Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 5

Another facet of popular culture
Working through the DRV on Girly and the questions of its sourcing have led me to another solid example of a problem on this page, specifically the blog Websnark. Websnark is written by Eric Burns and Wednesday White. Neither of them are professional researchers in the field of webcomics because, well, there aren't any professional researchers limited solely to webcomics. The research community there is still based very heavily in the fan culture.

This is the case for a lot of things - Buffy the Vampire Slayer has an annual conference devoted to it that straddles the line between fan and academic, and comic studies (one of my fields) is deeply indebted to its roots in the fan communities (Something that's going on as a debate on the major English-language listserv for comics studies in the world).

I'm not sure that this is actually a special case - or at least, not one that isn't functionally identical to one we've already dealt with. The issue here is that things like webcomics or Buffy or superheroes are not just articles on the fictional texts, but articles about their role in culture - articles that are, in part, about their fandom. Buffy the Vampire Slayer isn't just about a seven-season television show, but about a phenomenon in popular culture - it is, in part, about the academic conference, and the fan response to the show.

This, I think, captures some of the heart of the popular culture exception. It's not that popular culture lacks good sources - yeah, there are books on Buffy, and articles, just like there are on webcomics and print comics. It's that the fan sources are fundamentally primary sources for the sort of article Wikipedia writes about these texts - articles that engage not only their fictional content but their real-world components, which includes the fandoms.

So it's not that comics fans are reliable sources about Batman. They're not. They're primary sources about Batman as a pop-culture phenomenon. And they can rightly and justifiably be reported that way. Likewise, it's not that Websnark is a vital source for interpretation of comics. It's not, and much as I love it, I'd never cite it in a paper on any of the webcomics it's covered. What it is is a vital source for describing what webcomics have done in popular culture.

Sorry if this is unclear. I'm somewhat drained, and probably not at full coherence, and it's a subtle point on top of that. Please let me know if there's something that doesn't quite follow, as I promise, it is a key distinction that really does disentangle the popular culture issues and the sort of intuitive sense we all seem to have that there's something going on with popular culture that we haven't quite accounted for here. Phil Sandifer 21:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, as I reread this, it may be that we need, instruction creep be damned, to go write a guideline about popular culture that addresses this. Because it is complicated, and it is a very weird aspect of "sources writing about themselves." And it also ties in with another chronic frustration of popular culture articles, the way they degenerate into textual minutae and fancruft. There's a lot of confusion over the fact that our article on a fictional character is a fundamentally different thing from the sort of article that ought appear in a fan-targeted encyclopedia on the topic. And the nature of that confusion, I think, obscures what a primary source for popular culture articles actually is. Phil Sandifer 21:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A final, perhaps more succinct trio of phrasings here that might capture what I'm saying...
 * Kirk/Spock fanfic isn't an unreliable secondary source on the gender politics of Star Trek, it's a reliable primary source about Captain Kirk as a cultural icon.
 * A thread on a LiveJournal community for the TV show Supernatural where lots of people hate the most recent episode isn't an unreliable secondary source about the aesthetic quality of the second season, it's a reliable primary source about the relationship between the show and its fans.
 * A Newsarama thread about how to resolve a continuity issue in a recent issue of Spider-Man isn't an unreliable secondary source about the Marvel Universe, it's a reliable primary source about the role of fan theories in comics fandom.
 * In all of those cases, it remains an open question whether the source is of sufficient notability to be included in the article, but that's a question of NPOV - whether the view is significant enough to report. But the answers to that question come from things like "Is the piece of fanfic one of the ones recognized as historically significant to the fandom," "Is the community a general one for Supernatural, or a slash community of people interested mostly in reading Dean and Sam as gay lovers," or "Was it a big thread on Newsarama with a large number of participants." Those aren't questions of reliability, and they're not the purview of this page. Phil Sandifer 22:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is unclear; you are very coherent, as usual. It seems to me that an article about Buffy fandom, or Star Trek conventions, or fan art, or Rocky Horror Show audiences, or comics subculture has to be a separate article from the one about the source art itself. In other words, you have one article about Buffy, referenced from secondary sources or from within the world of the episodes, and another about the fandom, which could be referenced through fansites because they would qualify as sources about themselves. The muddling up of the two is always uncomfortable and often difficult for someone who doesn't know the details to detect. This even affects historical subjects; for example, the articles on Lucrezia Borgia and Elizabeth Báthory are in my opinion contaminated at the moment by unsourced information that has its basis not in secondary sources but in popular culture; for which reason, I would like to make an article on Lucrezia Borgia in popular culture, one day, along the lines suggested by the recent list initiative of clever User:Durova. qp10qp 22:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly - and for smaller topics (Individual episodes of Buffy, and things with smaller fandoms), such splitting is probably unnecessary. Phil Sandifer 22:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Phil's examples above are excellent, though I would note that in all three cases, the "primary source" use can only be used as factual references to support the respective assertions that: "Kirk is an icon who features in slash fanfiction"; "some of Supernatural's fans debate the show on LiveJournal"; and "continuity issues in the Spiderman comic are debated by some of the comic's fans on Newsarama". But Wikipedia can't say anything about the relevance or meaning of such assertions. That would need reliable secondary sources that respectively say (using different examples from Phil, and making them up entirely): "Professor X has stated that the existence of Kirk/Spock slash fanfiction reflects the suppressed homoerotic tension seen between Kirk and Spock in the original TV series"; "Commentator Z has speculated that the lambasting of the second series of Supernatural by fans in online fora may have contributed to the decision not to commission a third series"; "a study by researcher Y showed that differing background details in the Spiderman comic was the most common continuity error discussed by online fans of the comic". I think I've got most of the phrasing right there. Carcharoth 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite true. I might argue, in the second and third cases, that one could do away with the descriptions of locality - "Many fans have invented theories to explain this inconsistency, ranging from X to Y," or "The second season of Supernatural met with a mixed reception among fans, most notably with episode Z, which was described by one fan as..." Still reporting factual details about the reception in fandom and in culture. Phil Sandifer 23:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)"Professor X?" I find the image of Patrick Stewart lecturing to a group of young mutants on the cultural importance of Star Trek amusing.


 * Seriously, I see this as the camel's nose. To start, the iconic status of Kirk is, already, an interpretation.  Granted it is pretty obvious, but saying even so much without being confident that a reliable source can be found is putting our toes over the OR line.  Asserting the importance of K/S in that iconic status, or vice-versa puts at last one foot firmly on the other side of the line, and by the time the article actually says something interesting, we have left the line far behind and are doing blatant original research.


