP:NOR to permit "false, but attributable" information to be presented as fact.

I would ask readers to consider the following questions:


 * If a source which is generally considered to be reliable publishes a false statement, should we convey that statement? If so, how should we convey it?
 * If a source of suspect reliability publishes a false statement, should we convey that statement? If so, how should we convey it?
 * Does it violate Wikipedia's original research policies to show that a published statement is demonstrably false?

And,


 * Should WP:A clarify that *verifiability*, rather than *attributability*, is the most appropriate standard for the inclusion of factual information?

I do not believe it was ever the intent of WP:NOR to permit false statements to be included on Wikipedia as "statements of fact", and I am concerned that the proposed policy change would lead to this very outcome. Comments welcome. CJCurrie 01:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think WP should not engage in deciding on the merit of issues. Deciding if something is 'true' or 'false' is definitely a value judgment, and we should refrain from it, as doing so would violate WP:NOR. Therefore, the only issue that we can address is "is it attributable to a reliable source or not". If yes, it's acceptable, else not. The remaining issues would be to find the proper balance required for a neutral presentation, but that also does not require us to make a true or false value judgment - only to determine the relative weight a given view point has in the overall published information about the subject. Crum375 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I cannot entirely agree with this assessment.

This may come as a surprise in light of our disagreements earlier on the page, but I understand where you're coming from with your objections. I recognize the inherent dangers in evaluating a published source, and I understand the problems associated with "mission creep" (as some have described it). Notwithstanding this, I cannot accept the conclusion that all evaluation is inappropriate for this project.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to compare the following situations ...

A.

A credible and respected newspaper asserts that the moon is made of green cheese. Should Wikipedia convey this information? If so, how?

Answer: Wikipedia should convey this information, as a simple statement of fact and without embellishment.

B.

"Respected Author X" attributes a statement to "Respected Author Y", citing one of "Respected Author Y"'s works. However, "Respected Author Y" does not actually make the assertion attributed to him/her in the citation provided.

Should Wikipedia convey "Respected Author X"'s assertion? If so, how? Is it a violation of WP:A to review "Respected Author Y"'s original statement?

I'll leave this for others to contemplate. CJCurrie 02:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with you about the intent of the policy, but I think that it's a relatively limited danger for a few reasons. For one thing, attribution is a criterion for inclusion, rather than exclusion. The burden of persuasion is always on the editor who wishes to include a statement to demonstrate that it represents the content of a reliable source; an editor who feels that the statement is insufficiently sourced, or that the source is unreliable, has the authority to delete it.
 * Secondly, I think that the reliability of a "reliable source" has to be adjudicated on a case by case basis, and implicit in that adjudication is an evaluation of whether the source is reliable at this time, on that subject. The possession of a PhD by the author of a book does not inherently confer reliability, particularly on subjects outside his specialty. Similarly, sources that were quite reliable at the time of their publication may become outdated. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica was authoritative at the time of its publication, and written by some of the foremost scholars of the time, but relatively little of its content should be deemed authoritative now. This is why the policy makes clear that it cannot be read in isolation from other policies, particularly not NPOV. NPOV's discussion of "undue weight" clearly presumes that an evaluation of "prominent adherents" and "significant viewpoints" will take place.
 * Third, given the inclusion rules, the "demonstrably" prong will generally mean that there are contrary sources to cite. If a statement can be demonstrated to be false using other reliable sources, then one of two things is likely to happen: 1) the contents of the debate will be included in the article, allowing the reader to observe that one side is plainly wrong, or 2) the debate will be on the talk page and the false statements will be removed from the article. Some debates among the experts are sufficiently notable for 1) to be appropriate, but I think 2) will be more common, particularly on minor points.DCB4W 02:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A big problem happens when the statement can be (in the ordinary sense) demonstrated to be false, but the sources used to do so don't meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Then no "debate" can be included in the article.
 * Of course, you can say "if you haven't demonstrated it to be false using reliable sources, then you really haven't demonstrated it false at all", but that ignores the fact that Wikipedia's requirements are strict enough to exclude the kind of reasoning that we accept in almost any non-Wikipedia context. If the sources say a bridge has no traffic, and a person who visits it sees that it has traffic, then that person has, in any reasonable sense, demonstrated that the reliable source is wrong, even if Wikipedia policy says that we can't use his words because they aren't professionally published. Ken Arromdee 03:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as a problem. Wikipedia is simply a summary of published sources. This does not mean that all sources are always correct, in any sense. All we are trying to do is to present a balanced summary of what reliable sources are saying about a given topic, and if some are clearly wrong, so be it. We as WP are just objective witnesses of the published information, not judges of fact or truth. Crum375 03:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Except we allow articles on topics that have relatively few, less reliable sources. If Wikipedia presents some information on Newtonian mechanics, there are thousands of highly reliable sources on this to corroborate it and with which to correct any errors. If Wikipedia presents some information that only has a handful of weak sources (perhaps even simply old sources) we have a situation where if any highly reliable source were to examine the issue they would correct the obvious errors in the weak sources—but the topic has so little notability that no publisher cares to do so. Consider another possibility. There is a published book from 1950 on some obscure physical theory that has "false" information, versus a physicist's blog today. The book is conventionally more "reliable", and the blog is a self-published website, but the book is demonstrably wrong. Also, note that even in topics with numerous highly reliable sources, Wikipedia is not simply a summary of published sources; in order for that to be the case "Wikipedia" would need to review all published sources in order to reflect them accurately. What we have instead is some editors who might only look at a couple published sources, and someone else comes along and points out that the layman wrongly copied the idea out of a wrong textbook (and hopefully points us to a more reliable source, but often not). —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see it as a rather serious problem if WP:A is to be interpreted in such a manner as to give editors sanction to convey one author's misattribution of another as a simple factual statement. The very idea almost seems a reductio ad absurdum demonstration of the principles of NOR. CJCurrie 04:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll respond to both Centrx and CJCurrie. I see WP as a diligent and intelligent librarian who is being asked by someone interested in a topic to neutrally summarize the published information about it. The librarian would try to only look at 'reliable' publications, would summarize them and balance their contributions to the summary based on their relative preponderence and acceptance (i.e. cross citations) in the published literature. The librarian is not a researcher beyond knowing how to summarize the existing materials. Yes, there could be topics as Centrx said where the sources are weak, where old books compete with modern blogs, and as CJCurrie says where some 'reliable' source are plain wrong (assuming a refutable type topic). But the librarian still has to come up with an optimal summary given the facts on the ground, and creates a reasonable common sense document. That should be our approach, where all of us collectively are that librarian, and we'll keep tweaking each entry to get it closer to the ideal optimum, given the constraints of poor or inconsistent sourcing etc. Bottom line: we want pure summary of attributed sources, no OR, we keep working on the balance and source quality, we get ever closer to the the 'sweet spot', but may never quite get there. Crum375 06:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines are not a substitute for thinking. There is no substitute for actual understanding. WAS 4.250 06:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for restoring some sanity to this discussion.


 * If Wikipedia ever reaches the point where "false, but attributable" information is allowed to be presented as a simple matter of fact, then we'll have become the monstrosity our that enemies make us out to be. CJCurrie 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see a red herring above. "False, but attributable" information is only going to become a problem if people cease using common sense. Nowhere is it suggested that if you know a supposed fact to be wrong, you must assert it.
 * "If a source which is generally considered to be reliable publishes a false statement, should we convey that statement?" If you know it's false don't assert it or do an in-sentence attribution: "The Times reports the moon is made of cheese.[1]"
 * "If a source of suspect reliability publishes a false statement, should we convey that statement?" No, obviously, and the policy doesn't say we should.
 * "Does it violate Wikipedia's original research policies to show that a published statement is demonstrably false?" If it's "demonstrably false" than you can find another reliable source saying so. "The Times reports the moon is made of cheese.[1] NASA disputes this.[2]" Marskell 08:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't a red herring. I was recently involved in a situation where I discovered that a statement on an article page was patently false (one author misquoted another; we presented the erroneous information as a statement of fact).  When I tried to remove the line, two administrators informed me that my "discovery" constituted original research.  The erroneous statement is still included in the article.  No one has disputed my contention that the statement is false.  CJCurrie 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that this entire issue isn't new. It was discussed on WT:V more than once. Why? Because verifiable is defined there in pretty much exactly the same way attributable is defined here. Only a misunderstanding of what the policy meant by verifiable let people think that whether something is true or not entered into it at all.

I still think this policy should include text that instructs editors to use common sense. Reliable sources publish incorrect information, and unreliable ones publish correct information. If there's a good way of telling the difference (which may be specifc to the particular situation), that should be enough for us. JulesH 09:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Something can be demonstrably false when there is no other "reliable source" saying so. In Wikipedia articles, only statements supported by reliable sources are allowed.  But on article talk pages, editors can express their opinions; present logical arguments;  refer to blogs; report that they've emailed an institution and gotten a certain answer; encourage other editors to email the same institution; ask other editors to go and look at the sky right now to see whether an eclipse is happening, etc.  If the editors on the talk page are convinced that a statement in a reliable source is false, or that there's a good chance it's false, they can and should simply delete the statement from the Wikipedia article.  --Coppertwig 09:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with some parts - I agree that we should use common sense as we try to investigate the various sources. But our goal should still be to simply present a balanced and neutral summary of what's been reliably published. If something that was reliably published is 'demonstrably wrong', odds are extremely high someone else would have said so and published that, so obviously we can add this into the balance. We could also use time as a factor - if a modern publication disputes an older one, we should say that, and it of course would impact the presented balance. I see no need to send editors outside to look at the sky, or to otherwise do OR - but I do see it very reasonable to seek better sources, or seek input from sources via email. Often the source may give you via email a pointer to a publication you missed. But at the end of the day, all we do is present a balanced picture of the published reliable sources, period - we use our 'source research' only to seek more sources and vet the ones we have. And our 'vetting' should focus on the publisher/publication, not on the individual author or work, per my comments elsewhere on this page. Crum375 10:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DCB4W, above, that "attribution is a criterion for inclusion, rather than exclusion". If a statement is false, and it isn't crucial to the article, we can and should simply exclude it, even if we only explain why on the talk page, rather than in the article itself. We ran into that sort of thing lots of times in writing Jenna Jameson, where several of our sources disagreed. We weighed the evidence, and simply excluded the ones we believed were false. Talk:Jenna_Jameson/Archive_2 has many instances. If a statement is crucial to the article, then we need to give it, then give the sources that describe it as false. For example, in Situation A, we have to ask, is the article about the newspaper, or about the composition of the moon? If about the newspaper, we can probably just exclude it, the newspaper publishes lots of things every day. If about the composition of the moon, we should include it, in an "alternative views" section; hopefully we have lots of more scientific views earlier in the article. In Situation B, similarly, we need to treat the assertion differently based on what the article is ostensibly about. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Presenting a balanced summary of sources requires discretion and common sense. If some reliable source appears to represent a tiny fringe view then it can be excluded. OTOH, if there is a reliable source which appears to many Wikipedians to present 'false' information, yet is clearly widely accepted by many people and is relevant to the subject at hand, we cannot exclude it. Otherwise, someone can decide to start removing certain well-sourced religious views or historical interpretations they don't accept because they consider them 'false', etc. Of course when we do include something controversial, we attribute it to its source. But we can't just arbitrarily remove well sourced relevant items because editors on a given page decide they are 'false'. I think "attributability, not truth" sums it up nicely. Crum375 16:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "If something that was reliably published is 'demonstrably wrong', odds are extremely high someone else would have said so and published that".
 * "Odds are extremely high" doesn't mean "it's certain". If the odds are extremely high, but not certain, sooner or later you will run into cases where it hasn't happened, like the covered bridge example.  *Nobody* published anything saying the reliable sources are wrong, even though they are indeed wrong.
 * This tends to happen more with obscure topics, when there are relatively few sources and many of them just copy from each other.
 * "If some reliable source appears to represent a tiny fringe view then it can be excluded."
 * This would fail in the covered bridge example, since all the sources say the bridge is closed to traffic. It's not a fringe view--it's the majority view.  Ken Arromdee 16:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think what many Wikipedians fail to understand is that we are not here to present the truth - simply a summary of reliably published sources. So if once in a while we'll have a case where all the published sources are plain wrong, we would still not be able to say so, since that would be OR. All we can do in such cases is search long and hard for the correct source, and make sure it is properly presented. I would not even rule emailing a local reporter to write a little blurb about a widely mis-reported phenomenon. Once that article is published, we can then use it. Until then, it would violate our policies to create OR or ignore the reliably published sources. Crum375 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This may be the most difficult aspect of WP for some to swallow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's no policy requiring us to unthinkingly include data. (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, after all.) And there is a huge difference between a "reliably published source" (which you just wrote) and a previously published reliable source of information, which is the minimum criterion for inclusion. Again, this begs two questions: 1) Doesn't the notion of "reliable source" presuppose some sort of inquiry into the source's reliability? and 2) Even if a source meets the minimum threshhold for inclusion, is the minimum, standing alone, always enough? DCB4W 22:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you, though I suspect that it's exceedingly unlikely that we'd encounter a situation where Wikipedians would be aware of the "correct" information and all published, reliable sources would be plain wrong. Perhaps this might occur for very short period of time (a few hours) where the media is relatively slow to publish a story confirming what was already being reported by blogs or such. You're quite correct in your main point: that Wikipedians often see "truth" as the primary goal of the project. ChazBeckett 17:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean it's exceedingly unlikely? I just gave you the covered bridge example.  There's also Talk:Sacha_Baron_Cohen.  (I suppose technically the latter doesn't count because some published sources are silent on the guy's ancestry, but it's still along the same lines.)
 * Incidentally, I don't believe that saying that published sources are wrong is OR. We are allowed to do things to decide what goes in articles, that we couldn't actually *put* in the articles.  The canonical example is that we're allowed to search Google to see if something is notable, but we can't put the results of a Google search in the article. Ken Arromdee 21:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We are allowed to state our opinion in the Talk page as to the quality of various sources and our focus should be on finding the best possible sources and summarizing them in a neutral and balanced fashion in the article. The actual 'veracity' of the stated information, while interesting, is not our focus here. Crum375 22:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you, and I don't think the policy really supports your argument. Sometimes the "neutral and balanced presentation" of "the best sources" (your words) requires us to exclude the worst source if it's not a "significant minority viewpoint". We're discussing clearly aberrant data points here, not situations where there's a legitimate debate in the sources. Aberrations, like fringe theories, don't belong in the encyclopedia, even if you can go into Barnes and Noble and buy a book that contains them. Attribution is a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for inclusion of information. DCB4W 22:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at the covered bridge example. The erroneous information *isn't an aberrant data point or a minority viewpoint*.  Any reliable source which makes a statement at all about whether the bridge has traffic says it doesn't.  But it has traffic.
 * Look at the Borat (Sasha Cohen) example. Any reliable source which says what ethnicity his mother is says she's Iranian.  But she's not.
 * The *majority viewpoints* in these examples are erroneous. Ken Arromdee 14:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's far more likely that *some* published sources, which *some* editors in good faith believe to be reliable (and it's quite difficult to argue against an obsessive nutter), will be patently wrong. While of course I agree with the principle that we should not present the truth (as I agree with Pontius Pilate's observation on the subject), I do feel that "reliable" has often become a weasel word. A435(m) 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I seem to be talking to a wall here.

Discussion: If the information is truly erroneous, there will be debate on the subject. We can publish the debate.

My reply: Look at the examples. This didn't happen.

Discussion: If something is 'demonstrably wrong', then someone will say so.

My reply: Look at the examples. This didn't happen.

Discussion: The bad information would be a minority viewpoint, which we're allowed to deemphasize or omit.

My reply: Look at the examples. This didn't happen.

Discussion: It's very unlikely there'd be a situation where Wikipedians know what's correct and all published sources don't.

My reply: Look at the examples. This *did* happen.

Please, people, if your theory is not borne out by practice, something's wrong with the theory. Ken Arromdee 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I agree entirely with your point, and with the fact that it is supported by examples not accounted for in the replies you've been given. There is a significant potential discrepancy between how this proposal is supposed to work and how it can be expected to work based upon observation of how WP rules are actually applied during editing of articles. When this discrepancy is pointed out, as in this thread or here, the likelihood of resulting problems is denied, in the face of the contrary evidence. Or it is dismissed as "invalid/irrelevant criticism because nothing's in the new policy that wasn't in the old ones", ignoring the fact that policies, too, exist in the abstract and, differently, as applied, so that when an old policy is re-stated it sets a new norm likely to conflict with the previous norm. Understandably, those who've worked so hard on developing this policy share a consensus and are swept up in its momentum. But that seems to render the policy impervious to other input at this point in the process. That's likely to force these types of concern to be brought up more insistently once the policy is promulgated, in hopes that those who aren't so invested in it can hear concerns that are going unheeded at this juncture. Too bad, but not hopeless. Lethiere 23:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A comment and a suggestion
It appears that there is no agreement among contributors as to the precise definition of "original research", nor on the propriety of including "demonstrably false, but attributable" information. I suspect that the present disagreements are likely to continue, unless some steps are taken to clarify the situation.

Accordingly, I would move the following motions:


 * That Wikipedia's Attribution Policy be amended to include an explicit statement as to the situations (if any) where demonstrably false information can be deemed worthy of inclusion on an article page.


 * That Wikipedia's Attribution Policy be amended to include an explicit statement as to whether or not an editor may engage in independent fact-checking, with the intent of removing or challenging a dubious or suspect statement.

I fear that the current wording (which permits the inclusion of false information, but does not openly acknowledge this fact) will result in the worst of all possible situations, and allow unscrupulous editors to convey and disseminate false information under the auspices of a poorly-explained technical provision.

