Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 15

Nazi Propaganda
Clearly Nazi propaganda should belong in Wikipedia as it was published by at the time anyway reputable organizations. But this is a very important point as some real crap is being put on these pages, with some at best spurious sources, but how does one rebut a fringe idea based on spurious sources as reliable sources wont go there?01001 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute - Verifiability or NPOV?
There is a dispute regarding the Criticism section of an article on a top online game. The dispute has nearly led to edit wars on more than one occasion, and has severely disrupted my attempts to improve the article to GA status.

I am posting here for advice, as the dispute concerns two of Wikipedia's core policies: verifiability and NPOV. This dispute also highlights a problem caused by the Verifiability policy, which I have tried to point out several times, namely, systematic bias.

To summarize the locus of the dispute, when I first tried to improve the article to GA status, the Criticism section documented common player criticisms of the game. However, due to criticisms over lack of referencing, someone removed all the player criticisms and the section became a list of press reviews of the game (all of which praised the game).

Soon after the section was overwritten, the article's talk page was flooded with complaints about the new Criticism section, describing it as highly biased, reading like an advertisement, and blatantly violating the NPOV policy. Two comments I remember are "Previously, only the Criticism section documented any negative opinion of the game" and "The press reviews are totally different from what players think of the game".

On the talk page, there was an argument over the Criticism section, with both the new and old Criticism sections having their supporters, and an edit war nearly broke out. I commented "You'll never find those player criticisms in a reliable source" and suggested the Criticism section contain both player criticisms and press reviews to satisfy both verifiability and NPOV. We had a discussion on the talk page, and decided to restore the player criticisms, but referencing a player review from GameFAQs (which documented several of the player criticisms), and rewriting them in paragraph form, instead of a list.

Recently, when the article was put up for peer review, there were several complaints about the Criticism section. Exasperated, I lashed out at them.

"Make up your mind whether you want:
 * A Criticism section containing press reviews, thus being reliable, but thus being highly biased and reading like an advertisement, and blatantly violating NPOV, or
 * A Criticism section documenting player criticisms, thus being NPOV, but inherently less reliable."

We now have to choose between verifiability and NPOV. As stated earlier, I suggested a middle ground: have the Criticism section contain both press reviews and player criticisms.

However, I need your advice; please provide it. Thanks.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say that verifiability trumps NPOV hands-down. There are good reasons for this but I will spare you the lecture unless you really wish to hear it.


 * If an article can only be made NPOV (in your opinion) by ignoring verifiability requirements, you are now in the realm of Original Research. The case in question, as described by you, is a perfect example of that.  I am not familiar with GameFAQs and cannot opine as to whether it is a reliable source.  If it is not, then referencing it is not appropriate and all material which is based solely on it should be removed.  I know this answer will be frustrating to you but them's the rules (at least as I understand them).
 * --Richard 09:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't know. NPOV, according to the founder of Wikipedia, is "absolute and non-negotiable". That to me sounds like that in as a last-ditch measure, original research should be allowed for a little bit to maintain NPOV until it can be replaced with verifiable, reliable information, except possibly with biographies of living persons. In that case, real harm could come from lack of verifiable information, and thus WP:V *might* trump WP:NPOV, although I think they would at least be treated with equal importance. I would like to hear these "good reasons" why it would be better for WP:V to trump WP:NPOV. 170.215.83.83 23:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Although NPOV is a foundation issue, and Verifiability isn't, both policies have been described as "non-negotiable". Go ahead and lecture me, Richard.
 * I do not wish to let my personal bias affect this issue. I will respect the consensus, even if it is to follow verifiability and not NPOV.
 * We must make a decision and stick to it, in order to ensure stability, a GA criteria. Our decision should be one that improves the article's GA chances. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, then the thing to do, in my opinion would be to try and find the best possible compromise between the two, since they are both at the same level of importance ("non-negotiable"). 70.101.147.74 07:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point that nobody responded to... 170.215.83.4 19:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I should further add that there is a difference between saying "Game X has lousy graphics" or "Game Y is difficult to play" and saying "In GameFAQs, some players who have reviewed the game complained of lousy graphics and stated that the game was difficult to play." I think using the second formulation would reduce the problem to one of whether or not GameFAQs is a reliable source.  I suspect the problem is that GameFAQs is not a magazine but rather a blog, mailing list or bulletin board.
 * --Richard 10:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect the root of the problem is that actual game purchasers are willing to spend their money on the basis of blog comments, so there is no market for a professionally published game review magazine or website (a sort of Consumer Reports for games). However, blogs are not reliable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. So just delete the criticism section altogether; magazines that publish favorable reviews of poor games are not reliable sources, despite being printed on glossy paper. --Gerry Ashton 13:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please get your facts right - GameFAQs is not a blog. However, press reviews are deemed more reliable, while GameFAQs is marginally reliable. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Only sourced information may be used in an article (although that does not mean that all information that is sourced has to be used). So whoever it was that removed comments that did not have a reputable source was right to do so.

NPOV requires an article to take a neutral point of view. That does not mean that every time something good is mentioned, something bad also has to be mentioned. More, it means you need to be objective. If it really is the case that every reliable quotable source has nothing but praise for the game, then it is perfectly right for the article to leave its reader with the impression that there is nothing negative to say.