 * IMO, what little can be validly done on such topics from such sources is already covered under the "good judgment" rule. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The word "iconic" may be working as a bit of a red herring here, in that (for obvious reasons) such descriptions suffer NPOV problems, among other things. Let me try again - Captain Kirk is an article about a cultural phenomenon - a cultural object. Without making any judgments of the importance of that phenomenon, one can observe that a significant part of that phenomenon is K/S, and one can further cite, say, a large archive of K/S stories as a primary source of evidence about that. Phil Sandifer 00:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But, significant in what sense? Percentage of fans who read it?  Who write it?  Absolute numbers?  If it is significant, that means cultural impact, but does slashfic really have any impact outside its own base?  Those are all fascinating questions that (for all I know) may well have been studied, but they need careful study.  Saying that K/S is "significant" without defining what that term means is, IMO, not to say much of interest.  Robert A.West (Talk) 02:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am assuming that the point is significant in relation to the article. The mere existence of some quantity of K/S fanfic would be valid as a minor point in a more general article, and could be validly sourced from a primary source.  This much could be done under the proposal as it stands. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that "the mere existence of some quantity of K/S fanfic would be valid as a minor point in a more general article" using the fiction itself as a primary source. This seems somewhat like original research to me. Generally, we use primary source documents to source statements about the contents of those documents, not about their general state of being. Saying that fanfiction has been written and then pointing at some fanfiction to demonstrate does not seem substantially different from stating that the sky is blue and then using the sky as your source.
 * The current text of OR actually only allows us to use primary sources that have been reliably published, and then only to to describe what is directly said by the primary source. These seem like perfectly reasonable restrictions to me. After all, we're not supposed to be using sources to prove that something is true; we're supposed to be proving that our claims have been made by reliable third-parties. This gives the reader some indication that our claims are likely to be true, but also that they're relevant and noteworthy in some way.
 * This is just my take on it, but for the most part, I'm of the mind that most primary-source documentation of fan reactions would qualify as "sources requiring expert interpretation" most of the time. Even statements like "many fans think" involve interpretation -- generalizing about the opinions of a massive demographic from a limited sampling of responses is something I'd prefer to have a reliable source do. -- Bailey(talk) 03:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a POV problem, then, not an original research one. You simply restate the phrasing to reflect the sourcing.  It doesn't require expert knowledge to rephrase to reflect sourcing.  If it did, we couldn't write anything period.  It's not original research to show that fans don't like something, but it is a point of view issue if we use that in a manner which isn't relevant or conflates the issue above it's relative worth.  Like I've said before in this debate, a lot of what people are trying to protect against on this page is already hammered out in  the neutral point of view policy, which I might suggest we could perhaps look at once we get done here.  And I think the goose is nearly cooked. Hiding Talk 18:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Um... like "according to this survey which I conducted with anecdotal evidence combined with my gut using this wacko methodology I just slapped together a minute ago, most netizens don't like Star Trek"? Sounds like original research to me, and a very slipshod kind of research at that. I think I'll also prefer something more rigorous. Bi 18:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Um... seriously, if you want me to pull that apart, I will. First up, conflict of interest, second up, neutral point of view, third consensus.  Whatever you want that is more rigorous exists already.  Hey, here's one for you, why don't I just make up articles on everything and anything I want? Hiding Talk 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My point was, this "most netizens don't like Star Trek" kind of thing is original research. In fact, it's pretty much right up there with legally frivolous interpretations of the US Constitution. Bi 21:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether it falls under NPOV or NOR, we're still only allowed to use primary sources to describe the literal contents of that source -- otherwise, third-party 'expert interpretation' is required. A thread on a LiveJournal community can be a primary source about the relationship between a tv show and those specific fans, but not about the relationship between the show and fans in general. Why? Because those LiveJournal users aren't saying anything about any other fans, and they also aren't qualified to say anything about any other fans. Even if you've got a really huge thread, with many, many posts, without generalization, you're almost always going to be talking about a statistically insignificant percentage of the any television viewing audience. This would virtually always violate NPOV. Stating the professed opinion of 2 or 12 or even 200 fans is always going to cause issues of undue weight if it's not possible to demonstate in the article why the opinion of a tiny fraction of non-expert fans is relevant. Yes, this partially an NPOV issue, but the question becomes, why allow a special exception for these kinds of cases with (regards to the reliability of forums, fansites, et cetera) if these kind of exceptions will never reasonably pass NPOV? When will this be helpful? -- Bailey(talk)  23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It confuses things to claim a source as primary or secondary when it is how you use the source that makes it one or the other. WAS 4.250 09:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not needed to distinguish between popular culture and other things when it comes to sources because all sources need to be carefully evaluated concerning what they are used for. Don't quote 1911 Britanica about racial differences; do quote slashdot about a security problem with mozilla; don't quote some blog about who is gay; do quote the writer of a piece of fiction about aspects of that fictional universe. WAS 4.250 09:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The jihad against "primary"/"secondary" aside, I'm also not very sympathetic to those people who want a Wikipedia article for each of their favourite TV show characters. There's a reason why Memory Alpha was created, people. Bi 11:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree, which is the flip side of this. If a character, episode, etc exists below the level at which there is any observable cultural impact (whether among a visible and verifiable fan culture or in the general public) of it specifically (as opposed to of the overall show), it does not deserve an article. Our articles about fiction are about fiction in the real world. Fictional biography is a small part of that, and not the most important part. Phil Sandifer 14:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree with this sentiment entirely, I don't think this policy should be written with it in mind. That kind of issue is dealt with at WP:NOT and WP:N, and should stay there, IMO. Specifically, WP:NOT says "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot".  Given that the kind of material you're talking about is already prohibited, any changes made here with that in mind would be redundant. What I would welcome is any kind of extension that allows us to source that analysis from sources in the fan community, where that is relevant (with details of what is relevant to be worked out at a later point). JulesH 11:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, except for on the last point. I'm not totally closed to the idea, either, but I'm not sure I'm properly imagining the kinds of analysis from the fan community that would be worth permitting. Generally, we frown on including non-notable fringe theories in our articles, and there are a lot of non-notable fringe fan theories in the world of pop culture. Obviously, we'd need some of criteria for what qualifies as a notable theory if we were allowing the use of questionable sources for fan analysis. I can't think of how we'd determine that, though. -- Bailey(talk)  16:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't claim more than the sources reliably provide credibility for. WAS 4.250 17:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * An article that currently consists solely of plot data is not prohibited; it's merely incomplete and needs more work. WAS 4.250 16:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But, many fiction articles can't be completed because reliable interpretive sources don't exist. If the article is created incomplete, then it usually remains incomplete.  After a time, someone may nominate it for deletion on the basis that if it could be made complete, someone would have done so by now.  The usual debate then is between "delete fancruft" and "keep popular culture," ignoring the actual policy issues raised.  Someone who notices the actual reason for nomination opines that an interpretive source may be created, and that evantualism demands that the article remain in that hope.  Often there is no consensus, and Wikipedia waits indefinitely for someone to find a reliable source that probably does not exist and may never be created.  In the meantime, a well-meaning editor may add interpretative material by committing original research.   I do not believe that Wikipedia is improved by this state of affairs.


 * I think that we need to encourage an ethos that one does not create an article without a solid reason to believe it can be become a complete, policy-conforming Wikipedia article. If the creator has identified a reliable interpretive source, he should say so on the talk page, or even give an incomplete citation in the text.  If he doesn't get back to the article, that gives someone else a fighting chance to complete it.  If the creator has not identified a reliable interpretive source, he can create a stub or make an entry in Requested articles.