If our encyclopedia allows the inclusion of demonstrably false statements, we should at least be honest enough to acknowledge this fact in a clear and open manner. CJCurrie 23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the point about true vs. attributable is easily confused. The point is that it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. But the way it is presented, it makes it sound that it's OK to make a case you know to be false. I have been thinking that we need to say the it's OK to do OR, it's just not OK to include it in articles. So you can do OR on the reliability of sources, and you can talk about it on the talk page, but you can't say a source is unreliable in an article based on your research. You can say that source A says that source B is unreliable, and present verifiable evidence from source A if you found that in your research, as long as you are not making your own synthesis, and just using the reliable source. Dhaluza 01:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My own take is that there is no 'true' or 'false' statements at WP. We have attributable or non-attributable statements -- the attributable ones stay, while the others go. The concept that Wikipedians are somehow empowered or expected to determine the ultimate truth is plain wrong, and contradictory to our mission here. Crum375 02:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then how do we justify excluding fringe theories and extreme minority viewpoints, if not for an underlying assumption that those viewpoints are less reliable or credible? DCB4W 02:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)::


 * And my position is that this is a reductio ad absurdum view of attributability. We may not be empowered to determine "ultimate truth", but this doesn't mean we can't remove demonstrably false statements.  CJCurrie 02:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Determining the truth would be OR, and not allowable. But there should be some responsibility for vetting the sources presented. It's not enough that a source meets WP:RS guidelines, an editor needs to present them in good faith. I think we should make it clear that an editor is vouching for the sources they use. Dhaluza 02:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If 'demonstrably false' means that our attributable sources are in conflict, then I agree. For example imagine a case where source A says that source B says C, and we can plainly see that B says D, where D clearly differs from C. In such clear cut cases, where the reader may simply be confused if we ignore the discrepancy, and where we have no third party source describing it, we may do it in a very neutral manner, with minimal verbiage, IMO. For example we could say: "A says that B says C,[1] but B appears to say D.[2]". Even in this case we don't say that A is wrong, only that the sources appear to be in conflict. Crum375 02:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Alternately, we could just remove the reference entirely. CJCurrie 02:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly RS can be wrong--newspapers print corrections all the time. The original incorrect material is attributable, but demonstrably false. Material can also be out of date, or based on incomplete information available at the time that has since been expanded. Dhaluza 02:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. In that case we won't be acting as faithful summarizers of attributable statements, but as censors of what we consider to be conflicting statements. Obviously if sources are weak in the first place and they conflict this way, it would be one more reason not to include them, but once the published sources are deemed otherwise reliable and verifiable, then I believe we have a duty to report the facts, and deal with any discrepancies that may arise. Crum375 02:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I continue to disagree. We're not obligated to publish any information that we know to be false.  CJCurrie 02:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We do disagree. I don't think there is such a concept as 'false' here. There are good and bad sources, and we report the good ones. If several good ones are in conflict, we need to deal with it. Ignoring the issue by censoring good sources is no solution, and is contrary to our mission. Crum375 02:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So how do you determine what's a good or bad source, if not by critically evaluating it? We needn't establish that the material in the articles is all true, but shouldn't it be at least plausible, or the viewpoint of a significant and respected group? Doesn't "purveyor of plainly incorrect information" fall somewhere in the core of any definition of "bad source?" DCB4W 23:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

To return to question at hand, do you agree that Wikipedia should explictly clarify its rules concerning the retention of "false information"? CJCurrie 02:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't think we have a concept of 'false' information. See my comment above. Crum375 02:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think, again, that this has reached the point of reductio ad absurdum. CJCurrie 03:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Your concept of an encyclopedia is different from ours. An encyclopedia is not the Book of Truth - it is simply a summary of reliably published information. Thus even 'demonstrably false' information, to use your words, would be included. By publishing it in WP we are not making it 'true' - we only recognize that is was published by a reliable source, without rendering our own opinion about it. I don't see any absurdity in that. Crum375 03:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It becomes absurd when false information is presented as an unqualified statement of fact. (And I've seen this happen.)  CJCurrie 03:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does sound like you have a different concept of encyclopedia than I do. An encyclopedia is a general reference work, and like all reference works is practically useless if its information is incorrect. I really don't see WP or any other encyclopedia as a literature summary. Our content policies are the way they are as a means, rather than as an end; we focus on source-based research because, by and large, it's one of the best ways (and sometimes the best way) to present full and fair coverage of the subject, not because we think literature reviews are fun. DCB4W 01:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A few of my thoughts:
 * 1) I think part of the problem has to do with the type of fact checking. Not allowed: conducting your own telephone survey, and using it as evidence to remove something on WP as untrue.  Should be allowed: comparing internal consistency of a source, whether the information has been accurately portrayed, whether contrary statements have been ignored, etc.  Also should be allowed: looking to a primary source to see if it actually says what a secondary source attributes to it.
 * 2) Another part of the problem: the excessive reliance on he-said-she-said to establish factual information. To make a factual statement, I believe an encyclopedia generally should require not just one source, but several sources to make that point.  If only one person says something (which would often be the case with something that's not true), that information should probably be removed as an extreme minority viewpoint.  If many people say it, on the other hand, then it probably should be reported whether true or not.  This might apply in many situations.
 * 3) Somewhat unrelatedly, one concern I have with combining the policies is that people would then simply be able to say "Please see WP:ATT" as a supposed explanation for the removal of material, which really then explains nothing, and subsequently gives immense wiggle room for the person citing the policy to slip and slide around in his or her basis. Maybe a problem or maybe not.
 * 4) Relating to point 2, one problem I'm also seeing is the use of NOR to disallow the very most basic synthesis of material, which seems to me fundamentally necessary in putting together a paragraph. If WP really can't synthesize anything, then the result is precisely this excessive reliance on single sources, since putting sources together, naturally, requires some synthesis.  Yet, it would seem to me that an encyclopedia should absolutely be trying to put paragraphs together that compare and describe different sources and how they fit together.  My experience with these policies is limited, but that strikes me as a major issue. Mackan79 04:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mackan's summary seems to make a fair bit of sense. That said, there is at least one circumstance where we can definitely do this- cases where a source later issued a correction. If a newspaer says something today, and corrects it tommorow, that's an easy call. JoshuaZ 23:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy with NPOV
To answer the question Can information be both verifiable and demonstrably false?, it doesn't matter, per Neutral Point of View. None of the views should be ... asserted as being the truth. Since falseness is a value of truth, its value is of no meaning to Wikipedia editors. Hope that clears the issue up. Cheers, 84.92.54.229 16:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC) User:Hiding, logged out.
 * You left out the part of the sentence that commands that all significant points of view are to be presented and nothing given undue weight. So when demonstrably false information represents a significant point of view, you're right. When it's plain error and/or nobody else in the literature takes it seriously, it's insignificant and can be deleted. You're right, we cleared up the issue. Cheers. DCB4W 23:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Drinks all round then. Hiding Talk 23:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer-review as a standard
Opinions seem to vary widely in Wikipedia regarding whether studies that are cited must necessarily be peer reviewed. It would be great if this could be clarified in WP:ATT. What do those here think? Should research that's referenced have met the standard of peer review? Yes or no. : ) Thanks.TimidGuy 16:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Too simplistic, and as a peer reviewer I would not support the assertion that it is inherently reliable.ALR 16:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Peer review is only one of a number of criteria. And journals have varying degrees of peer review, they can claim peer review but have pretty low standards for it, or only do it in some cases.  The context of a study should be included in an article so readers can decide how much credibility to grant it.  And results of a study should be presented as just that - things shouldn't be presented as "fact" unless there's extremely widespread and documented acceptance.  I'm dealing with some major headaches right now over this with pseudoscientific topics.  One study in a fringe journal with weak peer review and people want to say "scientists say..." or "experts agree..."   --Milo H Minderbinder 16:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The studies that TimidGuy is referring to include an unpublished study found in a published book consisting mostly of peer-reviewed studies, performed by a guy who never published a peer-reviewed study on the subject Otis. My own question is, if self-published studies are allowed, why not poster sessions/conference proceedings? -Sparaig 20:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. Wasn't referring to that niggling issue. I was wanting to poll the people who congregate here whether peer review should be a standard in Wikipedia. TimidGuy 16:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen poster sessions, but I never tried to find a published source for one after the conference. Are poster sessions published?
 * As for conference proceedings, where does it say they are not allowed?


 * Going back to the original post, I am not aware of different criteria for "studies" compared to other forms of information. Certainly we cannot require that all scientific information come from peer-reviewed journals, because these journals only publish in fields of current research activity. Settled science is found in textbooks, not journals. --Gerry Ashton 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But science textbooks themselves are peer-reviewed, IIRC, and only include the most widely accepted material, unless they explicitly state otherwise. There's a BIG difference between a textbook and a popular-press treatment, which can include anything the authors want want to say. -Sparaig 20:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to see a source for that; they are reviewed after publication, like any other book, but that's not the same thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen a peer-reviewed article which asserted that the Second Boer War was a war of secession. Other peer-reviewed articles are less original in their research; but there is every reason to believe that, for many journals, peer-review is more like surviving AfD than FA standard - and even that's not enough to make articles unquestionably reliable. Like FA, I must conclude that it often consists of "do you have enough footnotes?" and "can you spell?". Doubtless this varies, depending, among other things, on how many submissions a journal gets. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done a little checking. From what I have read, every chapter in a science textbook is submitted to peer-review by the publisher prior to publication. The sample chapters are often (always?) peer-reviewed even before the manuscript is accepted for publication. I've asked for clarification on the sci.physics newsgroup. The sources I've found the information in are how-to manuals for science writers via google and amazon searches but it may be that some publishers are more reliable than others (doubtful given that the big universities set the standards for all college textbooks just as the big states do for K-12 textbooks). -Sparaig 03:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about college textbooks, I am less skeptical; although some are very bad. The oversight of the large states probably inhibits effective peer review; there have been several articles about the effect of state purchasing power on history books, and the sciences are almost as vulnerable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In the controversy concerning Creation Science, a distinction is made between "textbook science" and the research found in current journals. "Textbook science" is called such because it is supposed to be so widely accepted that it can be taught to beginning students without explicit caveats about how all science is uncertain. Houghton-Mifflen says this about reviewers of textbooks:
 * A major component of development is manuscript reviewing. Our best advisers are often your peers--the people who teach the course, use the competing textbooks, and know the discipline as well as you do. We rely on them not only in matters of scholarship and accuracy but also for answers to questions about how best to teach the material. With your help, the sponsor and development editor will determine what kind of reviewers will be best for your project (whether from two-year or four-year schools, what regional mix, etc.) and assemble a panel of reviewers. With help from you and the sponsor, the development editor devises for the reviewers questions that will identify the project's strengths and weaknesses. And the development editor and sponsor later help you make sense of the reviews. Six reviewers may have six different opinions, and the development editor can help you sort them out. In addition to reviewing the manuscript, we may use focus groups or conduct telephone surveys to collect information about the market and your text.
 * As far as I can tell, ALL college textbook publishers in the USA follow much the same procedure, or so current books on textbook publishing suggest.. This issue is quite important for this wikipedia page, IMHO, because while everyone says that "we don't just allow peer reviewed sources because that would eliminate textbooks as sources" the fact is that textbooks are probably the MOST peer-reviewed sources of scientific information out there. Not only is the basic science itself virtually (always?) always based on journal articles that are peer-reviewed AND widely accepted, but the chapters and the overall text itself passes an extensive peer-review process, not only for accuracy, but for presentation and style and usefulness to other teachers in the field. IOW, the example is specious: college science textbooks are more peer-reviewed than journal articles--generally FAR more peer-reviewed.This is one important reason why book publishers claim that they aren't over-charging for college textbooks: the peer-review process is extremely time-consuming and very expensive. -Sparaig 19:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

(Unintent)If we can demonstrate that textbooks are peer-reviewed (and it seems Sparaig has begun to do that), splendid. Once the editors reach a consensus that textbooks are peer-reviewed, this should be mentioned in the policy, because I don't think it is widely understood by potential editors. Also, there are worthwhile science publications that appeal to a more popular audience (Scientific American, Nova, and New York Times science section, for example), that either are not peer-reviewed, or it is not apparent from looking at the publication that they are peer-reviewed. Such publicatons may be more useful in explaining concepts to Wikipedia's readership than a cutting-edge research journal would be. So I still don't think that we should require that only peer-reviewed sources should be used for science articles. --Gerry Ashton 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to insist that only peer-review should be used (though I think a case can be made that peer review is better than not), only that arguments against only using peer review that are made using science textbooks (not sure about other kinds) as an example of non-peer-reviewed sources are wrong: college-level science textbooks (at least) are most certainly peer-reviewed and more-so than almost any journal article. The point is to make sure we're arguing from the facts, if possible. -Sparaig 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong Objection
This page purports not to be creating policy innovations. However, WP:REF and WP:RS are guidelines, not policy. This document incorporates too much of the content of those documents not to be seen as creeping innovation. I cannot help but feel that this direction of creeping innovation has made Wikipedia worse over the past year or so (for instance the bazillion pages littered with citations whereby some self-proclaimed expert is trying to enforce his POV with what he deems to be reliable sources (and where nationalism gets involved, it just gets ugly)).

Aside from the innovation matter, this proposed policy is far less clear than the two it is trying to replace. The nationalist misunderstanding (and its variations) will be perpetuated and accentuated, and élitism will be re-inforced (there *is* a cabal), an élitism which I cannot reconcile with WP:DBN.

Two policies give two lines of attack against the bad-faith "but I've attributed everything" brigade. One policy gives just one, and this proposed policy would not be a very good one at that.

I am not advocating an "if it's not broke, don't fix it" approach to the two policies concerned. My opinion is that they are very much broke, but that this is absolutely not the way to fix them. A435(m) 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you point out what this page includes that is in RS, but not in V or NOR? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. I think Wikipedia keeps improving, both in content as well as its body of policies and guidelines. The merging of WP:NOR and WP:V into WP:A is very natural, and we can still point to sections within WP:A to get to specific issues. Combining two policies that overlap and hence create coherency issues, will improve our content policy structure even more. Also, IMO the name itself is excellent, as it conveys the essence of our content policy: attributability. Verifiability was always a confusion point, as it implied some kind of verification of the stated facts, whereas what we really meant is that we just want proper attribution. IMO this merge and the new name are a major step forward. Crum375 22:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In light of Crum375's arguments (here and elsewhere), I'm beginning to have strong objections to this policy change as well. CJCurrie 22:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I would hope that if you do object, you decide so on the merits of the issue, not because I support it. Crum375 23:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My objections have to do with some of the arguments that you've raised (and that others have echoed). I'm not objecting simply because you're the one who's raised them.  CJCurrie 23:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you care to elaborate? It seems to me that we have two distinct issues: the NOR+V --> A merge, which is intended to simply merge existing policies, vs. the issues we discussed earlier, which address the actual root NOR and V policies themselves, unless I am missing something. Crum375 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The short version: I believe that our proposed new policy "clarifies" some aspects of NOR and V in a dangerous and unhelpful manner, and that it will remove a safeguard against the inclusion of dubious information. CJCurrie 23:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps that's too short. Can you name one specific example where you see WP:A allowing inclusion of information that is kept out by the combination of WP:NOR and WP:V? Crum375 23:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not useful, CJCurrie. Please clarify your concern so that it can be addressed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * While I can't speak for CJCurrie, this change is a huge problem:


 * "In principle, any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. However, this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found — except in the case of contentious material about living persons, which must be removed immediately. If you encounter a harmless statement that lacks attribution, you can tag it with the template, or move it to the article's talk page with a comment requesting attribution. (from WP:A)"


 * "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the fact template, or tag the article by adding not verified or unsourced. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done.[1]"


 * "Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: 'I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.' (from WP:V)."


 * That is a major change, and in my opinion, one for the significantly worse. If something is really "common knowledge", it won't take but a minute's Googling to find a thousand reliable sources for it. If you can't do that, the knowledge is not as common as you thought it was. Regardless, though, this is discouraging the removal of unsourced information, something we should be encouraging people to be bold in doing, and this change opens the door to fighting over whether or not it should be removed. If it's unsourced, and someone chooses to challenge and remove it, it should stay gone until sourced, end of story. This was advertised as a merge, not a policy change, and that change in wording is a significant policy change. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 00:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What you say is correct in theory, because everything should be attributed. But in practice, if we removed every bit of unattributed material now, it would be extremely disruptive, to say the least. The idea is to cure the disease without killing the patient. So I think the language is an attempt to balance WP:ATT against WP:DICK. Dhaluza 00:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree to your philosophy, and unless it's BLP or a totally outlandish claim I generally will use fact or a move to the talk page, but I'm not sure if forbidding people to remove instead is the best approach. What's considered contentious, outrageous, or common knowledge will necessarily vary from person to person, and "common knowledge" in the countries many of our editors are drawn from may not be common knowledge in others. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Question
CJC, could you say precisely please what is in here that is not in V and NOR? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's one example:

WP:V reads as follows: ''The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.''

WP:A reads as follows: ''Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.''

I would submit that there is a qualitative difference between "The threshold for inclusion [is] not truth" and "The threshold for inclusion [is] not whether it is true". The former wording is ambiguous, but it could be read as meaning that truth is insufficient as a standard for inclusion. (It could also be read to mean that the simple fact of a statement not being false is insufficient to permit its inclusion.) The latter wording implies that truth is irrelevant.


 * They both imply that. What matters, here and in V and NOR, is that the material be sourced, not whether any individual editor thinks it's true or otherwise. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, do you believe that Wikipedia should explicitly clarify that (i) truth is irrelevant, and (ii) information that can be demonstrated as inaccurate may still be included (and presented as a simple statement of fact), if it can be shown to be derived from a "reliable source"? CJCurrie 03:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * CJC, please listen to what people are saying. We are not changing or arguing about the policies on this talk page. This is just a merge. If you want to argue about substantive issues, you should go to the talk pages of V or NOR. I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about changing policy. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see my last edit. I believe that WP:A has provisions which qualitatively differ from WP:V and WP:NOR.  CJCurrie 03:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would further submit that there are some situations where truth (or, if you wish, accuracy) is quite relevant to our purposes. While it is not within our mission statement to define the "truth" in regards to any particular subject matter, there are nevertheless some circumstances in which certain statements may be shown to be demonstrably false (ie. "Author A writes that Author B writes C in Document D. Author B does not write C in Document D"). I have difficulty believing that it was ever the intention of WP:V or WP:NOR to ward against the removal of false-but-attributable statements.