However, if there is some notable criticism of the game, as you suggest there is, then my guess is a reliable source can in fact be found for it (it just hasn't been found yet and someone will need to find it before it progresses to GA status). Until such a source is found, the article cannot include the criticisms. If that means the article temporarily contravenes NPOV, then so be it. The article is work in progress.

If on the other hand, there is no reliable source for criticism because it is widely regarded as excellent - don't worry about it.

Maybe have a look at Don Bradman. That article is able to make the very positive claim that he "was an Australian cricketer who is universally regarded as the greatest batsman of all time", and which has very little criticism of him. Because of the way the article does this, and the support it has from reputable sources for its positivity, no-one has seen NPOV problems in the article to date, jguk 13:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The current situation seems to be that the mainstream media has a positive opinion of the game while the mass media has a negative opinion of the game. Because of the verifiability policy, only the positive opinion of the mainstream media can be included, while the negative viewpoint of the mass media must be completely ignored. This is what I meant when I posted on this talk page several months ago that the verifiability policy creates sytemic bias. And since most Wikipedia readers represent the mass media, the complaints over the well-referenced but allegedly POV section are understandable. However, even I agreed that the well-referenced Criticism section looked like a blatant advertisement for the game. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * GameFaq (blessed be that it is there) is a commercial business and attempts to present a product and to sell products. It might be argued it is a "blog created by a business".  It seems to me this section points out Wikipedia needs a guideline to reliability, a method of specifying the most important element of reliability and the whole list of characteristics which together constitute reliability. Terryeo 15:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Terryeo that the Wikipedia guideline to reliability may need to be reviewed and updated. In the meantime, let's work off the underlying principles.  As I stated earlier, I believe verifiability and reliability trump NPOV.  The question is: Is GameFAQs reliable?


 * Wikipedia's current policy is that a source must satisfy a certain level of reliability by having a public check on it, usually peer review, publishing house or a professional concern such as a newspaper, magazine or broadcast news network. Self-published material such as vanity websites, blogs, self-published e-books and vanity published books do not qualify.


 * Despite what Hildanknight says about "GameFAQs not being a blog", the fact remains that GameFAQs has message boards. If the cited game reviews are unreviewed opinions on the message boards, those reviews probably fall in the realm of "unreviewed self-published material" and therefore do not qualify as reliable.  If, however, the user reviews are featured articles that are invited by the GameFAQs website and undergo some sort of scrutiny and editorial review, then that kind of user review is arguably reliable.


 * Consider this: Is an opinion expressed on a message board at Motley Fool or Raging Bull "reliable"? Why or why not?  Now, apply your answer to GameFAQs.


 * --Richard 17:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * GameFAQs is not a reliable source. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I suspect that this is true. However, it would help if you could explain why you think it is not a reliable source. --Richard 18:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The review was not posted on a message board - it was listed under "GameFAQs Reader Reviews". --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As you pointed out, GameFACS is probably regarded by the gaming community to be a more reliable source than press articles. We have similar problems in the science community, but rarely someone who claims that X is generally more trusted/respected than Y is accused of doing "original research"; and even doing a Google search for determining the popularity of ideas is considered acceptable in some cases. Anyway, for the purpose of verifiability the only thing that matters is that the article's statements that are made can be verified today but also next year. I see no problem with stating for example that "the game received a number of favourable newspaper reviews [ref ref ref], but received significant criticism by users on a well known gaming website [ref]." The main point of WP:V is that no statements are made that go beyond what can be verified. For a similar discussion about using references to usenet as Wikipedia source, see the Talk page of Archimedes Plutonium. Harald88 18:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is a big difference between stating something as fact "Game X has amateur graphics" vs. "There has been significant criticism of Game X's graphics posted on a well-known gaming site."  The first asserts something to be true about the game.  The second asserts something to be true about how a particular set of users perceived the game.  --Richard 03:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Richard's phrasing is slightly better than mine, as it totally avoids making any (even safe) assumptions. Harald88 07:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Does GameFaq review information before it is posted? If it does, then it has both attributability and the site means to maintain a reputation.  Having personally used a few of the GameFaqs, I've found them to be accurate. Maybe we can email them and ask for particulars? Terryeo 01:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt very much that it's "peer reviewed". And the same for published journalists's opinions about games. Harald88 07:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A good point, and it additionally spells out one more element of "reliable published source". What exactly is a "peer" when it comes to a FAQ or walkthrough of a game? Terryeo 20:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say that in this case a peer is another person capable of playing a game and making observations. For games, unlike science, this means just about everyone.  The fact that the site has a good reputation basically means it's passed the equivalent of "peer review", since the general public are the peers. Ken Arromdee 22:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try to find out how GameFAQs checks the accuracy of their "Reader Reviews". Nevertheless, I agree with Ken Arromdee's comments. Note what I said above about systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we should use reader reviews regardless of the peer review question. All a review is is one person's opinion on the game.  We wouldn't use a film critic's review in an article about a film, at least not if we were using it to source the statement that the film had amateur special effects, and even if the film critic was professionally published.  One person's review isn't notable.
 * Now, if you had *many* reader reviews and were using them to say "most readers who reviewed the game at Gamefaqs think the game is amateurish", I think that would be different.