 * There must be reliable sources on popular culture -- there are academics who teach courses in this stuff. There are people who study how to produce this stuff.  It passes my credulity that no one is publishing for that audience.  Robert A.West (Talk) 17:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I know I'm digressing a little, but I've always thought the "if it could be made complete, someone would have done so by now" argument was a terrible deletion rationale. I realise these kind of noms are made all the time, but often they smack of bias in the nominator's part. Only a tiny fraction of a percentage of our articles could be considered "complete". I realise it's important to provide context and interpretation for articles, but it also doesn't harm me as a reader to see an obviously-incomplete article which does a good job with what it covers, but doesn't include interpretive information yet. In point of fact, I've often thought this is the best solution in unusual cases where the community believes a subject is notable, but not much reliable analysis is available. I'd much, much, much, much rather have short articles without analysis on semi-notable subjects than have analysis from poor sources. Granted, it would be a major boon for the AfD process if editors starting news articles were required to provide some sort of "creation rationale" on the new talk page, including a reasonable claim of notability (dropdown menu, anyone?) but if that's not a practice, the onus really should be on the deletion nominator to do a little reasearch beyond Google.
 * Robert, you're definately correct in assuming there should be reliable sources on popular culture. I will vouch for the fact that there are. As a person who has been known to work on pop culture articles, I sometimes find it a little annoying when editors try to squeak by FA with poor sources based on the claim that there aren't any more reliable sources for a certain portion of their article. But I've been equally annoyed trying to tell over-zealous AFDers that sources exist for things they want to delete, too. You just need to know where to look -- which normally means Proquest, Amazon, a few different  online peer reviewed journals which discuss popular culture, and the interlibrary loan system nearest you. -- Bailey(talk)  22:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel strongly that the onus must always be on the editor that wants to include material. Why?  Because it is impossible to prove that a source does not exist for material.  In fact, such a claim is OR.  While the policy states this explicitly only for material that is in the article, the argument should be no different for material that is needed to justify the article: WP:BIO or WP:FICT.  No matter how much research one does, someone can always just claim that there "must be" a source.  Consider the case of Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (4th nomination), it took me ten hours of my own time and twenty hours of research assistant time to convince people that there just was no reliable source to be found.  Even then, I was accused of bad faith and not looking hard enough, and the whole thing ended up in DRV.  That article did not, and never could meet WP:V, but perversely the deletion process placed the onus exactly in the opposite place from where it logically belongs: with the people who contend a source exists.  Robert A.West (Talk) 22:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've perhaps phrased myself poorly. Certainly the burden of proof is, at the end of the day, always going to be on the editor that wants to include the matieral -- that's a basic principle that applies to AfD as much as anything else. I'm certainly not saying any nominator should have to spend 10 hours trying to prove that an article is unsourcable. It just irks me in those cases where it's very easy to demonstrate that an article is sourceable, but the article is nominated based on the fact that the article is incomplete. About 10 minutes of thoughful google searching, or Proquest searching when it's an option, is a courtesy. "If it could be made complete, someone would have done so by now" is still a fairly lame rationale. The same could be said of many perfectly notable topics in Wikipedia which have been in need of sources for a long time. -- Bailey(talk) 23:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But that's a terrible example, precisely because it can be sourced entirely from primary sources. Now whether it's notable is another question, but the sourcing question seems to me a bit of misdirection in that case - even with no changes to WP:ATT it would meet this page's sourcing definition. Phil Sandifer 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pardon, what example do you think is terrible? I hope that you are not suggesting we source an article like P-P-P-Powerbook entirely from the self-serving and self-published claims of the alleged participants?  Robert A.West (Talk) 01:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Phil, has Eric ever said (because he's commented a lot about Wikipedia and webcomics) that he and his blog was qualified enough to be an expert on webcomics? (Likewise, are Sequential Tart, the Webcomics Examiner, Silver Bullet Comics, etc reliable reporters on comics and webcomics?) I'm curious because you point out the DRV but don't actually address it (you tangentially address it by saying "it's based on the fan culture".). I'm concerned about some WP:CSB here - when we talk about fandom, we almost always talk about American fandom, and probably a small section of American fandom at that, and say very little about other countries, and this may get into NPOV issues. I'm not sure how to solve this. ColourBurst 16:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Conflate "primary"/"secondary" with reliability?
Given the ways that people have tried to muddy the waters over "primary" and "secondary" sources, I'm starting to think that it may be better to simply define everything in terms of levels of reliability. As far as Wikipedia goes, I can discern 3 levels of reliability:
 * S-reliable: Claims in the source can be paraphrased directly as if they were fact. E.g. "Abraham Lincoln was an American politician..."
 * Q-reliable: Claims in the source can be quoted, but cannot be paraphrased as fact. E.g. "Vorilhon claims to have encountered a flying saucer..."
 * Unreliable: Claims in the source cannot be used at all. E.g. tiny minority claims.

Thoughts? Bi 14:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (Make that "Some claims in the source can be quoted...") Bi 17:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a question of reliability of information but of reliability of publishing process. If Michael Crichton is reported in reliable newspapers saying that global warming is a myth, we can use his referenced point of view in an article confidently, unreliable though a pop author might be on the subject, and the editorial community will doubtless oppose it with more authoritative voices from other sources. "Published" is in my opinion the threshold criterion. Of course there will be arguments about quality of publication and indeed about what publication means, but the basic concept is easily graspable: for material to be used on Wikipedia it must already have been reliably published. The content is a matter for editors to grapple with at the editing level of articles, not for policy. qp10qp 14:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the reliability of the publishing process is what I'm getting at, as well as the topic of the Wikipedia article. Thus whether a particular source s is (to use my notation above) S-reliable, Q-reliable, or unreliable will depend only on And nothing else. Also, if a source states that p is true, then the article should only do one of the following:
 * the process by which the source was published
 * the topic of the source
 * the Wikipedia article which the source will be used for
 * If s is S-reliable: "p is true", or "according to s, p is true".
 * If s is Q-reliable: "According to s, p is true."
 * If s is unreliable: Just keep quiet.

For example, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review says, "According to Crichton, global warming is a myth". This leaves only 3 possibilities:
 * If Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is S-reliable for the topic at hand, one can simply say "Crichton said that global warming was a myth."
 * If Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is Q-reliable for the topic at hand, one has to say "According to Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Crichton said that global warming was a myth."
 * If Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is unreliable for the topic at hand, keep quiet.

This means, one won't be allowed to "lift out" Crichton's claim from inside the newspaper quote and just write "Global warming is a myth." Which will be right, since the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review never once claimed directly that "global warming is a myth". Bi 17:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just as reality is more correctly understood when entities are not multiplied beyond necessity; so too, communication is more effective when terminology is not introduced unless needed. The concept that things like reliability and expertise and accessable and credibility have a range and are not black/white is/isn't binary adjectives/evaluations and further that they apply to the use made of a source and not the source standing independent from a specific use is not better expressed in an invented terminology. WAS 4.250 19:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the reality is that all this fluffy-puffy Zen talk about "range" and all that does nothing except to confuse the hell out of honest contributors and give wikikooks more weasel room. And as far as I can see, whatever kind of "range" stuff you have, ultimately any statement in any source can only be used in the 3 ways I stated above. Bi 19:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) The place of judgment is deciding where a source is S-reliable, Q-reliable, or unreliable on a given topic. For example, one of the standard histories of a certain American State was written in the early forties, and has a tendency to go wandering into the author's unfavorable opinion of the New Deal. It is S-reliable on the last royal governor; I doubt it is even Q-reliable on FDR, because there are much better sources on that line of argument. Septentrionalis 20:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting... I must check it out. Which source is it, by the way? Bi 20:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While I find the S/Q/U distinction intriguing from a theoretical viewpoint, and would love to argue its finer points, the mode of thought necessary to grasp and interpret it will be foreign to most editors. Explaining things in terms that will require explanations is not useful. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm... but surely you agree it's useful to distinguish between sources whose claims can be stated as fact, and sources whose claims can't be stated as fact? Or something.