It seems to me that an overly strict reading "The threshold for inclusion [is] not whether it is true" will open the door for unscrupulous editors to include attributable information which they know to be factually inaccurate, and I cannot help but think that this would compromise the reputation of our project somewhat. CJCurrie 03:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I should add one further comment. Although I've had several disagreements with SlimVirgin having to do with content issues, I've generally admired her work on policy. In this instance, however, I fear that our "clarification" of policy is taking us in the wrong direction. CJCurrie 03:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So you can't show me anything that's here but not in V and NOR?


 * CJ, you're an editor who often engages in OR, and therefore it's not surprising that you object. However, the point here is not to rehash the policies, but simply to merge them. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Slim, you're an editor who often ignores any views contrary to your own. Therefore, it's not surprising that you're declining to address my concern.  CJCurrie 03:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Knowing' whether something is false or not, is OR. Our job here is strictly to determine the quality of a source, and if it is of sufficient quality, and otherwise relevant and pertinent, we include it. This has nothing to do with our own perception of the veracity of the source. You seem to think that WP is the Book of Truth. It is not - it is a neutrally presented summary of reliably published information. Both V + NOR, as well as A, make that very clear. Crum375 03:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But none of that is relevant here, because we're not changing or arguing about the policies. This is just a merge. I asked whether there was material here that's not in NOR and V, and CJ was unable to provide examples. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did provide an example. "The threshold for inclusion [is] not truth" is not the same as "The threshold for inclusion [is] not whether it is true".  CJCurrie 03:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The two pages say the same thing. (1) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and (2) "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." You couldn't slide a piece of paper between them. Please stop trying to cause a problem here. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I maintain that "The threshold [is] not truth" differs from "The threshold [is] not whether it is true", and I have reason to believe that the latter wording could be used to condone all sorts of unencyclopedic nonsense from unscrupulous editors. CJCurrie 03:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to see one specific example which would be handled differently by the two. And unscrupulous editors probably shouldn't be editing here anyway, IMO. Crum375 03:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Both are saying that truth plays no role in the inclusion decision (despite a common misconception of many Wikipedians), and both say that having the appropriate reliable published sources are needed for inclusion. I see no difference. Crum375 03:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree there is no difference. Policies are not written to be interpreted by WP:WIKILAWYERs and this issue is really about splitting hairs. CMummert · talk 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hopefully this'll be my last response because this is going nowhere. CJ, you keep on repeating that you think there's a difference but you can't show how and no one agrees with you. "The threshold is not truth" and "the threshold is not whether it is true" mean the same thing viz. that sources, not truth, are what matter. I'm constantly adding stuff to this encyclopedia that I think is nonsense, but it's well-sourced and others disagree with me, so in it goes. That's what both those sentences mean. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've explained my rationale, and three other editors (including yourself) have indicated their disagreement. I continue to believe there's a qualitative difference between the statements, insofar as the former is more open to interpretation. If the consensus view is that the statements are identical, however, I'm prepared to drop the point.

I will also note that I'm not opposed to the principle of merging WP:V with WP:NOR. I simply have some concerns about the "clarifying" language.

Finally, I'll note that there's a difference between printing material that we believe to be nonsense, and printing material that can be demonstrated as inaccurate. CJCurrie 04:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If worth mentioning, we add stuff to Wikipedia that says Source X says Y (cite Z) without regard for if Y is true. But not if "Source X says Y" is false. WAS 4.250 04:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's quite an important distinction. CJCurrie 04:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And it's one that is covered by both the sentences above. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * By way of clarification, can you specifically affirm that "Source X says Y (cite Z)" will be considered unencyclopedic under the provisions of WP:A, in situations where "Source X says Y" is false?  CJCurrie 05:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That would depend on the quality of Z, the consensus of editors, the way the material is written, the context. You're trying to engage me in psychic wikilawyering. And I repeat: the provisions of A are the same as the provisions of V. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, could please explain the meaning of your previous sentence: "And it's one that is covered by both the sentences above"? That is, how do these sentences cover the distinction?  CJCurrie 05:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't deal with this wikilawyering anymore, I'm sorry. You're not making a serious point that I can see. Everything that is covered by NOR and V is covered here. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Slim, I'm asking you to explain what you meant by your original comment. This is a rather important point, and I'm disappointed that you'd dismiss it as Wikilawyering.  CJCurrie 06:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If the two versions are utterly equivalent, why not humour CJ and give him his preferred version? Hesperian 04:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because we now prefer to use the term 'attributability' which is unambiguous, vs. the old term 'verifiability', which meant the same but led to confusion because it was not as clear. This also ties in with the title of the policy. Crum375 04:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, CJ would be happy if you simply changed "whether it is true" to "truth". If the two versions are utterly equivalent, why not humour CJ and give him his preferred version? Hesperian 05:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My own opinion is that "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true" sounds better than "..., not truth", since in the former the phrases are more symmetrically balanced. I am convinced the two statements mean the same, so it boils down to style and clarity. Crum375 05:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not truth" is poor writing. The sentence is fine as it is. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I would have been inclined to adopt the poorly written version for now, so as to stave off any perception that this is more than a merge. Hesperian 05:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The only person with that perception is CJ, and we're not going to include poor English to satisfy one editor. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and all of CJ's points have been answered anyway. The only difference that I see is that "true" is an adjective and "truth" is a noun. The sentences are synonymous. Marskell 10:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The old "verifiability, not truth" had a noun in opposition to another noun; the new version has a clause in opposition to another clause. Both were sylistically balanced. To change it so as to have a clause followed by an opposing noun would be a bit clumsy, in my view. And I think it's good to have a clause for the "verifiability" bit ("whether material is attributable to a reliable published source"), as it gives more information. Musical Linguist 10:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to reiterate that I've indicated my willingness to accept the current wording (here), in the event that no one else agreed with my objection. CJCurrie 23:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Truth is insufficient as a standard for inclusion. There's the covered-bridge example above, where the published sources are jointly wrong, but the facts are unverifiable - I hope that's rare. More importantly, it may well be true that the new band The Zebra-Striped Ocarina (I hope I've made up a name too lame to be a real band) has formed, and has played at the members high school; but we delete their article under WP:MUSIC all the same. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

truth and verifiability
I am a little bit concerned that the "verifiability/attributability-not-truth" formulation is unfortunate. I'm guessing that it has a long history, and that ultimately it started as an arresting way to highly the importance of verifiability (now attributability) rather than to dismiss truth outright; it was a rhetorical defence against WP:SOAP. It strikes me, however, that the best articles are not completely unconcerned with "truth", and that there are some articles where "truth" remains an important category. Think, for example, of various bits of pseudo-science, where advocates are out there producing attributable material that is on the borderline of WP:RS, which mainstream scientists are ignoring, but which well-meaning advocates will push into wikipedia. Having "attributablity-not-truth" embedded into policy gives the upper hand to pushers of fringe theories. Wouldn't it be better to water down the opposition between attributability and truth here with a "not merely" or "not necessarily"? that is, to identify "truth" as a necessary but not sufficient condition? <b style="color:#008000;">semper fictilis</b> 15:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We can agree on the attribution of a claim to a published source. We can even sometimes agree on what is "reliable". There is no agreement on what "truth" is. And while you may disagree with the truth of that statement, I can attribute it to a reliable published source ;) WAS 4.250 16:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And we still need as much defense against WP:SOAPBOXING as we can find. The ward against crank science is the Undue Weight clause of WP:NPOV, not this. If we try to rely on the absence of papers from cranks, we merely give them more incentive to found the "peer-reviewed Journal of Phlogiston Research." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, we can do better than that. We have WP:CRANK WP:FRINGE, and WP:SCI is under discussion.  The former clarifies the concept of undue weight and fringe topics/OR in general; the latter is more specific to scientific topics.  (Not surprisingly, several well-known cranks here on Wikipedia have objected to WP:SCI).  --EngineerScotty 18:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
 * We agree that if something is true but not attributable to a RS, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. And we agree, I think, that if something is false but all the RS's agree on it, it can be mentioned in Wikipedia.
 * Nevertheless, truth (or what Wikipedian editors perceive as true or false) does and should play a role in the writing of Wikipedia.
 * If a statement in Wikipedia is false, it should be changed. If an editor or editors know that it's false, or thinks it's likely to be false or contentious, they can change it into an explicitly attributed statement -- for example:  change "It never rains in California " to "According to the CWS, it never rains in California ".  Or, they can delete it or modify it to a different attributable statement.  If some Wikipedian editors disagree about whether it's true, they can usually still find a wording that satisfies both sides.
 * It's not always possible to know for sure what's true -- but that doesn't mean truth has nothing to do with the purpose of, and method of writing, the encyclopedia. --Coppertwig 01:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Truth can never truly be known, so I think it is worded very well. This is an important distinction. Keep in mind an encyclopedia should not present anything new, but on show that which is already part of society. Thus in many cases(such as where the common knowledge of the subject is contrary to the truth) the truth would be inappropriate. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Truth can never be known? Really? What's 2+2?
 * I continue to think that hard-core epistemological skeptics should probably not write reference works. Some truth can be known with a reasonable degree of certainty. Where it can, it doesn't hurt to say so. The reason for the policy is that, to promote reliability, we can't allow individual editors to proclaim the truth. Data must come from a reliable source. It doesn't help to get carried away with rhetoric, or to try to make the policy into something it isn't.DCB4W 03:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The practical difficulty here is that the encyclopedia has different sections to serve different audiences. In some cases -- politics, religion, ideology, articles on culture, etc. -- these cautions can be helpful because editors are constantly using Wikipedia to proclaim truths that are obvious to them and on initial discussion of the need to cite sources, often respond by simply adding a footnote to an edit written in "this is the way it is" style. There really does need to be something in the written policy to back up efforts to explain to an editor the need to say "according to" and to convey, on disputed matters, that just because an opinion is referenced means that it can be presented as Wikipedia's own position or "the truth". Meeting this practical need, however, certainly doesn't require Wikipedia to adopt or proclaim its own epistemological philosophy or any elaborate ideas about the nature of truth. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is now Policy...
I gather that WP:ATT is now considered Policy... a merging of WP:V and WP:NOR. I have no problem with this, but I do have a concern with how this is being done. At the moment all three Policies are up and running... and this is going to lead to confusion and argument. The three policies do not completely agree with each other (or to put it more exactly, they agree with each other in surface substance, but they differ in greatly in tone and emphysis). This is especially noticable in the area of reliability of sources(especially Self-published sources - a frequent area of controversy) are dealt with. Look at them side by side: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:ATT. As a frequent contributer at WP:RS... a guideline that is supposed to help explain this particular aspect of Policy... I am seeing this conflict of tone writ large. Many of the questions we are asked involve parsing Policy statements and intent. Those of us at WP:RS agree that we need to conform what is said there to what is stated in Policy, but right now there is confusion as to which policy we should conform to. I would therefore request that, if WP:ATT is indeed confirmed as Policy, we redirect WP:V and WP:NOR to this page. If not, please move WP:ATT back to "proposed" status until the community can reach consensus. I don't care which, but we need clarity and not confusion. I have posted this request at the Village Pump Policy Page as well. Thank you. Blueboar 15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

ATT has been tagged as policy for 8 days, and as far as I can tell there are no outstanding objections. Perhaps it is time to implement the redirects? It is somewhat pointless that wording changes continue to be made to the old policies, but these changes will be lost when the old policies become redirects. CMummert · talk 17:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with rediring WP:V and WP:NOR here. The previous pages should probably be moved to subpages of this page, for historical interest reasons (and linked at the top fo this talk page). At the moment someone coming across an old link to WP:V or WP:NOR is going to be confused when they see the historical tag and think 'maybe that's not policy, then'; and when people use the redirects they're likely to be referring to the policies, rather than the pages that they're on. --ais523 18:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Eventually, that's a good idea. I'd avoid any page moves for the time being, until it's firmly settled that WP:ATT is the official documentation of our policy.  --EngineerScotty 18:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But if we don't move them, then after rediring they'll be buried in the history behind the redirects. One possibility would be to use the same approach as on WP:SIGN and create a disambiguated redirect using transclusion. --ais523 18:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Eventually, they should be moved. I wouldn't replace them with a redir without a move; I'm saying leave them as is for now.  Perhaps, have the shortcuts WP:NOR and WP:V point to this policy--an easy change to make and revert.  OTOH, there are lots of places in Wikipedia-space that refer to them by their full names and not their shortcuts--I wouldn't go through and redirect all of those until it's firmly settled that this policy is now official.  (A job for a bot, BTW).  It's been nearly an hour, and I haven't seen any objections to my trial balloon.  --EngineerScotty 18:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Which trial balloon? And 24 hours is minimal to make any argument from silence; we're not all in the same time zone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Tagging WP:NOR and WP:V as historical. They currently have big red X's on the top of them.  Certainly, you're right that 24 hours--preferably the weekend because it's Friday where I sit and Saturday now in much of the world--is required before any massive changes (like page moves or fixing up refs to the old policies to point to the new).  I was offering the advice above that further action to "disconnect" V and NOR is premature at this point. --EngineerScotty 20:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Book published by a company that has published only one book
We are discussing the case of a book that has been published by, Mighty River Press, a company that has only published one book. Can this be considered a reliable source for a biography of a living person?. The book is "Voice for Peace" by Andrea Cagan used for the article Prem Rawat. See Talk:Prem_Rawat. Andries 20:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * An RFC has been filed on this matter. See Talk:Prem_Rawat. Note that the book is called "Peace is Possible: The life and message of Prem Rawat" (not "Voice for Peace"), and s available at Amazon.com: ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Status of WP:RS?
Looking at some of the tags notifying people that WP:ATT is now Policy (and that WP:V and WP:NOR are to be merged into it) I have seen a statement that WP:RS is to be demoted to being a FAQ. I think that is a mistake. I think it is very helpful to have a guideline that further explains what what constitutes a reliable source and what does not. I would like to see RS remain a guideline, but one tied to this Policy as opposed to WP:V and WP:RS. As I see it, it would not say anything different than what is said here... it would just say it in more depth and with more guidance (which is what the difference between a guideline and a policy should be). If you agree, please pop over and help us conform that guideline to both the wording and the intent of this policy. Blueboar 20:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also strongly disagree with turning WP:RS into a FAQ. I FAQ would probably change WP:RS from a more spirited approach, as it should be, to a confusing list of examples phrased as questions.  In any case, it took months for WP:RS to get the level of consensus it has now.  WP:RS in an important topic, yet one on which there is often not enough consensus for policification.  I don't really think WP:RS should be tied with any one policy.  Strange as it may sound, I often feel the spirit of WP:RS is more connected to WP:NPOV than WP:V or WP:ATT.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The FAQ already exists; it is Attribution/FAQ. The intent of this is that RS will also be tagged, as it's a confusing mess.  :) --EngineerScotty 21:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with particular reliable-sources issues being dealt with in an FAQ while the principles of the matter are covered in a single policy page. The FAQ structure doesn't change the presentation of the issues, as far as I can see: if you think some issues are missing, add them. The point about an FAQ is that it gives no one the illusion of being policy. We had got to the state with the Reliable Sources page where some people regarded it as containing policy and some people edited it without at the same time editing Verifiablility or No Original Research to the same effect. Being an FAQ removes any possibility that the page may itself seem to be policy: only the policy pages are policy, and the FAQ is no more than a reference page for practical issues that arise from policy. All principles to do with the reliability of sources should be covered in the Attribution page: if you think there are any left out, please add them. All practical issues to do with the reliability of sources should be covered by the FAQ page: if you think there are any left out, please add them. There should be no place for a separate, semi-autonomous page on Reliable Sources, if everyone takes that approach. qp10qp 21:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:ATT has been advertised as a replacement for the (ex-)policies WP:V and WP:OR, not as a replacement for WP:RS. Trying to rewrite WP:RS again gets back into the whole debate over whether to have a spirit-based guideline, where there are degrees of reliability, or a checklist reliability is on/off one.  For the record, I think it should be spirit-based.  What the FAQ says about WP:RS is heavily focused on whether certain types of sources should be considered reliable or not, not why they should be considered reliable or not.  It is very heavy on self-published sources, a controversial topic, without explaining well why self-published sources are generally reliable.
 * Also, the problem with the examples-based approach is that not all sources of a particular type are always self-published. A wiki could, for example, only be open to editing by carefully selected experts, if account creation required a rigorous approval process and only registered users could edit.  Also, it is inefficient and long-winded to denounce each type of self-published source separately when the problem is the lack of editorial oversight, which they all have in common.
 * The part of WP:RS that I personally think is best is Reliable sources. It covers the basics of what makes a source reliable or not without mentioning specific situations to which there may be exceptions.
 * — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm hugely disappointed with this. It was always the intent to replace WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS with WP:ATT and the FAQ.  This feels like a rug being pulled from under the feet. To me these were a package, and I have argued for this page on that basis. Hiding Talk 22:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's still the idea, Hiding, unless I've missed something.qp10qp 22:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That may need to be made clear. Various sources recently, including the prose at the header of this policy, suggest that only WP:V and WP:NOR are being replaced.  Junking WP:RS should be the least controversial part, but if isn't clear to the community, then we need to make it clear. --EngineerScotty 23:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this part of the chat is the first I've heard of RS's replacement. I'm largely indifferent as to that issue-- the practical distinction between a guideline and a FAQ is probably not huge, and in any event, the definition of "reliable source" has always been left fairly vague on purpose. So while I don't much care if that's done, EngineerScotty is absolutely right: it definitely needs to be advertised better. DCB4W 23:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned we have now (give or take a day or so) agreed to replace V and NOR with ATT but the announcement to deal with RS has yet to take place. Once the technical aspects of the replacement of V and NOR with ATT are completed, and the announcement of a proposal to deal with RS occurs THEN we can argue that issue. I do not see that issue on the table at this point. One thing at a time. WAS 4.250 01:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Improving"?
Reading through policy I'm very confused now: we have to attribute all information that we include in Wikipedia per WP:A.. but if adding that information "improves" Wikipedia, we apparantly don't have to, due to WP:IAR. What constitutes an improvement here? The document WP:A itself suggests that it exists in order to verify that information is correct, and the importance of this implies that Wikipedia would be "improved" if it held more correct information; this is supported by the discussion above - that objectively false information incidentally published by a reliable source should not be retained. But if this principle is applied it means that an objectively true fact that is not published could be included in any article, since increasing the amount of truth on WP is an improvement and thus WP:IAR trumps all else - but directly contradicts the opening paragraph of WP:A. How is this resolved? Hyphz 04:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On a case by case basis with community consensus. Hiding Talk 05:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're adding unsourced information, that does not improve Wikipedia. Note also in practice what happens: If you add an "objectively true fact" which no one contests or finds at all suspicious, then it will remain there until someone gets around to properly sourcing it; if someone contests its truth, the only way you can convince them of its truth is by reference to reliable sources. —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