Ken Arromdee 17:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the idea of "peer review" is not critical to the issue here although it helps. "Peer review" per se is only one method of determining reliability. If information is provided in a GameFAQs "Reader Review", the question becomes "What does it take for something to be published in the Reader Review section? Can I just post a review in the Reader Review section without oversight or does my submission require approval by someone on the GameFAQs staff?  If the former, then it's still basically a blog/message board/whatever.  If my submission is reviewed editorially for content and blessed by someone on the GameFAQs staff, then the situation is a bit closer to that of a newspaper.  The critical question is: Can a single person self-publish information without any checks on the content or is there some mechanism for filtering out garbage?

To answer my own rhetorical question that I posted earlier about Motley Fool and Raging Bull, comments on those sites are not reliable soruces because there is no filter that checks the content of the messages posted there.

--Richard 16:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I got a question, what is the name of the article? It's annoying to read this example of a dispute and not know what game this is about. J.L.W.S. The Special One/Hildanknight, you said you read the article, and "it sounded like an advertisement" to you. Tell me which article you're talking about. I want to know what article everyone is talking about, otherwise it sounds dumb when your talking about "GameFAQ", when I don't know where to find this GameFAQ, or know what the hey you are talking about. 65.11.88.100 16:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I did a little research into you J.L.W.S. The Special One, I think I'm going to guess that the article you're talking about is RuneScape. Well ok, I'm going to start by saying this game is definitely not perfect (or at least in my opinion).  Criticism of runescape does exist, but it's hard to find a "reliable reference" of this criticism.  That's because this is game is free to play, (not the member's version though) so there isn't any commercial drive for any magazines or review companies to say "buy" this game or "don't buy" this game because of so and so.  Also, the IP address above is mine, I just forget to login before. --Fastman99 16:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article is RuneScape. I agree that there is considerable mass-media criticism of the game, which is not reliable and thus not accepted, and being browser-based, there is a lack of criticism from reliable sources. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Similar issue, higher stakes
Let's consider what happens with a controversial, but not very high profile, political figure. By our own rules, his or her own writings about him- or herself are citable; similarly, those of organizations with which he or she is affiliated. There is a much higher threshold for critical material and, connected to that, there is an interesting intersection between WP:BLP and verifiability. I'm a little concerned that WP:BLP seems to mean that an article in a minor newspaper might be citable for a positive remark and the newspaper—even the same article—might not be citable for the other side of the same story.

I'm not sure there is anything we can do about this, but I thought I'd put the matter on the table. At the very least, I'm a bit uncomfortable that we seem to be saying that certain sources can be used only in a way that is not representative of what the source, taken as a whole, actually says. - Jmabel | Talk 06:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While I understand the similarities in the issues you and I raised, namely how verifiability decreases NPOV, and how critical sources may not be considered reliable, I must remind you that an online game is a mass-media topic, while a controversial political figure is a mainstream-media topic. Wikipedia's Verifiability policy only accepts mainstream-media sources, and it will be difficult to find mainstream-media sources on a mass-media topic; in contrast, it should be easier to find mainstream-media sources on the political figure. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV needs to be restored for one key reson: Runescape's competition have very negative NPOV reveiws listed on their articles. Right now, anyone and their grandma will think that, due to the fact that the RS article has no critisism, that it is a p0erfect game, while its competition seem like bad games. This will msot definitly help Runescape and hurt the other games as many people do read wikipedia before paying so a new game (or membership in RS). Thus, right now, Wikipedia is a bias ad for RS and is failing in its stated mission of fair and equel information.--68.192.188.142 19:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Debate at WP:RS - Should it be rejected as a guideline?
There continues to be debate at WP:RS about whether it should remain a guideline on not (a small but active minority feel it should be scrapped). As that guideline is referred to on (and in my opinion is an intrigal part of) this policy page, I think the regular editors of WP:V should be made aware of this debate. Please pop over, read the talk page and chime in. Blueboar 22:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Reliable source
Given the recent changes to this page with the removal of the link to reliable sources what is a "reliable source"? Is it any source that is not "dubious reliability" or is there some third category? As for "dubious reliability": --Philip Baird Shearer 10:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "a poor reputation for fact-checking" how does one judge reputation?
 * What is a "fact-checking facility"?
 * I am assuming it is "no" editorial oversite. What is editorial oversite? For example is a Wiki web site overseen by editors? How does one tell if there is "editorial oversite"?


 * First, I think it is a difficult task for any of us to determine what is or is not a "reliable source". I much prefer the words "reputable source". Reputation (and reputation for accuracy in a field) is relatively easy to check. Reliability suggests we need a more detailed examination.


 * Second, we are not going to get a rules-based exposition about what is or is not a reputable source. Instead we should aim for a principle. Might I suggest adding a definition of "reputable source" into the policy along the lines of "A reference is a reputable source for a claim if it can withstand academic scrutiny".