 * As things stand, there are quite a lot of things in the existing Wikipedia policies which need some explanation anyway. Of course the policies tend to use phrases like "reliability", "primary source", "neutrality", etc. which are comprised of common words, but these phrases have specific idiosyncratic meanings in the context of Wikipedia. And it seems that the proposed WP:ATT won't be that different. Also, I see a danger in using common words to denote more specific meanings -- the specific meanings can easily get confused with their more common meanings in everyday language. (But maybe this worry is unfounded...)


 * Well... I don't know. Maybe call the different levels something else? Perhaps something like reliable, quotable, and unusable.


 * (OK, OK... this whole thing is just a random idea I got. Perhaps I should just stop now...) Bi 20:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for throwing this ball up; I don't think so, for reasons that I tried to make clear above.
 * And I'm afraid that your proposal would replace unnecessary old jargon by new one.
 * What matters for reliability is the purpose for citation --its use. The general rule of Wikipedia is just what the current title is: Attribution. Thus, if Holocaust deniers have an internet site that denies that the Holocaust took place, it may be considered a reasonably reliable source for verifying the fact that such sites exist that make such claims, and that such groups exist. It's at the same time probably a very unreliable source to verify facts about the Holocaust.
 * Reliability of a source always depends on the particular intended use.
 * Ideally we should base all Wikipedia statements on sources on which we rely through attribution, as good news reporters do. In practice we relax that requirement for statements that we expect to be generally accepted and therefore unchallenged. But when challenged, it must be either attributed or removed. Further, WP:NPOV already includes giving due weight (and space) to the most accepted POV's as well as some basics about attribution (hmm...).
 * And what I almost overlooked: IMO, above you hit the nail on the head when you wrote "for the topic at hand". I argue (and apparently also Septentrionalis), that that is itself the main distinction -- thus, reliable for the topic at hand.
 * Cheers, Harald88 01:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's face it: there'll always be jargon. As I argued above, the present definition of "reliability" in Wikipedia isn't any less jargonistic. And if we collapse two idiosyncratic definitions, one for "primary"/"secondary" sources and one for "reliability", into a single definition for different levels of reliability, then I'd think it's effectively reducing the amount of jargon. Bi 10:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * R-reliable: Because of remoteness of time or language, direct quotation from the source without expert interpretation is apt to mislead. e.g. "Ruth uncovered Boaz's feet and lay down." (Ruth 3:7) The translation is literally accurate, but those words have figurative meaning as well.  A reliable source should be used to explain. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that's a problem. :( Bi 21:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to be obtuse or anything, but what exactly is being implied here with Ruth and Boaz? I can guess, and if I'm guessing right, this is a very good example! I too find this theoretical approach very interesting, and I hope someof it can make it into the FAQ, or "more detailed explanation" bits that can hopefully be accessed "behind" this policy, for those who are interested, or want the detailed explanation. Carcharoth 23:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The word "foot" is often euphemistic in both ancient and modern Hebrew. In modern Hebrew, this phrasing can be slang for fellatio, and some commentators have assumed that it has always meant that.  Others have pointed out that a foot is sometimes just a foot, and lying down at a man's feet so that he notices you when he wakes up is quite credible as a combined act of submission and demonstration of chaste virtue.  Absent commentary, a modern English speaker would miss the innuendo, and a modern Hebrew speaker might not be aware how different Archaic Biblical Hebrew actually is from the modern language, just as some speakers of modern Greek overestimate their ability to understand Attic. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly suspect that is the sort of thing that people had in mind when they first started making the primary/secondary distinction. The source need not be millenia old to have such a problem.  IIRC, one letter of F. Scott Fitzgerald reads, "He is one of my gay friends."  This meant, more or less, "party animal," and many readers would understand just that.  Many have never seen the word used in this sense and would be misled.  Robert A.West (Talk) 22:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's such interpretation problems that they had in mind, it sort of missed the target as there are tons of old "secondary" sources that are difficult to interpret, and sometimes already when not old: talking about biblical examples, think of the writings of the apostle Paul that some of his contemporaries already complained about. In any case, I think that things are moving in the right direction although I'm not entirely convinced about the phrasing for historical topics. For example, I think that the historical relativity priority dispute is on the right track (although very much "work in progress") especially in view of WP:NPOV, but I'm not sure if that type of unbiased and non-interpretive overview of known facts complies with the current phrasing here.
 * Harald88 01:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, they are the sort of thing I immediately thought of when I first read the form the rules were in when I joined. What other reason would there be for the distinction?  I looked at the article, and it looks like jumbled notes in serious need of being turned into copy, but assuming the missing citations can be found, and assuming a reasonably competent copywriter, I am at a loss to see what serious WP:ATT problems you see.  Perhaps I am just being blind.  Can you explain?  (NPOV is, as always, a more complex question.)   Robert A.West (Talk) 01:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I understood from the quotes of Jimbo in WP:NPOV that this came from concern that historical articles would be entirely based on raw data, collected by editors. That's almost asking for original research.
 * The way this article's formulation is now, it sounds as if no original sources may be used, and that's of course not so.
 * I propose a slight rephrasing in line with the changes you made about scientific topics, thus:
 * For historical topics, this means that they should be based on reliable...
 * Harald88 18:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On reasoning, you are obviously seeing a distinction that I am not seeing. We may be guilty of agreeing in different words. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the primary/secondary phrasing, what I was trying to communicate is that IF a primary source needs interpretation (as they ery often do), THEN we must look to secondary sources to provide that interpretation, or tertiary sources to summarize various interpretations. We have two states: the source speaks for itself and it doesn't.  Only the latter needs an interpretive source, which must be a reliable expert or a reliable journalist reporting on the opinions of reliable experts.  I think the suggested change above sounds like a third option is available. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are probably right that we are agreeng with different words. :-)
 * What I tried to point out is that --just as in that dispute article-- sources that may need interpretation are allowable for fact verification (and arguably, essential) even in historical articles if those articles are based on reliable "secondary" sources that make interpretative claims and which the article cites.
 * The current formulation seems to oppose that.
 * Harald88 20:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(<---)Every source is reliable for some claims and unreliable for other claims and there is no magic formula for determining which is which as it depends on details about both the source and the claim that a person not sufficiently knowledgeable will not even know to ask. At any time an apparently well sourced claim can be found to be unreliably referenced when new facts come to light. WAS 4.250 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * True, and I agree with your edit on that point. I think the current proposal, taken as a whole, says that. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Key principles"
I think I'm going to Be bold on a rather important part of this, and would like to explain my reasoning in more detail than an edit summary allows. Here is what this looked like before my edits:
 * Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons unsourced contentious material must be removed immediately.
 * Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations; the burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to retain the material. Material lacking attribution may be removed, but use common sense: that Paris is the capital of France does not need a source. This policy should never be used to cause disruption by prematurely removing material for which reliable sources could reasonably be found. The exception to this is when dealing with claims about living persons, where unsourced contentious material must be removed immediately and not be moved to talk pages.