V and NOR links
The two former policy pages are linked everywhere imaginable, including on the editing interface. They should probably redirect here. Move to VerifiabilityHistorical and create the redirect? Marskell 10:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps we should wait a touch. Let people get used to it... Marskell 10:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm confused about the redirect destination of WP:V, since it goes to a section called "reliable sources". Could perhaps the following text, or something like it, be added:
 * Attribution means that any reader should be able to verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.
 * It is essentially the 2nd sentence from WP:V with "check" replaced by "verify", which is bolded because of being a redirect destination. Since this is the sentence from WP:V that introduces the term "reliable sources" it might be a good section intro here. I mean from a geeky consistency point of view this is just so neat that I had to suggest it, but I don't know if perpetuating the term verify is practically a wise thing, so there are things to consider; but at least some section intro would be helpful if WP:V is redirecting there. --Merzul 11:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "check (verify)" ? - WAS 4.250 19:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideas "Already covered'
I merged in two concepts from WP:V and WP:NOR; User:Jossi reverted this with an edit summary of "already covered." Obviously, I don't see them already covered, and so would appreciate being pointed to where they are already covered. Thanks. -- Dragonfiend 20:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Re "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it", I agree. It's a potent sentence that I believe belongs. In the lead or later? Marskell 20:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, with Marksell about that specific sentence (which I missed). On the other hand, your other addition: The only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. is not necessary as the requirement for sources is already explained in the policy. When we had V and NOR decoupled, we needed that text in NOR. Now that we have merged, it is unnecessary in my opinion. It is not a big deal, Dragonfield. If you feel strongly about it, please restore it. I just think that keeping it simple is the best approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I just re-added the one under key principles, but tweaked to "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I thought that "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources..." could be mis-interpreted: deleting a start-up, say, which has no reliable sources but for which reliable sources could be found. OK? Marskell 20:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with that sentence, Marksell, is that it introduces the term "third-party sources", a term that is not used elsewhere in the policy. I would stay with the confines of "Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article." as per primarysources, if at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was hesitating in the back of my head over "third-party" and just dropped it. Partly, I just like the pithiness of the sentence. If it introduces no adjectives beyond "reliable" I think it inarguable. I really don't like the wording of that template, though--"and sources affiliated with the subject of the article"? What does that mean? Marskell 20:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And now it reads "If no reliable sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Later, we give examples of self-published or questionable sources as reliable. So, we've gone from "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" to "If no reliable sources (which can include self-published or questionable sources) can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." That's a pretty drastic re-write. --Dragonfiend 21:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "and sources affiliated with the subject of the article" means ... primary sources originating from the article's subject/author itself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure what you're getting at with that last sentence. I mean, I understand that the language of primarysources and WP:V are quite similar in regards to the need for articles to have "reliable third party sources" or "sources unaffiliated with the subject", but I didn't see this concept reflected in Attribution until I merged the WP:V language here. What change are you suggesting? --Dragonfiend 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * None. The current wording is fine with me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One: secondary sources are required for an article to exist is an innovation.
 * Two: "sources affiliated with a subject" is plain bad wording and I don't think we should be pointing to it.
 * Three: I'm not getting the radical re-write with "If no reliable sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Yes, in certain cases a self-published source is considered reliable. So it's always been, and so the sentence is consistent. Marskell 21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So, what do you propose? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If this policy holds that "an article can be based entirely on self-published sources", that is a radical departure from WP:V's "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Since, as I understand it, this is supposed to be a merger rather than a rewrite, I'd suggest just sticking with the original language of WP:V. --Dragonfiend 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) Well, I thought by proposing "If no reliable sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" I was proposing a compromise, but apparently not. (Three's a crowd.) By dropping "third-party" (or "secondary" or any other substitute), I think we're safe. Robert has just re-added. Marskell 21:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Robert A West's edit seems consistent with the original WP:V and is fine by me. --Dragonfiend 22:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine with me as well. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To split hairs, Robert's is identical to mine (and thus I'm not sure what the issue is), except for reverting to "has no reliable sources" v "no reliable sources can be found". I do think the latter is more accurate in terms of policy practice. Marskell 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are 3 issues-- the RS needed to prove the existence of something, and the RS for establishing N, and the RS for establishing individual facts.For individual facts we do often use official or semi-offical websites or company-produced material, with the understanding that they are usually correct, but can be challenged.DGG 22:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to self-published sources section
(copied from Wikipedia talk:Verifiability)

I'd like to suggest a change to this paragraph:


 * "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

I would like to do two things:


 * (a) remove "or a well-known professional journalist." I have seen this being (as I see it) abused a few times recently; lots of professional journalists are now setting up blogs and publishing material there that their newspapers might not be willing to publish. Allowing editors to copy that material arguably puts us at risk in the same way the newspapers might be put at risk. I suggest we restrict the use to "well known, professional researcher in a relevant field" &mdash; any journalist that fits that description can then be used, even on his or her blog.


 * (b) add to the end: "If a third-party source has published the same or very similar material, that source should be used in preference to the blog." That is, if the same or very similar material is found both on an acceptable blog and in a reliable third-party source, the blog should not be used.

Any thoughts? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If two acceptable sources, one from a reputable publisher and the other self-published, are available, I would cite the reputable publisher version, unless access to the reputable publisher version costs money and the self-published version is free, in which case I would cite both. --Gerry Ashton 21:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with (a) in particular, it's going in the wrong direction from what we should be looking toward. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Those changes sound good to me. Friday (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd strongly disagree with (a). Journalists sites are a useful source of material, and they are, as a general rule, fairly responsible about what they include in them.  I've never heard a journalist referred to as a 'researcher' (however much research is part of their job, it's not a common word that's used to refer to them).  I do, however, still propose either changing 'researcher' to 'notable expert' or adding it as an additional option.  This change might obviate the need for journalists to be included -- the most important journalists would usually be considered notable experts in their field, I think.  Regarding (b), I agree with Gerry Ashton's point: if the third-party source is one that isn't freely accessible, both should be included.  Otherwise, this seems pretty much common sense.  JulesH 23:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We are discussing "journalists" as if they were all cut from the same cloth. That is not the case, and SlimVirgin's concern should be addressed: Some journalists that publish blogs are not experts in a specific field, but often are biased towards one position or another (that is why the publish blogs, to bypass the burden of editorial oversight). A journalist's blog is no different tan an op-ed in most cases. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jossi and SV. I think that by giving a well known journalist a free ride, i.e. the ability to provide otherwise unsourced evidence into WP article, we are creating a giant loop-hole in our content policies. If the material is well sourced and otherwise valid, then why doesn't the journalist publish it in the journal's own site? One could easily surmise that the reason is that the editors there felt the article is improperly sourced, or possibly that it puts the publication at risk, in which case we expose WP to that same risk. I think this loop-hole really needs to be clamped down. Crum375 22:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick thought on a): see Lou Dobbs. He he. Marskell 22:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not follow. Care to clarify? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, well, sorry. Just trying to keep the sense of humour cap on. A populist who CNN publishes but does not speak for. A Lou Dobbs transcript is reliable per policy, but not reliable de facto. So I'm agreeing with Slim on the first point. Marskell 23:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No jokes allowed, Marskell. You should know that by now. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Marskell, I am not sure what the problem is. Does CNN not review the transcripts it publishes? : ( Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 23:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * CNN publishes Dobbs' commentary and states "The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer." (see latest). His op-eds are not de facto reliable and I very much doubt they're reviewed because they often contain inaccuracies. Marskell 23:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. In my personal opinion, that makes it a reliable source for Dobbs's opinion, and Dobbs's opinion is relevant and significant in an article about Dobbs.  But since it is technically not self-published, I guess it would fall under reliability conditions for non-self published sources.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 23:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming from this that there are no objections to my making these changes. I'll wait a bit in case anyone else comments. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) JulesH and badlydrawnjeff seem to disagree with a). To me, it would make more sense if it said "acknowleged expert" rather than "professional researcher".  Granted, most good experts are researchers, but not all of them are paid.  Theo de Raadt is an acknowledged expert on OpenBSD (being its founder) and computer security, but working on open source, he is definitely not paid, unless you count donations. But no objection on my part on removing the jounalist-specific part.
 * In any case, I added your second suggestion, except I replaced "blog" with "self-published source". If anyone disagrees, they can revert it.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I would like the addition in (b) to read ""If a third-party source has published the same or very similar material, that source should be used in preference to, or together with, the blog." (Addition in boldface.) --Gerry Ashton 00:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you add "together with," there's no point in having the sentence. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure there is. It mandates the inclusion of the superior source (which I think we all agreed is a Good Thing). Having both an iffy source and a good source is better than having only the iffy source, and no worse than having only the good source. DCB4W 00:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the point of the sentence is to mandate the exclusion of the blog, not the inclusion of the reliable source. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought we weren't changing policies in this switchover? That isn't at all what WP:V says now. DCB4W 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, Crum, and sorry about the carelessness. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Any time, SV. ;^) Crum375 01:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Gerry has a point. If the third-party source is copying from the blog, the blog link might be necessary for copyright reasons, or else preferred as a courtesy.  Granted that isn't likely to happen very often.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion
If we are going to change the self-published sources section, I suggest this this. It would insist that all the statements of self-published sources to be stated as opinions, which must therefore be cited with prose attribution, and be subject to the WP:NPOV policy, meaning that a secondary source would be needed to prove the significance of the self-published source's opinion. It would also get rid of the "only in articles about itself" restriction, in favour of proving due weight.

This has previously been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 23:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC), 17:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that misses the point of the exception. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Which exception are you referring to? — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 23:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The self-published exception. The point of it is (a) that in articles about the subject, the subject needs some kind of right of reply or may know things about himself that no one else has seen fit to publish. So long as the material complies with the conditions we've laid out, it may be included; and indeed, in some cases, must be included per BLP; and (b) when used as third-party sources, self-published sources may add key insights or valuable information not covered by third-party sources; again, so long the person is a well-known researcher in that field previously published by third-party sources, it's fine. To add to these exceptions that secondary sources must substantiate the self-published source's opinion entirely misses the point; indeed, if you were to add that, the exceptions may as well not exist. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was suggesting replacing the existing exceptions. Articles about the subject should not even exist if no reliable source thinks the subject is significant.  A reliable secondary source can prove significance, and also provide proof that the self-published source was indeed written by the subject.  Also, the current wording, unless it has changed recently, says that self-published sources can only be used in articles about themselves, i.e. not as third party sources.
 * Whether or not someone is a well-known expert (or researcher) can only be proven by recognition from reliable secondary sources, as far as I know. My suggestion addresses that.
 * — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 23:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are confusing things. These exceptions do not preclude the requirement for secondary sources. Please read the policy as a whole. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." and "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible."? The former seems to imply that as long as an article has at least one reliable source, in can also include non-reliable ones, although that is probably not the intention.  Also, if self-published sources magically become reliable in articles about themselves, doesn't that defeat the purpose of the first statement?  Or is it only saying that they can be used in articles about themselves even if they are not reliable?  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 23:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ABF, you're proposing a fundamental and far-reaching change in the policy, which would have implications I suspect you've not considered. It couldn't work, and it misses the whole point of why that section is there in the first place. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why it wouldn't work, but I would be happy if the policy would be more vague so we could try it out on a guideline before committing it to policy... or change it back to the way it currently is... or keep it in guideline forever... or whatever would happen.
 * Are there any specific modifications that could be made to make you happier with it, or are you totally against it? You said, "To add to these exceptions that secondary sources must substantiate the self-published source's opinion [...]"  My proposed version means to say that reliable secondary sources should prove that the self-published source's opinion is significant, not necessarily agree with said opinion.  Take WP:FRINGE], for example.  Even a refutation can prove a limitted degree of significance.  — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 23:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ABF, please read the policy as a whole before making any changes. Your suggestion completely misses the point of the exception, and it's hard to explain it more clearly than I did above. Do you understand why we allow self-published sources in articles about themselves? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand why self-published sources are allowed in articles about themselves... however, I believe my suggested change covers that. The same secondary sources that make the articles about self-published sources worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia would at the same time demonstrate the significance of the opinion of the self-published source to the article. If I changed the wording of my suggestion, in some way, would that make it more clear? —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you are understanding the concerne expressed about your wording. What you are saying, is that unless there is a secondary source that asserts the significance of the self-published source, we cannot use that self-published source. But that is in contradiction with the exception stated in WP:SELFPUB. That is the problem. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ABF, why do we allowed self-published sources in articles about themselves? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) ≈ jossi ≈, I am suggesting replacing the selfpub section with something vague, so that we could try this out in a guideline. The current version there leaves out certain exceptions that I (and others, I think) consider to be good.
 * Awhile back, someone posted this, and in the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy article bloggers had uncovered some scandal involving doctored photographs, and many major news outlets gave them credit for it. This is uncommon, but, in my personal opinion, a clear exception.  However, these bloggers are not experts, and the article is not about the blog or the bloggers.
 * In this citation, the official NetBSD site linked to an official mailing list announcement. So, the NetBSD Foundation proved that they did indeed make the announcement on the mailing list.  However, this is not in an article about a NetBSD mailing list, and I don't think the experts exception would work.  Not all sources needed to balance things out per WP:FRINGE/WP:NPOV will fit under the "in articles about themselves" exception, but a refutation can prove a very limitted degree of significance.  Should I go on?
 * SlimVirgin, if the opinion of the subject of an article could not be included, that could lead to WP:NPOV and possibly WP:BLP problems. In addition, the opinion of the subject is relevant to the subject.
 * P.S. SlimVirgin, you said "please read the policy as a whole before making any changes." I have not added this suggestion to WP:ATT, WP:RS, or any other policy or guideline, only talk pages and the essay.  The change I made on this page was your second suggestion above, plus a few minor changes.  Did you look at the first diff?
 * — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) SlimVirgin, I changed the wording on the essay essay a bit, hopefully addressing your concern about self-published sources in articles about themselves, by adding, "Opinions of self-published sources are always relevant in articles about themselves, but per above secondary sources are still needed to demonstrate the article is worthy of inclusion." — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 14:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC), 17:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Woah, "Opinions of self-published sources are always relevant in articles about themselves". That's not true at all.  Is George Bernard Shaw's opinion of the 23rd October relevant in the article on him? That's a bad edit and opens the door to people claiming license to include every unflattering quote a person has ever made in their article.  I really cannot see the problem you are trying to fix here.  I'd suggest the bloggers referred to in the the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy example can be treated as experts in this instance, since their opinion has been cited by a reliable source.  I have no idea what you are talking about in the NetBSD example, but you appear to be confusing the issue. A mailing list announcement is not made by a mailing list, since to my knowledge mailing lists have yet to gain sentience. Therefore I don't get your point about it only being permissable to be used in article about a NetBSD mailing list.  You seem to have indicated that the NetBSD organisation authored the mailing list announcement, and indicate you have a source to that effect, so it therefore is a statement made by the organisation and can be used in an article on that organisation.   Hiding Talk 20:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right, I just removed the statement per you. Do you think there is a better phrasology that would address SlimVirgin's concern without introducing that problem?  By the way, I really don't mind if you all edit the essay.
 * Technically, the mailing list announcement was authored by a member of the NetBSD team on behalf of the NetBSD Foundation, who demonstrated their approval of the message with a link to the mailing list announcement from their main website, which can only be edited by developers trusted with commit access. So, the mailing list announcement was still technically self-published.
 * All of the situations I can think of where use of a self-published sources seems appropriate seem to involve more reliable sources reconising them in some way. Established experts are recognised by others as experts, fringe theories are reconised by reliable sources refuting them, otherwise unreliable sources and people are demonstrated worthy of having an article on them by recognition from reliable sources.  The recognition of a reliable source can also prove authorship, if an author's name is listed.
 * There may be times when it is appropriate to include a self-published sources opinion on an article not about itself, in a manner prescribed by WP:NPOV. For example, the NetBSD citation above is in an article not about NetBSD, but BSD operating systems in general.  NetBSD's opinions might also be relevant in other open source related topics.  Rather than limiting use of non-expert (or "professional researchers") opinions to articles about themselves, I think we should leave the question of when their opinions are relevant to WP:NPOV.
 * Again, thank you for your correction on the accidental loophole created by that change! : )
 * — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 22:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Standards creep
This is a case of BLP standards creeping into the normative wiki writing and editing process:
 * "Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately."