 * This would need to be backed up by an explanatory paragraph below along the lines of pointing out that "for a claim" means a source can be a reputable for some claims but not for others, and that "academic scrutiny" means asking yourself questions such as "does the source have justification for making the claim?", "are there other errors in the source that make this claim suspect?", "is there any incentive for anyone for this claim to be false?", and so on, jguk 07:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On the idea of "A reference is a reputable source for a claim if it can withstand academic scrutiny".  As setting a goal, it's admirable.   As setting a standard, it's passing the buck to an absent party &mdash; unless some academic institutions are going to assign staff to actually scrutinize Wikipedia submissions.   Otherwise, how easy it will be to say, "Well, my sources will of course withstand such scrutiny, but your contrary sources will not!"


 * A "common sense" definition would ask (and explain) some basic questions, along the lines of:
 * Does the source have the reputation in its field of being honest and accurate? (This may or may not be an "academic" field.) Reports on, say, the causes of lung cancer may not be equally trustworthy coming from, say, the National Institutes of Health and the Tobacco Institute. Even ordinary news agencies differ in reputations; compare The Times (of London) to The Sun &mdash; or the New York Post or Fox News or the Drudge Report. But many readers and viewers do not know that difference, so they would not be alerted by the footnotes to doubt a Wikipedia page's assertions. It falls to Wikipedia editors to screen their sources, which means being more aware of the difference than those readers and viewers. One may have to learn about the field in question in order to know a source's reputation &mdash; which technical journals are peer-reviewed or have hard-nosed editors, versus which are crackpot-magnets or shills. (There's no easy way to flag one group or the other &mdash; if there were, at least some crackpots and shills would quickly learn how to award themselves the "sane" flag... or the "fair and balanced" flag.)
 * Does the source have a strong basis for actual knowledge of the subject? A specialist publication or field reporter that actually covered an event or interviewed a subject is more likely to get the details right than a general publication or newsroom reporter summarizing someone else's coverage.
 * What does this source's report actually prove? The most reputable, accurate, and knowledgeable source may report that "The Secretary of Defense said the occupied areas are entirely peaceful" &mdash; which is not the same thing as reporting that "the occupied areas are entirely peaceful".


 * A normally reliable source (on most subjects) may be wildly wrong on a technical subject outside its area of expertise. Conversely, a source that isn't reliable for anything else might be fairly cited when the topic actually is "What did this source say?"


 * Take for instance a source that is generally not considered "reliable", such as Usenet posts or blog comments. For most topics, these should no more be cited as sources than any random comment you overheard on a city bus &mdash; they have no reputation for accuracy or actual knowledge. But when the topic is "Internet terminology" or "Internet forum terminology" &mdash; as it is in Disemvoweling &mdash; then Usenet posts and blog comments might be fairly cited as showing that a term was actually used, with such-and-such meaning, on such-and-such dates. – SAJordan talkcontribs 22:48, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC).

We certainly do need to rely on common sense. I don't think that a requirement for a source for a claim to be able to withstand academic scrutiny is passing the buck - although I admit I have scratched my head hard to think of a better word than "academic". Maybe "able to withstand a reasonable level of scrutiny". Of course, "reasonable level" is undefined - but then whatever we go with won't be clearly defined and will need to be applied with common sense.