My problems are with the heading and the "use common sense" phrase. The heading starts slightly misleading, and contradicting the following text. "Any unsourced material may be removed" - not so simple. Following that literally would lead to the removal of every sentence without a specific &lt;ref&gt; tag, even the non-controversial or common sense ones. There is a better way to write that without using too many words: "Any material that can not be sourced may be removed". The idea is that if the material is not particularly controversial, it is all right if it doesn't have a specific &lt;ref&gt; tag, if it is supported by the references in general. "Paris is the capital of France" is an excellent example of this - we don't have to present a specific source for that statement, as every single source that we have cited about Paris will say as much. Giving that specific explanation is better than the vague "use common sense", which is often used as an excuse by people who aren't able to explain themselves. If the material is seriously challenged, then, yes, we will stick a ref tag on it. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Now we have the problem of proving that something can't be sourced. Before, it was obvious whether something wasn't sourced, and if someone was not just being a dick, the fact of objection was reason enough to insist on a source.  Now it appears we are placing a burden on the objector to prove whether a source does exist, which reverses the burden. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I disagree that taking the policy required inline citations, except in the case of quotations. It doesn't -- so long as the fact is attributable to a source in the Bibliography, it meets this policy.  Under the rephrasing, the Paris example has gone from a fact so obvious it doesn't need a source to a fact that does not need a footnote because it is already sourced more generally.  That is a substantial change in meaning.  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, I disagree that the "common sense" phrase contradicts anything. It is just bringing the details back to center and telling people not to use the rules to disrupt Wikipedia.  Robert A.West (Talk) 19:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

One more phrase: "An editor who thinks that a source is reliable or unreliable contrary to the formal rules should convincingly justify his or her judgement and should not use a source if reasonable objections are raised." The last part needs to go, I'm afraid. Reasonable objections can be raised for many sources that we rely upon. For example, a pro-Palestinian editor can reasonably say that every single major newspaper published in Israel is strongly biased in favor of Israel's right to exist, since the existence of the newspaper depends on the existence of the state; that's a reasonable objection, but we still need to be able to use them as sources on Israel vs Palestine, because they are widely read, and have high journalistic standards. If there are strong arguments for using a source, then we can use it, even if there are also reasonable arguments for not using it. If strongly questioned, we need to offer a disclaimer, rather than just writing "Y is a fact", writing "the Israeli-based newspaper XXX writes that Y is a fact". AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The above example is not a reasonable objection to the source as a reliable one. It is an NPOV problem.  That is a separate policy, and we shouldn't confuse the two.  Robert A.West (Talk) 19:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with Robert on last. I have reverted the removal. For run-of-the-mill editing this is a totally sensible caveat. Perhaps the pro-Palestinian editor has a point and you need to talk about the source. There's much for which policy will provide no slam dunk—the clause is a warning re questionable sources, that's all. Marskell 21:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have rephrased the "use common sense" point to be closer to the original. An article might call Paris as "the capital" for stylistic reasons and have no source that bothers to mention the fact that Paris is the capital.  Demanding that another source be added or the phrase be deleted would serve no legitimate purpose.  Robert A.West (Talk) 22:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dropping in for a moment - I browse this discussion from time to time but have edited here maybe just once. Regarding citations, I'm not comfortable with oh-it's-somewhere-in-the-bibliography because that's so highly exploitable. It places the burden on the challenger to prove a negative. Suppose a careless editor uses that principle to cite War and Peace and misremembers the relevant passage. Or, worse, suppose a malicious editor names Will and Ariel Durant on philosophy. That principle would empower troublemakers to create endless it's-in-another-section labyrinths. The way I view things, if an editor just mentions a book without including a page number or inserts a link to the home page of a large website, then the text remains unreferenced. Durov a Charge! 05:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Has this been baked for long enough?
I've done a copy edit to tighten it a little. I removed the following, because it seems to be making the primary/secondary distinction, but not as clearly as simply making the distinction directly, which was removed earlier. The section is called "Some sources require expert interpretation."


 * Many documents do not speak for themselves, at least to a modern audience of non-experts. Usage changes, even within a single lifetime. Historical documents must be understood in context. Raw experimental data need analysis by someone schooled in the relevant science. Religious texts imply a system of belief not shared by all readers.


 * In such cases, Wikipedia articles must use reliable, published sources to provide context and interpretation, because it would be original research for editors to provide such commentary themselves. For historical subjects, this means reliable "secondary sources," which report the results of research into the original, "primary sources") or "tertiary sources" such as survey articles and books. For scientific topics, use peer-reviewed articles and scholarly books as sources, rather than raw data and preprints.

I'd prefer we returned the original primary/secondary distinction. The language above is imprecise and a little patronizing. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Half of your edits undid changes that were the result of consensus, at this moment I don't have time to select those out now except for one which I now correct. Please read the discussions above about these points which take a big part of this page and help to make it more precise and less patronizing substitute without reintroducing the old flaws. Harald88 07:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Agreed. WAS 4.250 07:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I undid things previously agreed. I'll try to look through the talk page more carefully. There were some problems with the version that was on the page, however: problems with writing, consistency, flow.
 * Can someone say briefly what the advantage is of having the section above rather than the old primary/secondary section? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Primary/secondary has incompatible meanings in history, science and law.
 * Primary requires explanation and exceptions: Peer-reviewed journal articles, official government reports and major court cases are, at least arguably, primary sources.
 * Some older secondary sources require more modern sources to provide context.
 * A source can be primary in one context and secondary in another.
 * Primary/secondary is a technical distinction: this section describes what we are trying to accomplish, and is less likely to cause Wikilawyering.
 * I think that summarizes it. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that that is a good summary.
 * About motivation: in order to fight a wildgrowth of policy pages with all kinds of rules with exceptions, it is not sufficient to just bundle the phrasings of existing pages; we should strive to find improved and easier to understand explanations, and putting all these rules together allows to have a fresh look at it. In particular, we found an improved way to present the sourcing. You may wonder why we agreed to make the phrasing of the intro slightly more complex.
 * I would put it as follows: the new formulation is exactly on target in view of the general aim. IMO, the statement that 'a source must be reliable for the claim being sourced' is not just a small improvement but it explains and even makes superfluous much of the explanations about  as well as . When the policies are so clear and understandable that (almost) every editor understands their logic, they can be made shorter and there will be less clueless arguing over them.
 * BTW, your proposed phrasing, "an appropriate, reliable, published source" is IMO less precise, as next one needs to explain for what it should be appropriate. Harald88 19:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the page has certainly had a lot of feedback. That's definitely good.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit to what is not original research
For a long time now, that section has had two illustrations that may be described as a simple calculation and a simple syllogism. Now it contains one, the simple calculation. I find myself puzzled.

Except to those few editors for whom the vantagepoint of Principia Mathematica is natural, these are distinguishable classes, and in many ways the one deleted is the more certain and less likely to be abused. A calculation of percentages that excludes minor party candidates and spoiled ballots is subtly different from a calculation that includes either or both. On the other hand, the inference of US Birth (note we do not say "citizenship") is not subject to such problems.