This needs some context applied. As stated there are only the degrees of extreme deletionism and removal with extreme prejudice. Makes the CITE nazis too happy. -Ste|vertigo 01:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been in the policies a long time. This page is just a merge. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Deletionists" had that power before this merge. From "old" WP:V: Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Nothing new under the sub, Stevertigo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)


 * There are a lot of people who prefer tagging, but I believe Jimbo has supported that. "No information is better than unsourced information," or something like that.  At least it only says "may be removed", minus the BLP part, of course.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the point of my criticism of "standards creep". BLP represents a high standard for biographical articles. Its creation was motivated by the fear of getting sued, and that fear should be contained to BLP. -Ste|vertigo 02:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The creation of BLP was motivated by a sense of morality - treating living human beings with sensitivity. WAS 4.250 05:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A quote by definition is a citation with a source. Are you saying that a quote must be cited to a particular book, or not just an individual? "Reliable source" applies only to scientific peer-reviewed journals. It does not cover political aspects, which is the bulk of the controversial article body. Within the context of politics, RS simply doesnt apply, and thats why the genius of NPOV is to explain the positional sides. There needs to be some language describing how NPOV trumps an exclusionist applications of RS - particularly in matters where RS is difficult to determine. -Ste|vertigo 02:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the requirement for a published reliable source is not applicable to political articles? Don't think so.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you saying there is a way to make exclusionary distinctions between political sources in a way that doesnt violate NPOV? -Ste|vertigo 02:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ≈ jossi ≈, of course I am not saying that, published reliable sources should always be used. However, when they aren't used, there are tags like fact and verify that one can use rather than immediate removal, allowing others to time to find sources per the wiki process and alerting the readers to possible innacuracies in the meantime.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't see what that sentence means. What is an "exclusionary distinction"? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * RS as stated means distinguishing between sources, not to order their views in a NPOV way, but to exclude sources which are deemed to be "unreliable." How does one make this distinction without violating NPOV, on matters in which "expertise" is subjective. Even the AMA may say something on a medical issue which must be balanced with a differing view, explaining the context surrounding the disagreement. The line between NPOV and RS needs to be stated. -Ste|vertigo 02:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ste|vertigo, RS and NPOV should theoretically be in harmony, although I am not saying they are. For example, one would think that degree of significance (see WP:NPOV) and degree of reliability should be connected in some way, in my opinion.  But I am not sure anymore if many people agree with that.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Depends on context. For us BLP represents an important editorial context that must be contained as far how it affects non bio articles. There are the other types of articles articles about things, and articles about concepts can differ substantively with regard to how RS applies. -Ste|vertigo 03:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, BLP is a completely different circumstance. Sorry for getting sidetracked.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 03:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many of you have gone to college or -- in particular -- graduate school. But, in those environments you are taught to cite sources that are not found in several other works or that are not "common knowledge." For example, no one needs to "cite the fact that the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese failed to destroy the oil tanks and sumarines. You would, however, need to credit a source that argued that the failure to destroy the sumarines meant that Japan was destined to lose the war." (Andrea Lunsford, The Everyday Writer, p. 120 [2001]). There — I just cited a reliable source for why every claim doesn't need a citation. Now, those arguing against verifiability in favor of attribution please cite a reliable source from a respected authority on sourcing that says that every statement in an essay needs to be sourced. Thank you.--Buenos días 14:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This policy says that not every sentence needs to be sourced. All material must be attributable to a reliable published sourced, but need not actually be attributed. Fourth sentence. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 14:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why does "WP:V" direct to "Reliable sources"? That section barely mentions verifiability -- much less than the introduction. You also merged "Wikipedia:Verifiability" into "Wikipedia:Attribution," which are two different things in my mind. It's getting really bad out there. There are some really fanatical editors insisting on actually sourcing every single fact in articles. I just got into a dispute about this at "Talk:Pedro Almodóvar" and at "Internet Relay Chat" on another account. The latter dispute was mainly just a blatant attempt to delete a passage the editors found offensive -- which is the the most common way in which it occurs. A group of editors shows up at an article they don't like (say, "List of ethnic slurs") and then begins insisting on sources. The information can be obtained by a simple Google search, but instead of doing that, the editors just remove the information. This happens a lot.--Buenos días 23:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Editors that find a statement in an article that they assess it to be not credible, have the right to insist that a source is provided. When the source is provided the dispute shall end. Of course, if some editors want to editwar, this or any other policy will not help them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I wasn't clear. First, an editor insists on a source for a fact that he himself knows to be true, as with Almodovar. In another scenario, he is told that the information is blatantly obvious and instantaneously verifiable, as with "Internet relay chat." The editor refuses to argue about whether it is true or not. "Wikipedia:Verifiability" says that editors should discuss the issue on the talk page, and ask instead of remove unsourced statements. Also, demanding a source when it really isn't necessary is disruptive. These people don't have a leg to stand on, and I agree that there's nothing at all that can stop them. They're, as you said, prepared to edit war in order to enforce their abusive (but increasingly-common) interpretation of verifiability. Second, "WP:V" should not redirect to this article, and especially to some section that barely mentions verifiability. Third, I would like to know whether you guys just merged the articles without a formal vote. Did you have a vote, or did you have some sort of discussion where an editor or two took it upon themselves to merge the pages? In sum, I agree with the line that SlimVirgin pointed out to me on this policy page and I also agree with Professor Lunsford -- who I cited above.--Buenos días 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some context may be helpful. Although it may well be less common in some areas of Wikipedia, in many of the religion articles it's actually quite common for a well-meaning editor -- not a vandal or a crank but a well-meaning editor -- to think something "obviously" true that other editors and sources may disagree with. Hence, asking to source the "obvious" is not an uncommon occurrence. This shouldn't be made into a game, and I acknowledge that abusive requests for sources may exist, but in my experience the worst problems are the opposite, editors who simply aren't aware that the opinions they're expressing are their opinons. I would think that AGF would apply to requests for sources and such requests should not be presumed abusive. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Tertiary sources?
Please include a brief statement on the reliability of using tertiary sources, such as Dictionaries, Encyclopedias and Almonacs. My feeling is that most of the information that would come from such sources does not need to be cited at all, but their are exceptions. Blueboar 04:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I lot of people might agree with you, but I personally disagree. That sounds a lot like a "common knowledge" exception.  The problem with not citing "common knowledge" material is that there is very little that is common knowledge worldwide.  Besides, so-called "common knowledge" material shouldn't be that hard to cite anyways.  As for saying something about tertiary sources somewhere, I agree with that.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 04:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am thinking of basic things such as names, dates, locations etc. Very basic stuff that one might look up in a tertiary source just to make sure you got it right in an article.  It would be rediculous to require someone to cite such material to the source.  Obviously, more substantive things (the definition of a word, an analysis of a topic taken from an encyclopedia, etc) needs to be cited. The paragraph at WP:RS is good (if a bit wordy) so that could be used as a model. Blueboar 04:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Basic facts, like dates, are often a target of sneaky vandalism. Of course, it is usually impossible to tell the difference between sneaky vandalism and well-meaning mistakes, but either way it's good to have a source there to make sure the information stays correct.  But there are probably a lot of editors who would agree that information which is trivial to verify need not be cited, so the preceding is only my opinion.  But, being trivial to verify, someone like me could just add a source anyways.
 * Also, if I don't cite "Queen Elizabeth was a queen of England," but I cite "Queen Elizabeth of England was often called the "Virgin Queen"", that incidentally confirms that she was a queen of England. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 04:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is that we do not need to cite that Elizabeth spelled her name that way, or that she was a Queen of England, or that she reigned from 1558 to 1603... Imagine the article if we had to do that:
 * Elizabeth I was Queen of England from 1588 to 1603.
 * Some judgement is called for. Blueboar 05:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should something as simple as the birthdate of a living famous Korean scientist be documented? Sources disagree on the birthdate of Hwang Woo-Suk due to confusion between different calendar systems. Hwang was born on January 29, 1953 in the Gregorian calendar. However, older Koreans often list their birthdate in the lunisolar Korean calendar, which in this case is December 15, 1952. This date is sometimes repeated in English language media without specifying that it is in the Korean calendar, causing further confusion when the Gregorian year and Korean calendar month and day are used together to produce an incorrect birthdate of December 15, 1953. Sources specifying a December 15, 1952 birthdate include the Los Angeles Times and Channel News Asia. The Encyclopedia Britannica (via New York Times) and The Korean Academy of Sciences and Technology cite the December 15, 1953 date. The Korea Times states the birthdate is January 29, 1953. WAS 4.250 06:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Something about tertiary sources definitely needs to be included, especially when it comes to the question of including material from other encyclopedias. In my view, note from WP:RS about articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources should be added here too. -- Vision Thing -- 12:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus and the eye
While I think this example about the dangers of primary source use is a good one, I wonder if it does not assume some knowledge of the Christian Bible and would be more difficult for those of other cultures and religions to grasp: "The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted." I think it would be good to think of a more culture-neutral example. I will put my thinking cap on, but maybe someone else has a good idea more quickly!! --Slp1 14:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the English language wikipedia and there is no more famous book in the English language. Further among those we need to understand this the most (those who need an example), the bible is far and away the most universal cultural literary item. There is no more universal literary example source than the bible if your audience is english speaking. Further, the example is graphic and sticks with you - easily memorable. WAS 4.250 15:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If your audience is those who speak English as their first language, I would agree with WAS, but not if your audience includes those who speak English as a second language. --Gerry Ashton 18:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Even for those of us who speak English as a first language, not everyone is going to understand the reference (I certainly didn't when I first read it... I had to go and look up the Bible passages to understand what it was talking about). To me, an example should be something that anyone can understand regardless of their knowledge or background, and without having to research the reference. Blueboar 18:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One could add links to the verses, like "The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew, Mark ) for his followers". But is the actual verse even that important? Assume it said "Thou shalt literally pluck out thine eyes, this is my unambiguous and irrevocable decree unto thee." Would it make any difference in terms of how I'm allowed to use it? --Merzul 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it would matter what the actual verse said; the meaning is fairly clear just by reading the sentence in the policy page. You could replace it with nonsense names and a non-existent book and it would probably still make sense. Also, I don't see what more universal example you could find that still uses a source like a book. You could find something in Shakespeare, but even then the example might not work because Shakespeare's plays do not pretend to be anything other than fictional works. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think linking the verses to Wikisource is probably the best way to handle this. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking WP:RS in a new direction?
As I contemplate the impending debate over whether to get rid of WP:RS (replacing it with a combination of this policy and it's FAQ), I find I am of mixed opinions. I think that there is a need for a guideline that specifically discusses the issues of reliability and sourcing... but I also understand the potential for conflict and confusion that having such a guideline could pose. As it stands now WP:RS has achieved a pseudo-policy status... it calls itself a guideline but many people treat it as if it were policy. I think that accounts for some of the resistance to the idea of replacing it. But I also think this is one of the prime reasons for replacing it... we should not have two authoritive statements on the same topic.

I have also been thinking about the most common question that has been asked at the talk page of WP:RS over the years ... that question is "Can I use citation x in an article about y?"... ninety percent of the time, the answer is "Yes, depending on how you use it. It can be used as a citation for the opinion of the author, but not as a citation of fact." In other words, the underlying issue for the question is actually HOW to use the source, not IF the source can be used. Often questions such as this really involve issues of NPOV rather than ATT (or V and NOR as it was then). I see a need for continued advice for these kinds of questions... and hence a need for some sort of guideline on choosing and using sources.

The trick, as I see it, is to provide a guidance page that will not involve the potential for conflict. Thus, I come to the realization that we actually should get rid of WP:RS... and create WP:S (Wikiepdia:Sourcing ... as a working title). Leave the core issues and definitions of reliability to ATT, and instead create a significantly broader, but less authoritive guideline that offers true guidance about all the different aspects of sourcing statements: the different ways one can use a source; the different ways to source a statement; what kinds of sources should be used to cite which kinds of statements; when and how one can use POV sources; etc. As I see it, such a guideline would have repeat what is stated in Policy to some extent, but it would do so from a "guidance" standpoint and avoid language that hints at "rule making" ... it would refer the editor back to Policy frequently. In some ways it would help explain the intent of the policy pages, and avoid contraditing them.

I suppose such a page could be included as a FAQ attached to a policy page ... but since my concept would also tie in NPOV, FRINGE, and some other policies and guidelines, I do see it working better at a guideline level. I would have to draw up an essay to really demonstrate what I am talking about... but I wanted to discuss it here a bit, and find out if others think this is even a possible suggestion. Comments? Blueboar 20:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems good to me. A guideline along the lines of "assessing sources" or something like that.  Phrasing that made it very clear it's subsidiary to this policy.  I think the major problem with RS was that it wasn't always clear that it was subsidiary to V; it's title was a phrase that was used in WP:V, which kind-of led to the conclusion that when WP:V mentioned a reliable source, it must mean something that is acceptable according to what was described at reliable source.  Break this problem, stop it from attempting to repeat the definition of reliable sources, and we'll have a much stronger, more useful guideline at the end of it, I think. JulesH 18:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * An attempt at reworking WP:RS along these lines was made several months ago. Sadly, it was not successful. Beit Or 18:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources section
The subheadings (nutshells) of PS and SS are quite useful. I see no reason for their deletion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Primary source
One needs to define what a primary source is before stating how to use it. Further it is not an edit but the content of the page that the policy applies to (at least that is what the nutshell says at the top "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source"). --Philip Baird Shearer 21:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Philip. The idea is that we have a short sentence preceding the longer explanation. And the issue at hand is about an edit and by extension, to "content." Each edit needs to be attributed, if challenged. Also note that you have already reverted twice, and as an experienced editor, you should know better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The section below also has it, Philip, so you're making things lopsided. We start with the key thing, "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge," which is the point of the section, and then we move into the longer explanation. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

jossi Who is we? How can one know what is a "primary source", if it has not been defined? The sentence does not explain what a primary source is, so what do you mean by "longer explanation" were is the proceeding shorter explanation?