So what about: "A reference is a reputable source for a claim if it can withstand a reasonable level of scrutiny", followed by a short explanation of what that scrutiny might be (eg asking questions such as why should you believe the source, does it have a reputation for accuracy, could the source be biased or putting forward a political view)? jguk 16:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Great discussions above. Another aspect of verifiability/ citability is that of personal communication.  I am an anthropologist doing a PhD and am involved with editing an article that is now under arbitration.  There is part of the article than could be written in more detail to reflect a more accurate picture of the patterns of membership within the organisation, but no 'official' research has been published on that in over 10 years.  Yet, personal communication with many both within and outside of the organisation re-iterates and confirms the trajectory of membership from the mid-1990's up to the present. That particular section is about membership and it is the members that have spoken with me, so are they not an authority of some kind?  Can this be included in the article and how should it be cited? Amasintay 08:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Amasintay, that's the kind of thing that the policy prohibits. Our sources must be published. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks SlimVirgin (great name btw). My query is because, academically, personal communication is permitted if it's referenced correctly (and used sparingly) and in context of a predominant discussion that is supported with published academic texts.  Is it worth exploring using personal communication in that context or is it a blanket rule?  It can be such a rich source of data.  Also, I accept that wiki is a different kind of world and I am new to it... learning the differences between the academic world and the wiki world.  Happy Holidays.  Amasintay 11:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Are sources in languages other than English verifiable?
This is the English language Wikipedia but from time to time articles are sourced in a variety of other languages. Recently Márton Szász was sourced just in Hungarian which none of my translators handles. My view is that we should stipulate that essential facts should be verifiable in English sources. Whilst Hungarian is not particularly obscure, if foreign language verification is allowed, in theory sources could be provided in far more obscure languages that perhaps no-one on here except the editor understands leading to some very dubious entries. TerriersFan 19:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how to handle Hungarian, but I think that our policy should clearly be that Linear A is not an allowable language for sources. - O^O 19:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL; nice one! TerriersFan 19:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If we disallow foreign language sites then we run the risk of losing valuable content which is unavaliable in English; could we use existing features of Wikipedia to allow a user to request confirmation of a citation from an independent user - perhaps using templates along the lines of, I'm think where xx is the two letter language code. --Neo 19:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whilst I would prefer, as I say above, sources to be in English I would not strongly object to a defined list of the most common languages. French, Spanish and German, say, would be fine since online translators handle these. However, let me give you an example. The Taxicab series of articles is one to which I have put a lot of work in. Let's say someone puts in something controversial about taxicabs in India and cites references in Sanskrit. I would have to accept an edit that I disagree with because I would have no way of checking whether the references had any relevance. If we take Márton Szász above, the references are here and here. I haven't a clue whether they support the guy as being a maths child prodigy. TerriersFan 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement that every claim in every article be verifiable by every reader. Most of us can't verify most of the articles on mathematics, but that does not mean we should eliminate them. If you can't read Hungarian, leave it to someone who does. If you doubt what the article says, and you can't read Hungarian, find a good source in a language that you can read that says something more plausible, and add the new source to the article. --Gerry Ashton 20:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good point when possible. The problem arises when there are no sources in English for something that is critical to the article. TerriersFan 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is something critical to an article that can only be sourced in a foreign-language publication, we should be thankful that there are editors who can read the other language and provide this information to us; otherwise we would just have to do without the information. We can hope that other people who read the same foreign language will spot any problems with the information. --Gerry Ashton 21:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is: just try writing about Romania without using Romanian-language sources. We have at least half a dozen admins who read Romanian (mostly native), plus several dozen more good, regular contributors. The political range is about as wide as in Wikipedia in general, so, believe me, no one is going to get away with misrepresenting a source any more than in English. These people have been steadily assembling here what is easily the best online English-language content about that country, largely by using Romanian-language sources, about half of them online and half print. On the whole, the level of rigor in citations (and the level of the work in general) is well above what is typical for Wikipedia. Does anyone actually want to discourage that? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are many subjects where the sources have to be in foreign languages, since net to nothing is written about it in English. IF you doubt the accuracy of a translation, or the reputability of a source, put a message on the talk page of the wikiproject for that country (equating country with language for a moment). For most languages, you will find a few unincolved editors who are able to check the source or the quote given. When a source is truly unverifiable by anyone on Wikipedia except the contributor (because of the language), I would assume good faith unless the source seems dubious (contradicts all other sources) or violating WP:BLP. Fram 16:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree that sources in other languages are verifiable. I believe, "other language", constitutes an egregious barrier to verifiability.  Editors should not be under the requirement of enlisting translation services merely to do their job. Wjhonson 16:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be great if we could find an agreeable solution here and add it to the policy. We have some links on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that are in Farsi, and an editor has requested that they be factchecked. They are facts about the internal policies of MA, which wouldn't really be of interest to non-Arab sources, so I'm not sure English-language sources would even be available. Vir4030 18:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course we should use non-English sources. I'm surprised that this comes up as a real question.  If a particular editor cannot read a particular source themselves, that is what the Babel templates are for.  Jkelly 18:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you point me to one of these Babel templates for Farsi? Vir4030 20:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Letters to the editor - reliable?
Are letters to the editor considered to be reliable sources? CoYep 03:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If they are used as sources for some information about letters to the editor, whether those letters specifically or something general about a newspapers' letters, then it is rather reliable that the newspaper did indeed receive such a letter and they would be reliable for that specific purpose. If they are used as sources for some news or historical event, they are absolutely not reliable. Any quack can write a letter to the editor. —Centrx→talk &bull; 07:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Go not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both Yes and No."   For some more Elvish counsel...


 * Letters (to the Editor or anyone else) might be cited as expressing the thought of a known person, as for instance the letters of Thomas Jefferson and of Albert Einstein expressed their personal political and religious beliefs in a way their formal publications did not. Some care might have to be taken that a particular letter printed over a notable person's name was actually written by that person, and not another person with the same name &mdash; or an imposter. (A newspaper may try to verify a writer's identity by calling the phone number given in the letter, but this doesn't prove it's the named person's phone.)


 * The proportion of "Letters to the Editor" supporting or opposing particular points of view should not be cited as expressing the proportions of opinion in the general population. (1) A letter-writing campaign may result in the view it sponsors getting a disproportionate number of letters published, especially in the case of an "astroturfing" campaign. (2) A newspaper may have selected letters for publication using other criteria than proportionate representation, for instance to represent both views in equal numbers, or to represent the views held by the editor, or to show the letters best written (in the editor's judgment). – SAJordan talkcontribs 21:47, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Thanks alot CoYep 15:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. So this letter to the editor wouldn't be a reliable source for, for instance, the Sphinx of Giza article or an article about Craniofacial Anthropometry? CoYep 22:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If the same writer publishes the same claim in a peer-reviewed article for a journal of archaeology or anthropology, he will probably have to include photographs, and citations to sources for his assertions. Subsequent issues might have rebuttals. In the end, some consensus among the field's professionals may result.