I am not objecting to the calculation example. The advantage of two easily distinguishable examples is that it focuses the policy on the intent, while a single example can create the false impression of a rigid, formalistic exception, rather than trying to avoid giving cover to those who would use policy to be a jerk. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The proposal says "For examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Attribution/FAQ." Maybe add the extra example you wish to add there??? WAS 4.250 22:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not talking about adding an extra example, I am talking about replacing half of the two-headed example that has been there for quite some time. I  haven't heard what the objection to it was. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We're in danger of derailing this
We're in danger of derailing this. The writing has to be tight and to the point; the page can't be internally inconsistent or incoherent, or inconsistent with other policies; and it can't make inadvertent changes to the existing policies. (The only change we agreed on was the loosening to allow self-published sources in areas not covered by professional sources.) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree that "we're in danger of derailing this". I disagree that "The only change we agreed on was the loosening to allow self-published sources in areas not covered by professional sources" adequately characterizes the situation. WAS 4.250 23:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the point of your recent change and the reverting? That section already says: "This policy should never be used to cause disruption by prematurely removing material for which reliable sources could reasonably be found." How do we improve that section by adding something about good-faith beliefs when (a) it's not clear what a good-faith belief that something is wrong would be, as opposed to a belief that it's wrong, (b) how are we supposed to measure intention, and (c) what does it mean that isn't already strongly implied by the existing wording (i.e. don't be disruptive). SlimVirgin (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is the normal criteria for deleting what someone else wrote is as much about disbelieving it as it is about lack of a source. Someone else added the "good-faith beliefs" part. I have no strong opinion on that aspect of the wording. WAS 4.250 23:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The criterion is good sourcing. I may know from personal experience that Living Person X steals clothes from stores, because I've seen him do it. Nevertheless, if someone else adds that to his article and I know it has not been published by a reliable source, I would remove it; or I would add a reliable source. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I once removed something i wrote that I believe is true because after a lot of searching i couldn't source it. WAS 4.250 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, so the issue is not whether editors believe something to be true or false. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Normally, don't delete what you believe is true
At Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents occurs Slimvirgin saying "You removed material that you knew to be true." at 07:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC) and rebutted by CJCurrie saying "Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is verifiability, not accuracy" at 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) - - - - WAS 4.250 23:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a vanity/COI issue, nothing to do with this. Please answer the question above. What did your edit add that wasn't already implied by "don't be disruptive," and what's a good-faith belief as opposed to a belief? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with "That's a vanity issue, nothing to do with this." WAS 4.250 23:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * for which there is a good faith belief of inaccuracy What is that? I have never seen any policy that addresses editors' beliefs. That statment is superfluous and the principle is already established elsewere in the text and/or in other policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The CJC thing above was precisely where he (a) knew the issue to be true and (b) knew it to widely available in reliable sources, but removed it anyway. It's the source issue that matters.


 * Also, WAS, where was it agreed that the content policies would be changed, and not just streamlined (other than the loosening issue for some subject areas, and even that is hotly contested by some)? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Find where people discuss the problem of people deleting stuff just because it is unsourced. WAS 4.250 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what that means. Where is the discussion? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're discussing this change? That would represent a huge change in policy. The burden of proof is always on the party adding (or attempting to keep) information in Wikipedia. The point of Verifiability is that we base what we print on what we have sources for, not what we merely believe is true. -- Bailey<sup style="color:black;">(talk) 23:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at the discussion at AN/I to which WAS refers (and the history of the article discussed there), I can't see how that could be used to justify adding "for which there is a good faith belief of inaccuracy". If it is known that certain information is true, and if a source for it can be easily found, there is no reason to remove it. That does not mean that claims should only be removed if someone sincerely believes them to be false. I and another admin constantly remove names from the list of former students at Institut Le Rosey. See here, here, and here. Often it's obvious that the additions are hoaxes, but in some cases it could be true, but we decided that it was better for Wikipedia to leave out some that might be true than to include some the weren't.

Jimbo said that "random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information . . . should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." That does not tie in with the idea that it should only be removed if the editor removing it sincerely believes it to be inaccurate. The case in discussion at AN/I apparently related to something where the removing editor removed something about a friend of his that he knew to be true, and that he could easily have found a source for. Completely different case. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 00:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was a wiki. — Omegatron 01:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One could make an arguement for not removing material that is not yet sourced, but probably could be. But an editor should feel free to remove material that is not sourced and probably cannot be sourced, even if it is probably true. --Gerry Ashton 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should nail down that part of the policy any further. What we're saying is: anything like to be challenged should be sourced; use your common sense about what that means; you can remove anything that's unsourced but don't be a dick about it, except with living persons, in which case do be a dick. Attempts to pin it down further will only involve us in getting ever more detailed and needing more and more careful language, which will then have to be guarded 24/7, in case anyone changes a syllable, which is the situation we're trying to get away from. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The argument you refer to is there already: "This policy should never be used to cause disruption by prematurely removing material for which reliable sources could reasonably be found." Now, I think "reasonably" would be better phrased as "most likely", but I think that exceptions should place the bar high.  Robert A.West (Talk) 02:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Overbreadth of "common sense" section
The agreed-upon version that was reverted addressed three serious defects in the now-current versionson for the reversion, since there was agreement on the version reverted. First, the present version gives the impression that there are no reliable sources for popular culture, which is untrue. As it stands, I fear it will be used as an excuse for lazy research. Second, as phrased, it sounds like less-than-reliable sources are OK, when I have always understood that the issue is reliable sources that will not be identified under a strict reading of the rules. Third, as phrased, it cannot be used to justify discounting a facially-reliable source, which is just as realistic as finding a reliable blog. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions:
 * "the present version gives the impression that there are no reliable sources for popular culture, which is untrue. As it stands, I fear it will be used as an excuse for lazy research."
 * Exactly where does it state or imply that? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By specifically emphasizing popular culture as an area lacking reliable sources. That is my reaction, and I have read the discussions.  I think it is fair to expect that will be others' reaction as well.  Robert A.West (Talk)
 * For whatever it's worth, I share Robert's feelings on this. Further, ...in the areas of popular culture and fiction, where professional sources offer shallow coverage, or none' implies that it is always the case that professional sources will offer either shallow coverage or no coverage on these topics, which is quite untrue. Many pop culture topics have tons of professional sources. It seems wiser to go by whether or not professional sources exist than to go by topic. I realise that's the intent here, but by singling out certain subjects, this seems to provide an easy out for finding the best sources available in those cases. -- Bailey<sup style="color:black;">(talk) 17:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "it sounds like less-than-reliable sources are OK, when I have always understood that the issue is reliable sources that will not be identified under a strict reading of the rules."
 * (a) Yes, less-than-reliable sources will be okay in certain very, very, very limited circumstances, which the page describes; that was the point of the policy change and this is the only change that has been agreed; (b) I don't know what the following means "when I have always understood that the issue is reliable sources that will not be identified under a strict reading of the rules."