Each edit to an article page does not need to be attributed if challenged. Sentences in the article need to be attributed, if challenged. As for your last sentence jossi, I think you mean "... I think that as an experianced ..." or at least I will take it that is what you meant --Philip Baird Shearer 22:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Philipp. As an experienced editor, you should know that it is always better to revert once, and then discuss to find common ground with fellow editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The only important thing to verify about the ATT policy and "primary sources" at this point is that it accurately refelects the V and NOR policies. Improving the ATT policy is for later, after the transition. WAS 4.250 00:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Philip, any material that's challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, not only whole sentences. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO as the sentence stands the sentence has two problems:
 * There is no definition of what a primary source is, one has to read further down the page for that. Stylistically it is not elegant to do this. This is a Policy page, it should be written to the same standards as a legal contract and I have yet to read a legal contract, worth the paper it is written on, that does put the definition before first usage.
 * In line with what is written in the nutshell, it is not the edit which can be challenged, it is the text in the article (in reality a sentence or at the very least a phrase). --Philip Baird Shearer 06:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with Philip's line of reasoning about edits having proper attribution; if a fact in an article is properly attributed, and an edit neither introduces a new fact nor disturbs the existing attribution, then the new edit is properly attributed too. However, I have noticed that new edits tend to be held to a higher standard than material already in the article. I suppose this is just a matter of practicality; it's easier to see if a new edit is properly attributed than to rewrite a poorly sourced article. I don't know that we should try to address this situation in the policy. --Gerry Ashton 19:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A question on Primary, Secondary (and Tertiary) Sources?
I raised this at WP:RS a while ago, but I would be interested in what the thinking here is... As I see it, a source's reliability is not determined by its type (primary, secondary, or tertiary), but rather how the source is used. Take, for example, a primary source such as the Declararion of Independance. I think everyone would agree that it is reliable for use as a citation for what it says... ie the statement: "The declaration of Independance says 'all men are created equal'". I would say it is probably a reliable citation to back the statement: "The founding fathers of the United States felt that all men are created equal"... But I would say it is not a reliable source for the simple statement "All men are created equal". In other words it's reliability depends on the context in which it is used. I like having a statement explaining the types of sources... but, as written, I think we unintentially imply that the type of source determines its reliability. We need to correct this impression. I think it can be done with a simple sentence. Blueboar 22:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edit at RS in this context, with  some tweaks below, may be all what is needed:
 * "The reliability of a source is not always determined by its type, but by how it is used. For example, the diary of a famous politician would probably be reliable as source for a asserting the politician's opinion, but might not be reliable as a source for an assertion of fact."
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks... That is what I was getting at... but as this this page is only newly approved, I am hesitant to toss in things I think it needs without discussion. Blueboar 23:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. But that is what we are doing:) Let's hear what other have to say about this proposed addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything Blueboar has said on the issue, but I think this section might need to be edited a bit more than that. That is, saying when primary sources are preferred and when secondary/tertiary sources are preferred, rather than showing a clear preference in all situations for secondary sources.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 23:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Blueboar's point also explains the appropriate use of self-published and questionable sources rather nicely: we use them for those limited purposes where their reliability is not in serious question. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A question on what we mean by Source?
The word source has three meanings... it can mean the person that said or wrote something. It can mean what that person said or wrote. And it can mean where the material is found (the book, journal, webpage etc.) We can call them the WHO, WHAT and WHERE of source material. All three of these meanings have both interrelated and distinct aspects when it comes to reliability. Should we clarify this more? Blueboar 23:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That could be very useful information at WP:ATT/FAQ, Blueboar. The idea is to keep this policy page short, concise, and easy to grasp, and have all the examples, details, explanations, etc. at the FAQ ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ideally, we would have as much information as possible about the source: who said what where and when in what context and what other sources verify this as a good source and why those sources are to be believed and furthermore why the reader should trust what wikipedia claims about these sources anyway and while we're at it a few telephone numbers of experts who will verify the whole thing. But we'll take what we can motivate from our friendly helpful contributors. WAS 4.250 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WAS's comment reminds me of a difference between Wikipedia and the kinds of papers that style manuals and university professors focus on, which I'll call academic papers for short. The authors of academic papers are usually experts, or at least aspiring experts, and will ordinarily be read by other experts. Vandals and disingenuous POV-pushers are not a problem to the degree they are on Wikipedia. So no formal system has been established to indicate in a paper how the reliability of the source was evaluated. If wikis become even more important in the future, perhaps a formal method of indicating how sources were evaluated will evolve. --Gerry Ashton 19:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for OR example to replace A + B = C example
If I read in Source A that a color-blind witness to a crime reported the suspect driving away in a Ford Mustang, a witness in source B saw the same car but could only identify it as red. As I understand it combining A and B to say the suspect was driving a red Mustang is not OR. Combining A and B to say the suspect car must be Joe Blow's red Mustang is OR. Assuming I'm correct can this type of example be substituted for the current one? Anynobody 09:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that concluding directly that the car was a red Mustang would be OR. It is not up to us to play detective. All we could do in such a case, assuming reliable sources, and no third party source putting the witness statements together for us, is to simply list the statements. IOW, we could report the individual sourced witness statements, but not conclude from them that "the car was a red Mustang". As an example, we don't know if it was the same car, or that the witnesses are reliable, etc. That's a job for the police, or a third party source reporting the case, not Wikipedia. Crum375 11:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Anynobody has it right ... The policy states that: "Editors may make ...  logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source.  It is acceptable to combine the two sources and state that the car was a red mustang.  While it is OR to make this connection, it is an allowable form of OR.  What would be unacceptable would be to take it any further... to say it was Joe Blow's red Mustang.
 * This can be a fine line sometimes. If the statement is at all controversial I would not state the connection... even if it is allowable (state A and B, and let the reader make the connection). Blueboar 13:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, but could you provide a reliable source for the non-trivial and highly significant conclusion that both witnesses are talking about the same car? :) --Merzul 14:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't know why I didn't take this more seriously, the above is actually quite problematic "If the statement is at all controversial I would not state the connection... even if it is allowable (state A and B, and let the reader make the connection)." This is not how I have understood WP:SYNT, and perhaps somebody could settle this issue once and for all (I'm naive, I know). If there is something controversial involved, then stating both A and B, letting the reader make the connection... isn't that just as bad? It's implicitly advancing a position instead of being honest about it, still violating SYNT, isn't it? --Merzul 14:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Since A and B are factual statements backed by reliable sources, we have no basis to exclude them from an article. That stating them may lead the reader to making a logical (or even an illogical) conclusion does not change this. Yes, it is problematic... I have participated in several talk page debates that center around "implied" conclusions (for a good example, see George Washington and religion)... it is indeed very easy for a clever POV editor to imply something that, if they actually stated it would be slapped down for being OR.  It all comes down to how the reliably sourced facts are stated. Blueboar 15:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem is stating in the article: "Source A states that a color-blind witness to a crime reported the suspect driving away in a Ford Mustang, a witness in source B saw the same car but could only identify it as red." Period. No need for anything else. That is what WP:ATT is advising editors. Editors wanting to write about the "red Mustang" should maybe user their blog. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Also, if the issue is controversial, we may not even juxtapose two sources together if they seem to advance a position. For example, let's say that we have a source that says that a witness saw a person running away from the crime scene at night, and claimed to see some details about the person in the moonlight. We could in theory quote this source, if otherwise reliable and pertinent. Then, some diligent Wikipedian finds that there was no moon at all on that date and time, and decides to quote that, from some almanac. That would be OR by juxtaposition and unacceptable, unless we can find a source that directly mentions the lack of moonlight in relation to the witness statement. In this case, the reliability of the individual sources is immaterial - it is the combination that is unacceptable, per OR. In the red car example we may include the two sources, as they were both directly related to the same event that is the subject, but may not draw a conclusion. Crum375 15:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Crum... with a nod to Abraham Lincoln :>) ... it is definitely not OR to state that there was no moon that night. That is a simple fact that can be backed by a reliable source.  Again, it is HOW you use them, not THAT you use them. Blueboar 15:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi... I have no problem with what you say, but it does raise the question of why we include the "logical deductions" clause. Can you give me an example of an acceptable "logical deduction"? Blueboar 15:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, I think you are missing an important point about OR: we are not allowed to include a source to advance a position unless it is already mentioned by another source in relation to the subject. What this means, in my moonlight example, is that the moonless night fact is only found in the almanac, and by including that fact, even if perfectly sourced, we would be advancing the position that the witness was possibly lying, hence including the moonlight info would be an unacceptable juxtaposition of sources, violating OR. OTOH, if some other reliable source made the point about the moonless night contradicting the witness's claim, then it would be acceptable. The point is, we are not allowed to combine sources where the combination advances a position, unless someone reliable has already published that combination. Crum375 16:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone adds sourced data that the witness said it was a moonless night. Someone else adds a statement sourced from the almanac that there was a quarter moon. Someone else adds that that there was heavy cloud cover blocking the moon sourced from a local newspaper. Someone else adds a statement sourced from a rival newspaper that the first newspaper's weather reports are unreliable. NOR shuts this nonsense down. WAS 4.250 16:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * With some caution, WAS. Although connecting the dots is left to the reader, using specific "dots" may be construed as advancing a certain position. These nuances cannot be spelled out in policy; that is where editors' good judgment is needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet again, I fail to spell things out because I think something is obvious and I am misunderstood. Sorry for not being more clear. In my example, every added piece of data in which the source did not explicitly tie the data to the subject of the article constitutes "original research" in wikipedia terms and is not allowed to be in the article. So in my example, none of those "data points" can be added in that back and forth "yes, but" fashion of arguing. This is what I meant by "shuts down". The whole back and forth thing is not allowed to take place in the wikipedia article. That back and forth must take place at a reliable published source that is discussing the subject of the article for us to include it. WAS 4.250 17:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Again... it all comes down to HOW the sources are used in a particular article. Statements about the sources can be worded and presented in different ways... some of which are neutral, some of which strongly support an implied POV conclusion.   You also need to make sure that all the dots are presented (assuming they can be backed by a reliable source) and not just the ones that support a given implication.  It is indeed tricky, and does have to be handled on an article by article basis. I think this is really a NPOV issue more than a NOR issue. Blueboar 17:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My example illustrates the problem with your point what you are saying Blueboar. Everything connects to everything so there is no end to the dots. There are always more. NOR is an excellent tool to help manage articles that anyone can add to. By limiting content to what is sourced from reliable published sources that are discussing the subject of the article, we have a chance to achieve a consensus on what is neutral. Allowing people to add dots they think are relevant opens the floodgates to an infinite number of dots all connected to each other.  WAS 4.250 17:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. Now it is clear, WAS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Avoid eyewitnesses in example
Since the point of this thread seems to find a better example of avoiding synthesis that constitutes original research, I suggest that we immediately reject any example that mentions eyewitness testimony. The prisoners who are being released on the basis of DNA evidence overturning eyewitness testimony demonstrates that eyewitnesses are not especially reliable, and basing an example on them will only create confusion. --Gerry Ashton 20:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think a single example will make me understand where to draw the line; perhaps my intuitive understanding is enough, and if I synthesize material then some more experienced editor will come and challenge it. But we could try to understand the example we discussed long time ago from a Featured Article. I think most people say this is not synthesis:
 * According to the U.S. Forest Service, Shoshone National Forest has the greatest number individual glaciers of any National Forest in the Rocky Mountains. The forest recreation guide lists 16 named and 140 unnamed glaciers within the forest, all in the Wind River Range. Forty-four of these glaciers are in the Fitzpatrick Wilderness, centered around the highest mountain peaks. However, the state water board for Wyoming lists only 63 glaciers for the entire Wind River Range, and this includes areas outside the forest boundaries.
 * The problem is that some sense we are making the case here that the forest recreational guide are conflating the numbers, and basically lying about the attractiveness of their park. Intuitively, I would say this is simply not a harmful synthesis, the implied conclusion is not that controversial, is that the right approach? --Merzul 20:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why we need a different example of synthesis. This example is a real one that the editors involved were unable to see was OR even after having it explained to them, which is why I think it's a good example. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, I doubt any other example will do a better job. With synthesis (in the general sense) being such a central activity, I would still benefit from understanding where to draw the line. Unless the intuition is hard to explain in theory, and I should just trust my own judgment and go on editing until I'm reverted instead of trying to understand all the details of policy, but I'm a bit of a geek and it bothers me that I don't exactly understand WP:SYNT. Perhaps I asked this question in a bad thread, but I would really like to know why the above example is not considered original research. --Merzul 21:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, the one about forests isn't original research to me because each assertion appears to sit on its own. To take our red Ford Mustang example, it would be okay to say one eye witness reported a red car, whilst another reported seeing a Ford Mustang.  The synthesis is in conflating the two to state eyewitnesses reported seeing a red Ford Mustang.  We aren't making the case that the forest recreational guide are conflating the numbers, and basically lying about the attractiveness of their park, that's your reading of it.  We are stating that A says X and B says Y, and you work out who is lying. You seem to have decided the first recreational guide is lying.  Personally, I take the point of view that I'd need to do more research to work out which source is right. Hiding Talk 21:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, people can be unreliable as witnesses so I can see where the example might leave some gaps. Let me rephrase the example slightly, both people have video cameras. The first person is still color blind and has a bw camera. The second has a video in color, does not get a good shot at the car but clearly shows it to be red. Assume Joe Blow drives a red Mustang with no with standard features. Anynobody 00:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Before we try to analyze the Mustang example, I think we should ask "is there any chance this will end up being a better example than the plagiarism example?" I would say no, there is no chance, because eyewitnesses are not reliable, and we want to start with statements from reliable sources. Adding information to bolster the reliability of the eyewitnesses will prevent the example from being concise. --Gerry Ashton 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand eyewitnesses can be unreliable, video is a different matter. I'm also not saying the plagiarism isn't a good example, but the more good examples we can provide the easier it is to understand for anyone not familiar with the policy. Anynobody 00:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Would a couple of pictures help anyone understand what I'm talking about? I feel like some editors may have questions about my scenario. Anynobody 00:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mentioning or showing pictures would just confuse the issue, because then people would start wondering to what extent editors are allowed to interpret pictures, as opposed to finding a reliable source that did the interpretation. I think we want, as our starting point, two statements from two different sources of unquestionable reliability, that can be taken at face value without any interpretation. Pictures and eyewitnesses are out, as far as I'm concerned. --Gerry Ashton 00:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Gerry above. If this is related to a specific article, please discuss in that article's talk page. This is a policy page and as such it has to be generic enough to accommodate a wide variety of scenarios and not just specific cases. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈, Respectfully interpreting pictures can be part of a reliable source. Photos from NASA telescopes, security camera films and stills are just a couple of the types of visual sources an editor may need to use as a reliable source. This is not regarding a specific page, but my questions regarding this policy. I could be wrong, but RS can include audio/video content which is why I offer pictures. Anynobody 04:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but with great caution. Images and video can be easily altered (see Photo manipulation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Pictures, audio, and video can be reliable sources. However, interpreting them can be easy or difficult. In the example in this thread, it would be easy to say a car is a Mustang if the brand were clearly legible, but if the quality of the picture were marginal, a reliable source might be required to state that the picture shows a Mustang. Editors should confine themselves to only the most obvious interpretations. Indeed, some editors throw a fit when they see the word "interpret", and will say no interpretaion by editors is allowed whatsoever. --Gerry Ashton 04:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put together a rough idea of what I'm talking about. Please forgive the basic nature, it is not what I would include in the actual article but merely a concept. The intended image viewing resolution is 1200x900, so this is just a thumb: [[Image:Redjeep2.png|thumb|The Red Jeep, in the color picture the only thing barely visible is it's reddish tint. In the grayscale closeup, the type of vehicle can be easily seen but not the color.]] Anynobody 10:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Minimal requirements for reliable sources
I suggest to include in the Attribution policy the following: "A reliable source must have a clearly identifiable author (a person or an organization) and date of production". I personally had a lot of trouble with sources that are not even dated and whose authorship is questionable (in the context of violation of WP:BLP rules, court proceedings, etc.). It is the best simply do not use that kind of "sources". So, what do you think? Biophys 16:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A problem I see with that is that if a reliable publisher publishes a document, for example a collection of papers, we need not care about who originally wrote each paper and when. I agree that it would be most useful to have more information, but I am not sure that we would automatically reject that entire document (assuming it has a publication date of the entire collection). Also, in a related vein, I am aware of many historical documents that have no date nor known author, but have been extensively republished. I would argue that they are acceptable as primary sources, presumably then analyzed by secondary sources. Crum375 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What I am talking about is an Internet site so obscure that authors ("revolutionaries") did not even bother to indicate the date of their "publication". This is basically a propaganda site (some say "hate site"); so I objected a direct citation of their nonsense in Wikipedia. Do you have any suggestions for such case? Biophys 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See the section on questionable sources at Attribution, as well as WP:ATT/FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Then the existing rules probably cover my case. This is clearly a "questionable source" that can be used in articles about those sources as long as it is not contentious (but it is); it does not involve claims about third parties (but it does), and there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it (there are doubts). Biophys 16:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the requirement for a date. There are countless sources that are undated. It was not necessarily a common thing to date a publication before the modern era. We don't want to suddenly have a way for contentious editors to remove thousands of citations to works from say the 17th century because they aren't specifically dated. Wjhonson 18:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I certainly agree with you about the sources you are talking about. Biophys 20:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So would a campus newspaper with an identified independent editorial board and stories by identified reporters be considered a reliable source as much as a newspaper in a town of a comparable size, with respect to coverage of things on the campus compared to coverage of things in the town? Edison 21:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Boing Boing.net RS as a secondary source?
I'm curious as they are often heavily cited back by a variety of broadcast, paper and digital media on various topics and stories. Based on that I'm inclined to say yes. It's a notable online news source these days. Can someone clarify for me? thanks. I was refered here from WP:RS - Denny 18:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would highly doubt it. Most of their stories seem amalgamated from other news sources, which have variable reliability in themselves.  Their standards seem to be more "what we think" and "what's interesting" than reliability.  --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 19:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * While I have cited Boing Boing as a source before, I'd say the situations in which it would be appropriate are fairly limited. The cite in question was on blog history, a field in which I consider Doctorow could reasonably be considered an expert, and in which anything approximating a reliable source is often difficult to come by.  It's worth noting that I was, at the time, relying on the "blog published by a well-known journalist" exception, which has now been removed. JulesH 17:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wording tweak
"Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist"

Changed to:

"Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged by relevant authorities as fringe or extremist" (thought of changing "authorities" to "experts" but "authorities" seems to fit better)

I just thought this clarification was necessary to prevent "mob rule" standards from creeping in. Tell me if you disagree with this re-wording. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 19:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Authorities" could easily be interpreted to mean "government authorities". I don't know about you, but I believe in limited government. I believe government authorities should not make official judgements about whether a publication is "fringe or extremist" unless doing so is strictly necessary in order for the authorities to carry out their official duties. So, if the authorities behave as I would want them to, there will be many fringe and extremist publications that are not commented upon by authorities. --Gerry Ashton 20:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the wording was "relevant authorities", worded such to try to exclude the connotation of simple bureaucrats; but maybe "relevant experts" or "authorities in their field", meaning someone with authoritative knowledge or credentials, would be better. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 21:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted...
Not too surprised that the change was reverted, so I guess I'll try to get consensus before changing it again. I guess I see how using the word "authorities" may be problematic. But I do think a change to "Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged by relevant experts as fringe or extremist" is necessary, and here's why:

I would hope that the statement would be interpreted by the average Wikipedian similar to as the rewording suggests. However, leaving out that caveat can lead to misapplication of the line.

If something is simply "widely thought as fringe or extremist", that may be interpreted to mean "according to the standards of the general public". However there are some cases where the general opinion of relevant experts as to what's fringe may clash with the ideas of the public.

For example, many ideas found in, for example, quantum mechanics would be thought of as "fringe" by the general public. However, experts in quantum mechanics would support them wholeheartedly as being shown by science.

I hope this shows why I think the change is necessary. Comments? Any reason why this should be left as-is? --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 03:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If someone wants to be a dick, he/she will either argue about what is widely acknowleged, or about who is an expert, which ever will advance a favorite point of view. --Gerry Ashton 03:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Promotional in Nature"
I have a problem with the wording "promotional in nature" being juxtaposed with "extremist or fringe". These two in my opinion, are quite distinct. Here is extremist "Jesus was Chinese", here is promotional "Jesus died for your sins". One is wacko, the other is mainstream although POV. We shouldn't be putting these together in one paragraph as if they need follow the same guidance. I'm not quite clear on what was intended but I'm sure that "Bunnies should never be harmed" (*promoting* safe handling of bunnies) is tantamount to "bunnies are reptiles in disguise" (extremist view of bunnies). I'd like to hear some thoughts on how we could *clarify* the language on the page. Wjhonson 19:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the sense meant was "commercial promotion" instead of advocating a specific viewpoint--even experts are likely to be "promotional" if you're thinking of it in terms of "promoting a specific view". --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 19:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Would anyone object to me changing "promotional in nature" to "for the primary purpose of commercial promotion"? I think that would satisfy my ear. Wjhonson 20:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed it. If someone has a specific objection, could you please discuss it here and propose another language that makes the intent clear.  Thanks. Wjhonson 21:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What is not OR?
"Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source.