 * As it is, do you even know whether, say, "John Smith, orthodontist" is really "John Smith" or really an orthodontist? Perhaps Bob Brown the astroturfer has borrowed someone else's name. Perhaps an orthodontal student is anticipating his degree. On the Internet and in the letters columns, no-one knows you're a dog. – SAJordan talkcontribs 23:03, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Yes, this was my argument as well when I discussed that issue with another editor. But since this editor insists that it is a reliable source, I decided to ask for another opinion. Again, thanks a lot. CoYep 23:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * When people speak of newspapers as reliable sources, they are generally thinking of the articles in the main sections. Letters to the editor, family-written obituaries and ads are not reliable.  Robert A.West (Talk) 22:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Journals such as The Nation, National Review, Foreign Affairs often receive and publish letters from people who are the subjects of their articles and from other experts on the topics covered, often rebutting the content of an article (with the original author often responding). These exchanges should certainly be citable. - Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As should these letters to The Times letters to The Times June 1932 and this letter to The Times July 1966. It comes down to the reputation of the person who wrote the letters, or in the case of the second one (his knowledge about himself). After all a biography on Winston Churchill which quotes a letter he wrote to someone else about his view on a specific issue would be considered a primary reference and it would seem odd if that if the letter had been to a newspaper, that it should be discounted as a reference in a Wikipedia article, because it was not a private correspondence. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The letters may be used under the self-publication provision i.e. if written by someone who would otherwise be regarded as a reliable source OR if written by someone, even if not regarded as reliable, about himself. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Linking to an online copy of an offline V RS
Let's say an article cites a V RS that is offline, and a copy of that source is discovered online, and is found (by one or more editors who have examined the offline source) to be an accurate reproduction. Leaving aside copyright issues for the moment, under what circumstances is it appropriate to link to the online copy? Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 07:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In those circumstances it is always appropriate to provide a link to the online copy at the bottom of the article, jguk 08:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That was my impression as well. (I remember the phrase "great for easy access" from a subsection somewhere.)  Is that the case even if the site hosting the determined-to-be-accurate copy is a free site like Geocities or YouTube? thx, Jim Butler(talk) 08:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as its the same text, it doesn't matter where it's hosted. If you can trust that the person who made the website is not going to deviously fiddle around with it, then it's fine. Whereas in general a source is reliable because of the author's research methods, experience and knowledge in the field, etc., the free website is only a mirror or conduit where we need only be sure that it is a faithful reproduction. Though, it is best to find a copy hosted on Project Gutenberg or Wikisource, etc. because it will be more permanent. —Centrx→talk &bull; 09:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to refine that:
 * YouTube: generally rather not, unless you're pretty sure there's no copyvio involved, per Copyrights; also you'd need to be pretty sure that the material is not tampered with, and stable in an untampered version. See also WP:RS: "[...] As such, linking to video content in YouTube should almost always be avoided as a source." Also note that not so many content available via YouTube could be qualified RS *at all*.
 * For example Google Books has less of these problems: for some books that are without doubt RS, Google Books displays the full content, in a stable way, and there are no copyvio trappings.
 * For the RS sources available at Gutenberg there's only a small caveat: some of the material there is pretty old (pre-"copyright"): sometimes positions taken in these works have been ammended/corrected/updated in more recent scholarship, and/or translations are not so fluent for our early 21st-century eyes. For example Gutenberg has a translation of Cicero's De Re Publica: some odd pieces of text of that dialogue have been rediscovered more recently, and more recent sholarship usually also uses a different numbering of the paragraphs of that work. Similarly, Gutenberg has an omnibus volume of translations of apocryphal gospels (in a bit swollen 19th century English), the Gospel of Judas is of course not included in that volume. On the other hand, many of the translations of ancient texts at Gutenberg have comprehensive introductions that more often than not can be used as RS (see e.g. The Pumpkinification of Claudius that uses such introduction as a V RS).
 * Wikisource: can be used for illustrations, but rather not for deployment of verifiability, see Don't use internal sources for verification for more on that. Generally, as Wikisource is also a wiki, there may be stability problems with the source texts. --Francis Schonken 10:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to play Devil's advocate - there may be cases where YouTube is hosting copyrighted material with permission of the copyright owners. In those cases, wouldn't it be OK to link? dryguy 03:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Francis and Centrx; your comments make sense. Reading through WP:CITE I found the relevant term "convenience link", and then the essay WP:CONV. Sounds like the issue isn't fully resolved, but we're making progress. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 00:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of "themselves"
This may just be a linguistic difference of use of English but with respect to, "Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the themselves", it is not quite right. You would not say them about an organization, which the policy refers to, you would say it. In my experience this has given rise to edit conflicts based on differeing interpretations of this policy where individuals have claimed that the policy only allows the self-published authors "themselves" to use the self-published source material. This is obviously wrong.

"Themselves" relates to individuals. In this case, the policy could relate to organizations to which one would refer "itself". Other contributors have agreed with the misplaced generality of "themselves" and policy has been modified to "in articles about the author or the authoring organisation", which is better. But how to fit it into the title? I have proposed "the subject" because the subject of an topic can refer to an individual, group of individuals or organizational entity; and is short.

Perhaps the policy point could be merged with the one above allowing a single short title on "self-published" material?