 * "it cannot be used to justify discounting a facially-reliable source, which is just as realistic as finding a reliable blog."
 * Please say what a "facially-reliable source" is, as opposed to a reliable one. I can't work out what the sentence means. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (avoiding splitting comments) (a) Yes, untrustworthy sources are allowable for very specific purposes, most of which were already explained on WP:V. I didn't mean to question that.  (b) What I am asking is whether the point of the "popular culture" exception is really to use sources that we cannot trust, or to note that there may be, on a case-by-case basis, indicia of reliability other than those we list. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Facially: on its face. At first glance.  By appearance, but not necessarily in reality.  For example, the National Enquirer has all the trappings of reliability: an editorial board, it can be sued for libel, etc.  I have known foreigners who briefly mistook it for a reliable newspaper.  Wikipedians don't regard it as reliable because we know from experience that those are merely appearances.  Second example, The Harvard Law Review editorial board also writes articles for it, so it doesn't actually fit our critiera for editorial oversight.  Yet, I would consider anyone who objected to an article in it on that basis as a troll. Robert A.West (Talk)


 * Robert, your statement above is effectively meaningless, particularly the last sentence. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Changed my mind and answered point-by-point above. I hope that I have shown that my statements are not meaningless. You may not agree, and like anyone else I am sometimes thunderingly wrong, but the statements are not meaningless.  Robert A.West (Talk) 12:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fiction and Popular Culture
I don't know how many of the people in this discussion are also reading the mailing list right now, but Jimbo brought up the very good point that many of the "official" sources on popular culture subjects are unfortunate puff pieces of the worst sort. Between the flaws with those and the flaws with academic sources (Which have little to no place in a popular culture article, even when they do exist), we risk some serious problems with popular culture here. I'm working on an essay in my userspace about some of the issues in popular culture that go beyond the purview of this page. Perhaps there will be something in there that will prove helpful to this. Phil Sandifer 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What flaws with academic sources? Can you explain further?  Would an academic paper on Star Trek be less reliable, relevant or useful than one on Silas Marner?  If so, why?  Agreed that official websites suffer from all the problems of self-published material and primary sources.  They have their appropriate uses, though.  Robert A.West (Talk) 17:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Relevant is the major issue - Silas Marner's primary audience and readership is, at this point, academic. Its notability is primarily as an important scholarly thing. Star Trek is not, and so the academic perspective, which is far, far removed from any mainstream thought about Star Trek. It's a significant POV, but it should be understood, on popular culture texts, as a minority POV that is significant because of its location in the academy. Phil Sandifer 18:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting viewpoint. The suggestion that Silar Marner is only of interest to academicians is, I think, a sad commentary, as it is a great read.  Do you similarly consign Captain Horatio Hornblower, Moby Dick and Two Years Before the Mast?  None of these books were written for an academic audience.  Any boy who doesn't read them is missing out, and any of these could be remade as a successful movie tomorrow.  Academics write about them because of their undoubted influence and quality, not because they are arcana.


 * I am skeptical of the insinuation that academics are dusty, out-of-touch people with odd viewpoints. The business of academics is to document what is going on in the world, and by and large they are good at it.  Can you give an example of the sort of significant thinking that you feel the academics are ignoring, and what they say instead? Robert A.West (Talk) 19:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're getting my criticism backwards - it's not so much that academic critics are ignoring more popular criticism as that academic critics tend to get off into their own little weird loops and interests. You bring up an excellent case with Hornblower, of course, since it's the subject of a relatively popular series of TV movies. That changes its nature somewhat, and introduces important non-academic sources. But ultimately, in today's context, academic sources are basically the only game in town for the texts you mentioned, rendering them of primary importance. They are not of primary importance in other areas, not because they're out of touch, but because their interests in the texts are often highly and idosyncratically specialized. For example, I'm pretty confident that ImageTexT, a journal I work on, just published the sole scholarly article on the comic Y: The Last Man. I stand by the article as a great piece of comics scholarship. I would never, however, suggest that its thesis that the comic "illustrate[s] the opposition of queerness and heteronormativity, a binary that, in normative political discourse, often relies on its own binaries of local/global and private/public in order to distinguish positive from negative" is the most important or even one of the most important views about the comic. Phil Sandifer 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You overlooked two winking references: Hornblower is an acknowledged influence on the character of Kirk. More than one episode had a  reference (explicit or implicit) to Captain Ahab.  (The Doomsday Machine and Obsession come to mind.)


 * Yes, some academics go off on weird tangents, and I would not suggest "heteronormativity" for unsupervised use at home. Nevertheless, by its very hypothesis, "Y" creates a world in which the available options are lesbianism and celebacy.  How it deals with the reaction of straight women to the situation sounds a lot more significant than the inevitable fan-speculation about the secret agenda of the Daughters of the Amazon. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * True - this falls under a broad category of value judgment, though, not sourcing. (And is something that should go into User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction essay.) Phil Sandifer 20:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not so. We use reliable sources to answer three questions: Who says so?  Why should we believe it?  Who cares?  You gave an example of an opinion by a professional academic, and then dismissed it as a minority view of no interest outside the academy.  What is the majority view?  Who holds it?  Why should we believe it?  Why should we care?  Robert A.West (Talk) 20:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The majority view is that such opinions are nonsense. Perhaps few people have explicitly called them nonsense, but it's a safe bet that the majority with interest in the work would, if told about the academic opinion, react "some academics go on weird tangents" just like you did.
 * And the answer to "why should we believe it?" and "why should we care?" is that to fail to believe it or to fail to care would mean treating a minority opinion as a majority one. If the rules force us to do that, then *the rules are broken* and need to be changed. Ken Arromdee 21:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To my mind, the fact that it is an academic view makes it significant. But it does nothing to show that it is anything more than a significant minority view. Phil Sandifer 21:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(unindent for sanity)

We still have only half an example. While I agree that using "heteronormative" rather than "heteroerotanormative" doesn't speak well of that academic's knowledge of Greek, forgive me for suspecting that the majority fan reaction is adolescent slobbering over images of babes in fetishwear. To what "majority opinion" worthy of respect are you contrasting the "significant minority" of the academics? And, if it exists, do you have any suggestion how we go about selecting it from among the doubtless-more-numerous complete dross? Robert A.West (Talk) 23:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a fair question. Especially because I've elsewhere argued that, because of the biases implicit in putting together an encyclopedia, we ought make it extremely easy for academics to get articles. And you're right that most fan opinion is complete and utter dross. I think it becomes a balancing act - academic views have inherent notability. Individual fan views do not. Things that show a consensus, tendency, or other weight of fan views do. And I certainly don't think it's inappropriate to, on a popular culture article, include most or all of the academic views. (A few exceptions exist - to do so for Buffy the Vampire Slayer is simply impossible. But Buffy is a deeply weird instance of popular culture studies on many levels.) But I'm not sure how to draw a white line here. Phil Sandifer 00:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking you to draw the line. My request is far less ambitious.  You gave a concrete example of academic reasoning you find out of touch.  It will make me very happy if you can give the rest of that example.  What is the contrasting "majority opinion" about Y that you have identified, and where is it found?  Seeing some specifics, according to your own lights, will help me understand better.  Thanks. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd look to reviews from the Shotgun Reviews crowd at www.newsarama.com, any reviews on www.thefourthrail.com, posters on the boards at bkv.tv (This would have to be aggregate, and you'd have to be careful to establish significance), media reviews (I'm pretty sure EW has covered it), etc. Phil Sandifer 02:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Unclear paragraph
Bi, I removed this again, because I'm not sure what it means. Can you clarify? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

":To clarify, the above conditions [the section on questionable sources] apply to the source material itself, not statements in Wikipedia articles about the material. Thus, if a questionable source makes a contentious claim, then even if an editor intends to rephrase the claim in neutral language, it is still not permissible."