Given the discussion above, should we cut this line. It seems to allow for things that are not allowed. If not, could someone give me an example. Blueboar 19:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reading a map is one example, or using it to measure a distance through the scale. Also you would be allowed to add figures, for example if released crime figures gave % of recorded crime, with burglary being 5% and muggings being 6, you could state that burglary and muggings accounted for 11% of recorded crime, noting the calculation in the footnote.  Hiding Talk 20:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I get the impression this relates to the eyewitness example above, which fails this wording since it changes the significance of the data and requires additional assumptions.  The car was said to be red and also said to be a Ford Mustang, but it was never said to be a red Ford Mustang, so we have both changed the significance of the data and made an assumption, that both eyewitnesses were describing the same vehicle. Hiding Talk 20:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Simple deductions like "City A is 5km west of B" and you context demands writing "City B is 5km east of A". --Merzul 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks ... And you are right in that this stems from my confusion stemming from that discussion. It is obvious that things I thought were logical deductions that fit this part of the policy are not what others think are logical deductions.  If I am confused, so will be others.  I suppose my confusion stems from the fact that, to me, all of your examples involve "straightforward mathematical calculations".  I am focused on what is meant by the words "or logical deductions".  Are these the same?  And if not, can someone give me an example of a "logical deduction" that does not involve some form of calculation?  Blueboar 20:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * An example of a simple logical deduction: Source A states the Confusion Junction School District requires students to use transparent backpacks to reduce the chance of weapons or drugs being brought into schools, and further states no individual school can override or be granted a waiver from the policy. Source B states that the John Wilkes Booth Middle School is in the Confusion Junction School District. It is reasonable to conclude that the John Wilkes Booth Middle School requires students to use transparent backpacks. --Gerry Ashton 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But not necessarily. What if there is a special grandfather exclusion for JWB? What if they just disagree with the policy? Why would WP editors need to make assumptions and conclusions, when their mandate is to objectively summarize published sources? Crum375 20:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Crum. While the policy may technically apply to all schools, including JWB, a WP editor would have to make an assumption that JWB was following the policy and that no exceptions applied. It's not uncommon for a policy that's universal in theory to have exceptions in practice. It would probably be better to state the information from Source A and B and let the readers come to their own conclusions. ChazBeckett 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The risk of error should be kept in perspective. There is always a risk that the sources we rely on could be wrong, or that the editor made typographical errors while copying information from the source, or that the Wikipedia servers corrupted the article through technical failures. It would be unbalanced to forbid simple logical deductions, since the risk of error is not out of proportion with all the other potential sources of errors we deal with. --Gerry Ashton 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it wouldn't make sense to forbid simple logical deductions; I guess we disagree that your example required only a simple logical deduction. I think the earlier examples in this section were simple deductions (A is 5 km west of B = B is 5 km east of A). However, the example you provided required the assumption that a particular school was following policy. This is an assumption that could be made by the reader, but probably shouldn't be made by an editor. In what situation(s) would it be beneficial to the reader to have this deduction made for them? In the specific case where it would important to mention in the article whether JWB students have transparent backpacks, wouldn't it be essential to have a primary source that states this? ChazBeckett 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Ashton's example is a case of straight-forward abductive reasoning. As Crum has shown, it wasn't purely deductive reasoning. :) --Merzul 21:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it probably isn't abductive either, but I'm sure you know what I meant... anyway, I'm taking a wikibreak from this page now, so there should be no more silliness. I'm really need to stop procrastinating from doing real editing, damn addictive talk pages... --Merzul 21:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If I were to revise my example to say that JWB middle school policy is to require transparent backpacks, it would then be a deduction, since it would not make the possibly unwarranted assumption that policy is actually followed. --Gerry Ashton 21:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Logical deductions should never combine two sources, but only data from one source in a matter not open to interpretation. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A logical deduction is if Donald F. Glut states "Innumerable costumed and usually super-powered heroes had existed over the years, all of them basically inspired by the original Superman", you could cite it as stating that Superman was the first superhero who served as an inspiration for the many similar characters which followed. Hiding Talk 21:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming Prof. Glut defines "Superhero" to require a costume. Perhaps there were innumerable prior non-costumed superheros and Superman was merely the first to wear a costume. Since superheros are only "usually" superpowered, maybe Prof. Glut thinks Sherlock Holmes is an example of the non-costumed variety. Inferences can be very slippery. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with Chaz's east/west example, since it does not really involve a deduction... they are simply a rephrasing of the same information... both of your sentences could be replaced with "town A and town B are 5km apart"... in mathematical terms your statement is expressed by A=B, and B=C, so A=C. not A+B=C. The same sort of true for the backpack example... JBW = School in District, School in District = Clear Backpack, thus JBW = Clear Backpack... this is a logical statement, but not really one that combines two seperate ideas to form a third (which is how I understand the A+B=C statement.)... and as for Hiding's Superman cite... I don't see a deduction at all. I see a statement that is directly backed by the source (if you want A=B so B=A). No logical deductions involved. Blueboar 21:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wish to have a higher threshold for what constitutes a logical deduction than some other editors, thats fine. However, we must realize that some editors may have a very low threshold for what constitutes a logical deduction, and if not carefully worded, the policy could have the chilling effect of preventing these editors from making useful contributions, or could have the effect of editors removing material that ought to remain.
 * Could you give an example of a deduction that is just barely allowable according to the line you would like stricken; a deduction that you think should be disallowed? --Gerry Ashton 21:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Gerry, if your question is directed at me... this is exactly what I have been asking for myself. I no longer am sure I know where the line should be drawn.  My problem is that thought I had a very high threshold... but it seems I have a lower threshold than those who have been responding to me.  Statements that I feel are "logical deductions" and should be allowable are apparently not allowable (according to what most people are telling me).  So I am trying to figure out what is allowable.  if you want to see an example of where I draw the line... look at George Washington and religion... the information presented, and the implied conclusion that Washington was a deist seem a perfect example of a boarderline case of logical deduction ...  reliable source A + reliable source B = {not stated, but clearly implied} concusion C.  It falls right on the edge. Blueboar 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

When it turns into a problem then don't do it. Example: Someone claims something like their birthyear or high school on their web page and we add it to an article with their name as the title (probably not really a biography, but we call it that anyway). Someone contests the data. Fine. So remove it since it is now contested and the source is questionable (COI). Same with what appears to be simple reasonable logic. When it is contested then back off to simply stating what the sources say - maybe even direct quotes not even paraphrasing. Understand that everything is a simplification. Don't complicate it until there is a reason. WAS 4.250 00:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree that any summary tends to draw some inferences from sources and this is not intrinsically a problem, but contesting should be allowed and a contested inference should be strikable. It's amazing what people will consider an "obvious" logical consequence, particularly when it comes to viewpoints they feel strongly about. We regularly get folks who object to Wikipedia having any articles on religion on the ground that atheism is a simple logical consequence of scientific observation. --Shirahadasha 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The key to this is if the deduction is indisputable, then nobody can dispute it. If anyone can point out how your deduction requires assumption or interpretation, then it is not pure deduction, and is OR. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal web site that has its own references section
If a personal web site has its own references section, can that make it a reliable source? - Peregrine Fisher 21:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. If the reference section is any good, research these references and use them as sources in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)


 * I would however note that the common citation practice *even were you to* research the underlying references, is to give credit to the overlying reference as to the fact that it provided you with the list of sources or was the overarching means by which you were able to collect the research. So you could say "The Diary of Ben Johnson, pg 10, reference provided by The personal web site of John Brown." or something of that nature.  Although this is, of course not required, it is generally considered a form of "bad citation referencing" to not note the original reference. Wjhonson 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See also sections
To what extent are "see also" sections covered by this policy? When I add them to articles I've written, I certainly don't work from any sort of source - I just add links to pages whose topics aren't discussed in the article which I think are related or complimentary - and I find it unlikely anyone else does, either. If this is original research, upward of ninety percent of our see also sections have OR in them. So are they, along with images, considered exceptions to some degree? Picaroon 21:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The "See also" section is for references to other Wikipedia articles. I don't see how using "See also" to provide references to other Wikipedia articles is original research. --Gerry Ashton 21:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sere also sections are wonderful devices to link to relevant articles that are not necessarily been linked to in the article text. Just be aware of some subterfuges used by POV warriors, such as adding links to articles to assert a negative viewpoint. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If adding a link to a "see also" section constitutes advancing an argument of some kind, it may be OR. In most cases, it isn't, and doesn't need a source.  No fact, argument, or anything else that requires attribution is provided by such a link.  The same would apply to external links, further reading sections, and so on. JulesH 09:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Can one of you ATT RS V NOR NPOV gurus lend a hand?
The article Zombietime is at least 1/2 non-sourced and self-sourced OR. It's largely written by someone who is such a devotee of Zombietime that he picked Zombiefan as his username. I listed it on RfC/Politics but all it got was a tag. I dare not edit there lest I get falsely charged (again) with 'Wikistalking' a specific editor active on that page. This article is in serious need of attention, and I'm betting that one or more of you guys or gals will be up to the task! Thanks - FaAfA 08:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you be more specific with your concerns? A quick glance through it hasn't shown me any major problems other than stylistic, although I'll admit to not having read the sources (with 45 of them, it would take a while -- I suppose I could concentrate on the 18 either self-published or primary sources I spot in that list, but even that would take some time).  The issue doesn't seem to have been discussed on the articles talk, either. JulesH 09:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Out of the 45 refs used to source the article, I see no more than 10 that aren't self-published or blogs. Text like "Zombie's meticulous investigation" and "Zombie's painstaking" are not NPOV either. At the moment, it's not an article, it's a self-sourced hagiography. - FaAfA 09:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see the NPOV issues, certainly, and I've had a go at removing some of those. I also mistook some of the third-party blogs cited for reliable sources, I see on closer examination. JulesH 10:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:CITE
Does either of these two guidelines contain any content not also present here? If so, why? Their purpose appears to be redundant with ATT.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CITE is mostly about how one should cite sources. It builds upon this policy, which only requires to cite sources, but doesn't say how to do that. WP:RS is indeed mostly redundant, at least in its current state. Beit Or 13:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, are there any objections to redirecting RS here in the way that was done for V and NOR?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish we could do that, Radiant. Problem is that there are editors that are very attached to RS.... The idea we have discussed is to redirect RS to the WP:ATT/FAQ, once we have the FAQ in a state that could be upgraded to guideline status. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As one of those editors who has been very attached to RS... I agree with what Jossi says. Given that much of RS has now been incorporated into this page, it is (now) a bit redundant, and those aspects that are not could easily be worked into the guideline that would grow out of the FAQ.  I have ideas on the style and direction that such a guideline would take (see some of my rantings above), and I am sure that others have ideas as well (see, for example, Jossi's excellent idea for discussing what is reliable and how to assess such sources - below).  In other words, I agree that RS should eventually be redirected... but I would strongly advise that this process be done slowly, with LOTS of notice to the general community, etc.  RS is a favorite of many editors... as such there will be resistance to merging it.  That resistance should deminish once people get used to this policy page... but it will not happen overnight. Blueboar 20:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Notice posted on RS talk and on the village pump. I'll give it some time, of course.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this site reliable?
Can anyone tell me if this site is reliable? Its self-published, but at the same time the writer appears notable. Any information on whether or not its been discussed as a source would be appreciated, or if anyone has seen this site used as a source here would be great too.--Crossmr 18:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First appearances suggest so. An editor, independent of the authors of the articles, is credited, so whether it really is self-published is an interesting question.  It certainly tends to indicate higher reliability than an average web site. JulesH 19:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw a site that obtains its data from other sites in fairly indiscriminate way. I saw nothing indicating it is useful as a source for anything other than noncontraversial data about itself. WAS 4.250 20:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Where's it being suggested as a source? What information is sourced, and in what article? I mean, this isn't a reliable source on the sex life of Queen Elizabeth II, if that's what you are asking, but if you are asking something else, I couldn't possibly comment until I know what that something is. Hiding Talk 21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessing sources
We need some wording either here or at ATT/FAQ to describe not only about what are not reliable sources, but about some guidelines on how to assess sources in the context of specifics aspects of an article. In a recent discussion at articles related to the historical Muhammad (see for example Battle_of_Khaybar) as well as other articles, I can see that there is still substantial confusion about sources. Some editors are speaking of using "scholarly sources" only, others say "Publisher X isn't considered an academic publisher" and attempt to dismiss a source for that reason, while others say "Publisher Y is too young to be considered a reliable publisher" while dismissing the fact that the author of the book in question is a well-known best-seller author, etc. Any ideas on how we can address and clarify these issues? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The value of different sources is of course relative.  For many topics, such as the article you mentioned, there are many scholarly sources, including many from the highest quality publishers, and it is reasonable that they be given special weight.  Another relevant question there might be whether to emphasize the authority of Western academic sources or traditional Arabic scholarship.  I'm not sure whether or not there's a uniform ranking.  DGG 19:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We should link to reliable published sources on the subject of "Assessing sources". Whole books have been written on the subject. Any claims made about the validity of using a specific source to provide credibility for a specific claim are claims made about the real world and are not just claims about Wikipedia policy/guidelines. WAS 4.250 20:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Rule of thumb I have been toying with is "has someone else cited the author, and the topic I'm citing them on is within the area they've been cited on before?" We certainly need something, but it is all somewhat subjective.  Reliable sources should be reliable enough to substantiate what you source I guess, but I know of one editor who has claimed that using a source to describe a work's achievement or impact is an exceptional claim and so requires an exceptional source.  Wording this stuff is a nightmare.  Sometimes it confuses the hell out of me.  I'd be happy if we could just write articles in a balanced way, sourcing what we have written, and discuss any problems with the balancing or the sourcing on article talk pages. Wasn't their at one stage a recognition that the reader would also be able to judge the sources? Hiding Talk 21:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Hiding, addressing this is like opening the proverbial can of worms... Still, some basic guidelines on how to assess sources in context for what are these being used for, could be helpful at ATT/FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should perhaps guide towards discussing, forming a consensus and dispute resolution more than anything else. ;) Um, how to assess a source in context.  I'd say you have to look at where the source is published.  Does that publication typically publish on the field.  Ask the same of the author.  Then check for weighting, is the source likely a fringe view or not.  Then check for relevancy.  Have a look on google scholar, maybe, and see if anyone else has cited the author or the publication, that'd be useful.  Things like that? I mean, pretty much you've got to listen to the source, haven't you.  Start from a position of mistrust and build up reasons for trusting. Always compare the source to the bloke in the pub/bar.  Is it more reliable than that, that sort of thing, although that one seems a little subjective.  Isn't it all subjective though?  I mean, sure, most of us who have been around a while sort of instinctively know.  I mean, you don't cite Gombrich on Space Exploration, but that doesn't mean Gombrich is unreliable period. Unless Gombrich happens to have declared "space exploration to be the furthest imagining of modernist art".  Which kind of proves the point. Hiding Talk 14:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this reliable for determining if a film is a may december romance
Is reliable for saying a film is a may december romance film? - Peregrine Fisher 23:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be better if you discuss this issue in the specific article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: "the relevant academic community"
In the Exceptional Claims section, does "the relevant academic community" refer to the smaller group of those who specifically study a topic, or the field as a whole? For example, when talking about Parapsychology, is the relevant academic community parapsychologists or scientists in general? For a controversial topic to be presented as having general acceptance, does it have to have general acceptance in the mainstream (such as mainstream science) or just general acceptance among experts in that specific field? Specific examples are things like "Parapsychologists say X causes Y" versus just "X causes Y". Is it appropriate with controversial subjects to write an article so that it reflects primarily the scientific consensus of experts in that field (and not science overall)? Do sources for controversial claims need to be general sources, or are publications in journals of parapsychology sufficient? And with controversial topics, is it POV to say "X describes himself as a psychic" or even "X is a self-described/proported/alleged psychic" as opposed to "X is a psychic" (assuming there's no hard evidence demonstrating the person actually has psychic powers)? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a real slippery slope here, that we need to stop part way down. We wouldn't care about the consensus of biologists for an article on particle physics.  We would want physicists.  But going too far down the slope would lead to someone arguing for a true fringe theory that the relevant academic community is those who believe in it wholeheartedly, because they (no matter how few) are the only ones that study it at all.  I have no great ideas on how to firmly park on the middle of the slope.  GRBerry 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "The relevant academic community" for a claim, not for an article. If a parapsychologist makes a claim about the physical world such as "auras" and "energy", then the relevant academic community includes Ph.D. physicists who are experts at measuring physical phenomenon. If fraud is alledged, experts magicians who know the tricks of the trade are relevant. WAS 4.250 19:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, I hadn't thought about that. In the case of this particular article, some seem to be arguing that the field itself should just be declared "scientific" and use that as grounds for the article to present primarily the views of those declaring themselves specialists in the field.  Talk:Parapsychology.  It absolutely makes sense to treat individual claims separately.  The related issue is Milo H Minderbinder 19:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Notability of some of these subjects depends as much or more  upon the public attention to them as the scientific attention. There is then typically no problem about finding admiring articles in newspapers, but for a relatively new or obscure one, it can be very difficult to find any science publication that explains the nonsense from a scientific point of view. To do a NPOV article, we need both. This is one place where reliable science websites are useful--and even reliable blogs--for many of the websites are turning themselves into blogs, and some of the blogs are edited, rather than left open to the public. DGG 22:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"the article is primarily based on sources independent of the subject of the article."
This requirement seems to be new. It wasn't part of Reliable sources. It also seems to mean we can't have much of an article on many very important people mostly known through their autobiographies and diaries, such as Samuel Pepys, James Boswell, Anaïs Nin, Anne Frank - we do know something about them exclusive of their diaries, but most really is through those diaries. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So base the article on studies like these instead of the primary sources alone. Nifboy 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Very important people" should have plentiful of sources about them besides memoirs. There are literally thousands of sources that analyzed, described, and commented on Anne Frank's diaries, for example. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that this requirement does not mean you can't use the primary sources... it just means that you have to find more than just primary sources. Blueboar 18:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And Jossi's point is correct about every person AnonEMous names. One could write a worthwhile article on any of them without ever quoting the diaries directly.  (Quoting the secondary source when it quotes the diary is a different matter.)  The articles are doubtless improved by including primary source material, but the articles should rely on the secondary sources: otherwise, we are committing Original Research.  If there are no such secondary sources, the person probably fails the Primary Notability Criterion.  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Technically, the "primarily based on secondary sources" requirement only applies to self-published sources in articles about their subject. Anne Frank's diaries certainly aren't self-published, and I doubt the other examples are.  TheronJ 18:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good, but needs clarification. There seem to be two slightly different points. Should it be changed to "the article is primarily based on secondary or non-self published sources", per TheronJ? Or should it be added that "a secondary source quoting or relying upon self-published material is not considered self-published material" per Robert West? Or both? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * While I believe in clarity, some points strike me as too obvious to bother making, and this point strikes me as such: Material published by a reliable publisher according to its normal editorial procedures is not considered self-published.  Robert A.West (Talk) 21:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Robert, that is a very good point... there is a difference between self-published and self-referential/autobiographical sources. Pepys, Boswell and Frank and the like are not self-published.   Blueboar 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Blueboar's examples do a good job of illustrating Robert's point. Perhaps The 9-11 Commission Report is a better example. It is published by the U.S. government, and does not list an author, so superficially it is self-published by the government. However, it was actually written by a commission of experts, who reviewed vast amounts of primary source material, so it is really not self-published. As a separate issue, it is a secondary source because of the expertise of the commission and the review of primary source material. --Gerry Ashton 21:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, my point is that "sources independent of the subject of the article" is not the same thing as "published by a reliable publisher". The diaries of Pepys, Frank, etc, are published by major publishers, but are surely not independent of their authors! If the intent is to say "the article is primarily based on reliable and not self-published sources", we should say that, and not "the article is primarily based on sources independent of the subject". Otherwise the current phrasing means "you can only use self-published sources if the article is primarily based on sources independent of of the subject" which wouldn't apply to the list. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are, I think, two questions being confused here. The question at hand is:
 * Should we have an article on Samuel Pepys at all?
 * Yes, of course, because he is mentioned in thousands of reliable sources he didn't write.
 * This is opposed to
 * Should we have an article on somebody's cousin Fred, who vanity-published his diary, which has been ignored?
 * No; nobody cares.
 * Should we write the article Samuel Pepys from his diary?
 * With caution; Pepys was frank, but he was boastful, and his diary is very long. We should include only those points which secondary sources - including annotators - find interesting and reliable. (Quoting the diary may well be the most interesting way to state them, but that's another question.)
 * Should we write Frank Harris out of his memoirs?
 * Not on your tin-type. It is the consensus of secondary sources that Harris is not a reliable source, least of all on himself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So I guess an example where AnonEMouse's objection would be where X wrote an autobiography published by a major publisher, and also wrote a self-published book on his favorite topic, stamp collecting. Editor Y could write a Wikipedia article titled "X" that is based mainly on the autobiography (although it would be better to use independent sources), but the Wikipedia article could not use any material from X's stamp collecting book, because the article is based mainly on a dependent source. Although this is a potential problem, I don't think it would come up very often. --Gerry Ashton 22:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor is it much of a problem. If X is an acknowledged expert on stamp collecting, then he counts as a professional researcher in his field of expertise, so it comes under the second exception.  If not, why are we including the material?  Robert A.West (Talk) 00:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when is "acknowledged expert" the same thing as "professional researcher"? I doubt that if you asked X he would say that he had ever been called a 'professional researcher in stamp collecting'.  In fact, I'm not even sure if there is such a thing, as most professional activity in the field is in the form of trading or writing. JulesH 09:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BRD
All right, I thought I understood what you were all saying, that the issue isn't that the sources are directly by the subject, the issue is that they aren't self-published. I clarified by changing that to "the article is primarily based on sources other than self-published and questionable sources." That got reverted. Let's discuss. In what way is "sources independent of the subject" more clear than "sources other than self-published and questionable"? I've already shown how it's worse, in the sense that we have plenty of fine articles based on non-self-published diaries. My phrasing would allow that, the original does not. What is the objection to my phrasing, and how can we meet both? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Sources other than self-published and questionable" is circular, because we make exceptions to it; so what does "questionable" mean: the wide or narrow sense? This is the policy support for WP:N; we have Samuel Pepys because he has been discussed by people other than himself, who are sources independent of the subject. Even if Cousin Fred has managed to get his diary commercially published, we don't have an article on him until some secondary source notices him. (Since all the "sources" are questionable, and do not fall under the exception, Cousin Fred is unsourced.)  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If explaining this in the policy, by adding some wording like "(If there are no sources independent of the subject, we probably should not have any article on the subject at all.)" would answer any of AnonEMouse's misgivings, we should add it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think the policy already makes the case and is quite clear, and I don't want to add explanations which can be misinterpreted. This has been discussed twice on this talk page already, first one is here.  Hope that helps. Hiding Talk 19:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And it doesn't seem to have conveyed anything to AnonEMouse. Oh well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, then how about the simple "sources other than self-published"? See, in the section just above, everyone keeps writing that Pepys diaries etc., are fine because they are not self-published. If that's what we mean we should write that. If we instead write "sources independent of the subject", that's not circular, but it's clearly not what we mean, since in no way can diaries be considered independent of their writer. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But that is what we mean. We can quote or summarize Pepys' diaries because the article chiefly relies on other sources. Robert West originally proposed making this requirement a separate section; would that be clearer? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Our article isn't about "Criticism of Pepys's diaries", which would be relying on independent sources. Our article purports to be about Pepys's actual life. Our sources for that are his diaries, as published by other sources, but still based on his words. They're not a bit of his words, a bit of other historical records, a bit of this, a bit of that, as joined together by expert hands - in fact, our very article says that Pepys's diaries are so important specifically because they are one of the most important sources for his whole period. That's just not "independent of the subject". --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are we even talking about Pepy's diaries in this context?... They are not "self-published"! In fact, they have been published by multiple reputable publishers. There is a difference between autobiographical material that is published by a publishing house and self-published material. The "independant of the subject" clause relates to self-published materials.  Blueboar 21:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All I want is for the policy to say just that, replace "independent of subject" with "self-published". Here is an example of why it matters, somewhat hypothetical, but quite close to real. Person X has an independently published autobiography. Per the Pepys, Frank, etc., precedent, we are all agreed that is a fine source. The article on her is to a large extent directly or indirectly based on that autobiography. She also has a personal web site, on which she self-publishes information that hasn't made it into the autobio. According to the policy as written it could be argued that that web site can not be cited in the article, since the article is not "primarily based on sources independent of the subject". It's just misleading, and needs to be rephrased. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * NO... independant of the subject is a subset of self-published... one can not replace the other. You are equating "self-published" with "not independant of the subject"... they are different. If I write a web page about person X it is "self-published"... and yet it is also "independant of the subject" (she had nothing to do with writing my page).  Assuming my web page meets the other criteria for reliability (say I was an acknowleged expert on X), then an article on X can rely heavily on my self-published page.  (However, it would be even better to find multiple sources.)
 * Also, nothing in this policy says her website can't be cited in an article... the policy simply says it should not be the primary source of information. Assuming person X is notable for writing her autobiography, (thus puting her in the same realm as Pepys, Boswell, and Frank) the autobiography will certainly be a major source ... ideally we should look for others as well. (woops... forgot to sign this yesterday Blueboar 13:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