Your opinions. 195.82.106.244 12:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "The phrase 'the organizations themselves have said ...," for example, is standard English. I don't really see how anyone could misunderstand the sentence in the policy. On the other hand, the phrase "authoring organization" is completely unclear and sounds like someone has made it up. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you have used a plural. You would not say "the organization themselves", you would say "the organization itself".


 * For the record, I did not state "authoring organization" but it is entirely clear, if a highly specific and intelligent use of English. I think we need more than two opinions on this matter as others have expressed an interest to clarify it. As stated, where conflict arose due to the generality of the statement was where it was interpretated that "themselves" only permitted the authoring individuals or organizations to use self-published material - which is, of course, ridiculous.


 * Drop "authoring" individual or organization into Google, , and I think you will find it is widely and commonly used particularly in Governmental and Educational circles.


 * Actually, you may have cracked it by the use of "authors(s)". KISS etc.


 * 195.82.106.244 12:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Themselves" is plural because "sources", which it agrees with, is plural. qp10qp 16:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Number of content policies
Recently someone has increased the reference on this page from there being two other content policies, to say that there are three. There are, however, many more. Our copyright and libel policies are certainly about content. The separate, though related policy, on biographies of living people is also a content policy. Plus more are listed as content policies on List of policies.

I don't think increasing the comments at the top of this project page to refer to all of these would be useful. Instead maybe reference them at the end if not already referenced as part of the discussion.

The only other content policy that I think is really worth mentioning up front is WP:NPOV, jguk 15:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything is about content come to that, but V, NOR, and NPOV are what we call the three content policies, and not only recently. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but why? WP:NOT, at the very least, is just as important as the three that are currently listed. JulesH 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about Verifiability of Opinions
I am not currently engaged in any discussions described below, but I have had these questions for a while and want to ask them.


 * 1) It is often possible to verify opinions: "Michael Moore thinks George Bush is an idiot". But it seems to me that putting such opinions into articles is problematic.  I can see, for example how such an opinion, if from a verified source, might be included in the article on Michael Moore.  However, I do not see how it would be appropriately included in an article about George Bush.  Is there some policy or guideline that one can review in such cases?  (Incidentally, I take the instructions under NPOV about not declaring Hitler to be evil but rather, just describe his acts and let the reader judge as a critical yet under-used and under emphasized instruction).
 * 2) Sometimes there are current or recent events on which various popular commentators provide their "insights". They are often respected sufficiently that their opinions are sought.  To imagine an example, perhaps someone gave an opinion on the police investigation of Natalie Holloway in Aruba.  Maybe, say, Mark Fuhrman (I am making all of this up as an example).  Although his comments and opinion are verifiable, it seems to me that such editorial commentary is inherently POV and probably unencyclopedic.  What policies or guidelines cover this area?  If none, should there be something? (In other words, is my view that such editorial commentary should be greatly restricted, correct?).  I note that it is often possible for people to argue by proxy this way -- and I think the encyclopedia would be improved as would tempers if this sort of thing were not generally accepted.
 * 3) Fairly frequently, an article is based almost entirely upon one source. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- and for certain subjects it is even necessary because the subject area is very narrow.  But I have noticed one area that is a bit of concern to me.  A person will get a book... say something by Bill O'Reilly ... and finding a number of "facts" in that "verifiable source" will go and add sections to articles based upon that one source -- which though verifiable, is highly POV and is in fact, editorial content possibly masquerading as something else.  Another example would be a person who publishes some work on some recent policy by the President (choose any President, not just this current one).  A wikipedian reads this highly critical and POV book and then creates a section based upon its contents.  Particularly when the book is new, this content may go entirely unrefuted by other "reliable sources".  At the core, all of these examples involve what I called "justified editorial content" which is highly POV.  Is there guidance on this matter?  I have always been under the impression that NPOV is a more "core" principle and that Verifiability is intended to serve that intent.  Thus, I would think that verifiability is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia.  And so, when there were contributions that are POV, the mere fact that they are verifiable should not give them a pass.  I have also tended to think that "Just the facts, Ma'am" is a better approach for contentious material rather than "Both the Facts and Editorials".  But I would like some other thoughts on this.

Thanks to everyone for helping me get my head around these issues. As I said, I do not have an immediate concern at this time... I am not involved in discussions of this sort. But I have seen them and now I wonder. Please comment. --Blue Tie 17:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly the last example you give is an example of how someone acting in bad faith can really abuse the rules. But I'd hate to see us lose the ability to cite opinionated statements. Would you really want no indication of whether written or or artistic or musical works were favorably reviewed (so that, for example, the only way that we could show that critical assessment of Van Gogh has changed over time would be in terms of the prices paid for his paintings)? No ability to quote the Abbé Sieyès on the Third Estate in writing about the Estates of the Realm, only in writing about Sieyès himself? No ability to quote Tudor Octavian writing of Calea Victoriei (one of Bucharest's main streets) in the 1930s that "this is how the whole of Bucharest would look if we had been allowed"? The result would be that articles would be dry as dust. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know the answer. I am sort of seeking for ideas here.  But one thing that I note is that your examples may not involve controversy. Perhaps a key is, when something is not disputed there is a lower standard, but when it is disputed there is a higher standard required that may eliminate the biased source.  Not sure. --Blue Tie 06:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As your example refers mainly to living people, note that WP:BLP and WP:BLP cover some of these aspects. As for non-BLP related, I concur with Jmabel: there will always be these that will find a way to abide by policy while pushing a POV. For these, we have the community of editors and editors' consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 07:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * About the last point, what if the view in the "opinionated" source is right and thus nobody has been able to "refute" it? It would be like writing an article on General Relativity and not having any refutations listed 'cuz there are none. 170.215.83.4 20:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Merging a definition of "reliable sources" into WP:V
I have attempted to merge a definition of "reliable sources" into the policy (being bold in the process too!). The diff of my suggested amendments is here.