This is another meaningless paragraph. You really shouldn't be adding things to the policy that can neither be parsed, nor translated into English. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What I meant was, if a questionable source makes a contentious claim, e.g. "Jane Doe was born in Mars", then an editor can't simply change it to "Jane Doe claims she was born in Mars", and claim that since this new sentence isn't disputed, it can go into the article. As long as the original statement in the source is contentious, it can't be used.


 * I added this in to specifically address Atom's worry that people will turn Wikipedia into a mouthpiece for Jane Doe's questionable autobiography, simply by wrapping everything up in "Jane Doe says, ... Jane Doe says, ..." I've encountered this problem before, in fact.


 * If you have any suggestions on phrasing what I said in a clearer way, I'm all ears. Bi 10:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, rather than rephrase it, I'd remove it, because nothing actually needs clarifying. The idea is to protect Wikipedia from saying libelous things about living people, and the preceding statement already covers improperly sourced potential libel quoted directly or framed in reported speech. qp10qp 11:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd think adding a clarifying makes the thing easier to enforce... isn't it harder to have to explain to everyone why writing "Jane Doe claims she was born in Mars" is not permitted, instead of just putting it in the policy directly? Bi 12:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed it: if the contention is notable and appropriate for the topic it should be mentioned, otherwise not. Harald88 11:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not going to allow people to mention the debate ("Jane Doe claims she was born in Mars, but other people say she was born in Grimsby"); it'll only allow people to mention Jane Doe's side of the debate ("Jane Doe claims she was born in Mars", period). No, WP:NPOV isn't going to help very much here -- it requires reliable sources, and if there are any really really reliable sources mentioning the debate, then Jane Doe's questionable source won't even be used in the first place. Bi 12:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make sense to claim that there is a debate without mentioning it; a debate always involves more than one opinion which must be properly sourced. Only notable published opinions can be taken into account. Harald88 13:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A real-world example. Tax protester sites are not reliable sources about tax law  Their positions are frivolous in the technical sense: rejected so often that bringing them up can get your lawyer fined for wasting the court's time.  Nevertheless, the positions are notable, because millions of people believe them, and some go to jail as a result.  We cite the unreliable books in articles about the positions, because they are reliable sources about their own contents.  Both current policy and this proposal as it stands permit this.  The paragraph quoted above sounds like it doesn't. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly; the "clarification", as far as it can be understood, actually changes policy. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Core content policies"
"Wikipedia:Attribution is one of Wikipedia's two core content policies. The other is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Isn't WP:NOT also considered a core content policy? It's certainly very important for "determin[ing] the type ... of content allowed in articles". JulesH 08:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this thought. I quote "not censored", "not a sopabox", "not a directory" quite often. Atom 09:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is probably an aspiration rather than a fact ( Neutral Point of View is a foundation policy but not this). The word "policy" itself is probably an aspiration, too. Such terms depend for their importance upon consensus, and at the moment there does seem to be a consensus that these attribution principles are very important. That doesn't mean that other sets of principles are less important, though. qp10qp 11:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a Foundation issue? That's news to me.  The current verifiability page says it is.  Also, Five Pillars treats Verifiability as part and parcel of a Neutral Point of View, and I see the point -- you have to be able to prove that you are expressing the NPOV.  As this page demonstrates, NOR is a corollary of Verifiability.  To my mind, at least, any statement includes its unavoidable consequences.  Robert A.West (Talk) 12:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:NOT is a core content policy, being one of our oldest and most cited pages. In fact it predates two of the three other "core content policies".  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Robert, it can only be regarded as part of foundation policy insofar as it's part of Neutral Point of View; separated off, I see no particular reason why this policy proposal (or the policies it combines) need claim canonical status. I think we need one policy, rather than this "two core" policy" business; but that's for another day. qp10qp 13:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point. I look forward to the grand unification debate.  Robert A.West (Talk) 15:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agenda
In general, I think this is a fine page (given that certain points are still in dispute). I congratulate the various authors on their work. ... However, I don't quite understand why this is (apparently) expected to replace both WP:V and WP:NOR, which have served the community so well over the years. Such a major revision of policy would be natural if there were major problems with the existing policy; but there don't seem to be any. It seems to me, quite frankly, that our existing policies are working just fine. Is it more efficient to have 1 policy instead of the current 2.5 (V, NOR, and RS)? Sure, but it's also important to have a stable common language for talking about Wikipedia's basic principles. Also, while there has been a lot of input here, I don't see the *level* of input or community attention that I would expect for such a huge restructuring of policy. I don't even see a notice at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Can someone please clue me in as to the overall agenda, and why this is considered necessary? -- Visviva 12:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Part of the overall "agenda" is reducing the amount of policy pages, and length thereof. This should serve to make Wikispace less convoluted and byzantine. Another part of the "agenda" is problems with WP:RS. Given the large amount of responses here (over 1600 talk page edits in the last month!) I certainly see the "level of input or community attention that I would expect". It may not be strictly necessary, but a large amount of people consider it desirable.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Agenda" was a poor choice of words, I apologize. Perhaps "objectives" would have been more appropriate... in any case, although I agree that this page has gotten a lot of input, the concomitant revision of core policy has not really been put out there for the community as a whole.  Or if it has, I've missed it; I'm a fairly highly-involved editor, and only came across this page by chance...
 * Here's what bugs me: if we actually replace WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS with this single page, it will be a historic shift, though (arguably) it will only clarify the underlying principles of those policies. Such a change would alter the language that all Wikipedians use to discuss our community's most fundamental values.  I think this is substantially more significant than Arbcom elections; accordingly, a final discussion should be trumpeted at the top of every Wikipedia page so that no active user can miss it.   I would also expect some input from the Foundation on whether such a change, cosmetic though it may appear to be, is advisable.
 * This may all be premature, since there doesn't seem to be a stable consensus version of this page yet; but a realignment on this scale needs to have support far beyond the policy community. -- Visviva 05:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Visviva to a certain extent. The common language used by the current policies shouldn't change because it's well established. The aim should be solely to reduce length. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that should the proposal be accepted; we should write new versions of V, NOR and RS that explain the terminology in relation to the policy and link to the relevant sections here. That way, editors could continue using those terms as an explanation of a problem, new editors would be directed to a helpful page that explains what's wrong with their edits and links to the relevant policy and everyone would likely be happy.  JulesH 10:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm worried by these constant tweaks, which are having the effect of changing policy (but apparently without anyone intending to, which is what really worries me), or reducing the quality of the writing. I thought it would have settled down by now.
 * Jules, I see what you're getting at, but we can't have new versions of V, NOR, and RS, AND this page. The point was replacement, not reproduction. :-) SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 10:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Layout
I think it would be good to move the section about OR under "key principles" to the section dealing with "OR". This should avoid in-page duplication of the same issue.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's better as it is: the "key principles" effectively gives a summary of the remainder of the document. It's a classic inverted pyramid. JulesH 09:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)