That's what I want it to say too, but it doesn't say that. It says "Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as ... the article is primarily based on sources independent of the subject of the article." The article about X is not primarily based on "sources independent of the subject", so according to the current wording, no material from self-published sources may be used. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Somehow we are not understanding each other... I think it does say that... The clause is clearly an exception to the "No self-published sources" rule... stating that you may use self-published material... on the condition that the bulk of the article is based on independant reliable sources. Blueboar 16:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But it doesn't say reliable, it says "independent". An autobiography published by someone else may be reliable, but surely isn't independent. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is easily fixed... does anyone object to changing the wording to: "so long as:... the article is primarily based on reliable sources independant of the subject of the article" ? Blueboar 18:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as you don't change the spelling of independent ;->. It has always been implicit that the independent sources must be reliable; if they're not reliable, we should be using them at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Frank Harris's autobiography was reprinted by Grove Press. That didn't make it any more reliable than it was before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Better than nothing. I'll stop now. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Archived again
I've archived anything that has no discussion from Feb 21, 2007. This page is just too active to keep all these old discussions. Please remember that many browsers and older computers just cannot effectively edit pages over 100K. Thanks!! Wjhonson 21:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagging and removal of unsourced info
What is the present correct tag to add to an article before removing unsourced info and how long should I wait? If I see a statement I doubt such as, say, that "Lincoln enjoyed riding his bicycle", and I add a tag on Monday, can I just remove it the following Monday? Or should I immediately move it to the talk page and request that a source be provided before it goes back in the article? Do I need to post something on the talkpage of the editor who added it? (6 edit conflicts and 2 Wikipdeia crashes later)Edison 21:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's how I handle it. Case 1: the statement is innocuous. Place the fact tag, wait at least a week (sometimes you troll sometimes you forget...).  Put a talk comment if you like.  The fact tag should be fairly obvious.  Case 2: the statement is ridiculous.  Remove it, add a talk comment on why.  Try to be as specific as possible.


 * We don't really have to be all gung-ho on removing every silly remark. The main annoying ones should be ones that are quite silly, not just a little silly.  "Britney Spears likes banana pie" is a bit silly, "Britney Spears was abducted by aliens three times" is quite silly. Wjhonson 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Britney was abducted by aliens?!!! So that explains it!  :>) Blueboar 13:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are non-published materials forbidden?
This seems illogical, if the materials are used with care. Imagine that I want to establish that it would not be unknown in the 16th century to use the juice of unripe grapes as an ingredient in salad dressing. As my source for this, I cite to a primary source, a 16th century recipe book that has a salad dressing recipe fitting that description. If the book is in the rare cookbooks collection at the University of Iowa library, what does it matter that it is unpublished? It is cited, the document exists, and it is in a location where another person could obtain access to it and confirm that the salad dressing recipe I cite really is there. It is the ability for someone else to look at the same document that is important, not whether it was published or not. Crypticfirefly 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't what "unpublished" means, I don't believe. I think what it means in this context is something like "I heard this guy say it", where there's no way to verify it was ever said. -Amarkov moo! 04:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Information is "published" when it is made publicly available; i.e. it's no longer a private or secret document. A book in a rare cookbooks collection at the University of Iowa has indeed been published. Hesperian 04:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If the cookbook was printed, however long ago, and however few copies survive, then it is published. If the cookbook was written in longhand, but is in a place accessible to the public, there seems to be disagreement among editors about whether it is published or not. If the library will provide copies upon request, that would bolster the argument that it is published. --Gerry Ashton 04:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In my hypothetical I was imagining a single copy of the book written in longhand. To add to the hypothetical, let's say that the library won't make copies on request (the book is too fragile) but you can make an appointment during regular business hours to look at it and take notes.  In fact, instead of it being a book of any kind, make it a collection of private letters written by Queen Elizabeth I's chef to his mother-in-law.  Still "published" for Wikipedia purposes?  I would argue that it would still be a "verifiable" source if used appropriately. Crypticfirefly 04:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem then becomes "is your interpretation of this primary source correct?" If in fact the juice of unripe grapes as an ingredient in salad dressing was not unknown in the sixteenth century, and it is some not unimportant and not doubtful fact, then that information will appear in history books, it will be published elsewhere. If you are citing this one-of-a-kind cookbook for something that is never mentioned elsewhere, your interpretation of it may not be reliable. For example, the author of the book may have been some unusual creature of bizarre tastes, which may not be at all important to the history. Many things are "not unknown", but that does not mean they warrant mention as representative in an encyclopedia. Then you are left making the statement "The juice of unripe grapes was used as an ingredient in this one cookbook", which may not warrant inclusion at all, and would probably be misleading as to the time period. There are also other problems with the source, but overall, if the fact is actually important, it will be mentioned elsewhere, and we need professional historians with editorial review working over the course of months or years to verify if it is representative or even accurate. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the point of "published" is to make matters verifiable. The use of rare or manuscript material in scholarship has the hidden assumption that all of the few scholars interested will be willing and eager to travel to see the cookbook, and will succeed in getting permission to view it.  This does not describe the situation at WP, where most editors cite  books of which they have only seen the title, and articles of which they have at most seen the abstract, because they do not have even ordinary university library facilities. The best way to deal with unpublished material is to publish it on Wikisource if permission can be obtained, and the other way to write an article about it and get that article published. DGG
 * "[M]ost editors cite books of which they have only seen the title, and articles of which they have at most seen the abstract . . . "  You are scaring me!  I'm glad I have a good public library. Crypticfirefly 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * DGG is an optimist; many editors plainly quote articles of which they have seen the two lines that scholar.google.com provides. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "published" occasionally means two different things on Wikipedia. In the above discussion, it means "made available to the public"--which can include being placed on the Web, being available in a public archive or library, being available (or formerly available) for sale, etc. It excludes materials which are secret, only available in private collections, ephemeral, or which are only found in a highly fluid medium (such as Usenet) such that their authenticity cannot be assumed. Non-published materials can be considered published if documented or vouched for in a reliable secondary source.

Sometimes, "published" is taken to mean "published by a reliable source; this excludes many things like self-published material.

--EngineerScotty 05:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (after two edit conflicts) The key issue is whether or not the material is available for scrutiny by an unprivileged member of the public. If anyone can make an appointment during regular business hours to look at the material, then it is citable. If it is only available for viewing by members of the House of Lords, or people who are prepared to pay a million quid for a viewing, or people who have indicated they might be interested in buying the collection, or any other exclusive group, then it is not citable.
 * But as Centrx says, it is still possible to misuse a citable source.
 * Hesperian 05:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation seems sensible to me. I'm sorry folks have gotten bogged down on whether this imaginary citation would be the best source to cite in this imaginary article, the question is whether it would would qualify as a citation at all. Crypticfirefly 05:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Examples from arbcoms
Is there precedent from Arbcoms as examples of what these policies are? I know there is a page listing Arbcom decisions, but I am not sure where. Travb (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Check Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability
This page is better than I expected it to be when I heard two policies were gonna be mashed together. About reliability of sources. The page says self-published sources have to be relevant to someone's notability, but it fails to mention something I find quite important. Someone's notability should be established by a source other than the subject themself. Otherwise you could self-publish material and use it to make yourself appear notable. Perhaps someone could reword it a little bit. - 131.211.210.10 10:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is dealt with in the last point of the exception:
 * the article is primarily based on sources independent of the subject of the article.
 * Which basically states you need to have more information from non self-published sources than you have from self-published ones. This would seem to make it difficult to make a non-notable person seem notable with self-published information,  to me. JulesH 11:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bible says Jesus advocates eye removal? what.
 The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted.
 * Why is this here? SchmuckyTheCat 08:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an example of the misuse of a primary source. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why that? Is Christ's eye-gouging something the average editor relates to? There are ten-thousand less obscure things the Bible cannot be used as a primary source for (like it's creation story??!) than whatever this eye-removal thing is. Why use a Christian Bible example at all? Why use a specific example at all, no other section does.   I'm asking because in reading this new policy, it sticks out like a sore thumb. SchmuckyTheCat 09:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Attribution/FAQ is a good place for examples. WAS 4.250 09:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Christian Bible isn't a reliable source for anything since even it's text and translations are disputed. As an important historical document the claims in the Christian Bible are referencable for what it says, but not authoritive. That should be obvious to anyone. This very specific and very obscure theological dispute has no use in a primary Wikipedia policy document. SchmuckyTheCat 09:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(<---) I think it is an excellent example; but tell ya what - why don't you some up with a better example or two and we can move 'em all to Attribution/FAQ ? WAS 4.250 10:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And the Bible is a reliable (but primary) source for, say, Rehoboam; it's the only one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Superseded??
How has this policy superseded WP:V, and WP:NOR?? I saw some notes left at "Village pump (policy)," all pointing to this page, and I saw a single thread in Archive 11 without any sort of strong consensus. So...how has a merge and/or depreciation been legitimized???--Chaco55 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the actual policy content hasn't changed (they even retained the '... redirects here' messages when copy-pasting). There is no need for a vote discussion-that-definitely-isn't-a-vote-but-looks-a-lot-like-one when all that is being done is housekeeping such as merging two policy pages into one. Cynical 18:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers are primary
Sometimes. A primary source means, "here is a fact never before seen." "A car overturned on Highway 29 last night" this sort of reporting makes the newspaper primary if the reporter was an eye-witness. If the reporter is reporting *from* a public source like a police blotter, than that blotter is primary and the report is secondary. So yes newspapers can sometimes be primary. Mostly I'd say they are secondary. It's isn't "newspaper" that needs to be removed, but rather the language may need to be rephrased better if the intent is not clear. Wjhonson 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason we might use an account of a traffic accident as an example of a primary source is that many editors have encountered such reports; since different people giving such accounts may be biased, and since each witness only saw the accident from one angle, this example illustrates some of the reasons primary sources should be used with care. The problem with this example is that most such accounts are not published, except the ones that appear in newspapers. If we just say "accounts" without "newspaper", we give the impression that unpublished accounts may be used in Wikipedia, and a careless reader might not notice such use is prohibited elsewhere. If we say "newspaper account" we create confusion, because in many cases, although one passage in a newspaper story may be a primary source, the article as a whole is likely to be a secondary source because the reporter gathered information from several sources, selected the most credible accounts, and created a cohesive summary. Perhaps we should find a different example; something that is usually a primary source, and usually published. --Gerry Ashton 18:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS
After agreement from the editors on RS, WP:RS and Reliable sources both redirect here now. This means that editors wanting to link to the reliable sources section of this policy can use RS/reliable sources instead of V, which I think many will prefer. Any useful advice from the old RS and its examples page can be added to ATT/FAQ. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)