The aim, along the lines noted above, has been to introduce a principle-based definition, and make clear that really you just need to use common sense (and objectivity) to decide whether a source is reliable enough.

Although I have based on discussions above and on other pages, suggested improvements to the text would be useful, jguk 09:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what Jguk calls a discussion on talk, before proceeding to remove several sections of the policy. Please don't edit policy pages disruptively. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(copied from user talk)

Please don't disrupt WP:V again. It isn't helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop exercising a unilateral veto on any changes to the wording of the content policies that you personally disagree with. My edit to WP:V is an attempt to put into the text the sort of wording that has already been discussed on the talk page. I accept it can be improved upon. I also accept that others may have ideas about how to better express things. And I am, as ever, receptive to those. But I, and others, can only consider these things if you discuss the issues raised on the talk page. Yet another veto without explanation as to what you see as being wrong with the edit per se is only going to either

o left a note explaining things on the talk page - allowing for free and open discussion. Discuss. Don't revert. If you revert without discussing you give the original editor two options (1) go away; (2) enter into a revert war with you. Neither are palatable. Please use talk pages, jguk 09:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Leave a note and discuss before, not after, and please discuss this on talk. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was actually going to revert Jguk's change, but JulesH beat me to it. Jguk, your change wiped out nearly all the interwiki links. I'm sure you didn't intend that, but it looks a bit like "blind reverting". If you make small changes, one at a time, and discuss them beforehand, then it's easier for others to see exactly what's happening, so that they can agree or disagree. AnnH ♫ 10:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict)There are several problems with these merges; particularly, no guidance on when a self-published or otherwise dubious source may be used is included, just a vague warning to be cautious when using them. There are some positive aspects though; a suggestion that these rules require application of common sense is welcome, IMO, and the approach of enumerating principles by which the reliability of a source may be evaluated rather than hard & fast rules is a good one, I feel.  But I don't think it's ready for including on the policy page, so I've reverted them. JulesH 10:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We've discussed above, and there have been discussions on other pages, about the need to apply common sense when deciding whether a particular source is reliable or not. Those pages, including the better elements of WP:RS, do identify certain concerns/questions you should be raising. There is an acceptance, at least by some above, and presumably by those who have deemed WP:RS, that prescriptive rules around this area will not work. There is also a level of acceptance that what is good out of WP:RS ought to be merged with WP:V.


 * My proposed text does that. It also shortens down some of the text, without omitting any of the essential points (eg we don't need to say in lots of words "largely don't use self-published texts, but hang on, there may be examples when it is appropriate to do so, so let's list those exceptions and exceptions to those exceptions", we just need to say, use common sense, scutinise objectively, and take particular care with self-published sources).


 * It's good to have a definition of what we mean by "reliable sources", and it's good to make clear that you need to exercise common sense. A shorter policy that covers more is an added boon, jguk 10:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Discussions on other pages are irrelevant, Jguk; if you want to make changes here, discuss them here first. Also, your proposed additions are a separate matter from your deletion of several sections. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Jguk, don't try to maintain a separate discussion, please. Copied from my talk page.


 * [jguk has redacted a comment he made on SV's user talk page that does not address the issues being discussed in this thread, and was not intended to be a comment from me on this thread. It has been redacted as it is misleading to imply otherwise.]


 * YOU are the one who removed sections without discussion. Stop twisting things. It is transparent and therefore pointless. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll await something constructive from SlimVirgin before addressing her.

AnnH, you're right, I did not intend to wipe out the interwiki links. Sorry for that, but thankfully the benefit of working collaboratively is that others can pick up on your mistake. Thanks.

JulesH, specific guidance on when to use self-published sources is difficult - unless you go to inordinate length, or alternatively shorten it down to the application of general principles. Also, in principle, there's no reason why we should not assess self-published sources in the same way as we assess any other source. That they are self-published increases our scepticism about them, and we are more aware that they may be self-serving, but that, of itself, is not determinative of whether they are reliable. Would a sentence along those lines be an improvement?

I'm tempted to open up a temp page, so that the approach, which JulesH and others appear to welcome, and be improved upon. Once ready it can then be merged into the main policy page, jguk 10:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what you did before, and it made no difference. Your changes aren't helpful, because you throw the baby out with the bathwater and you're very, very aggressive about it. That's why you fail to gain support. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have opened up a temporary page, Verifiability/temp to look at merging a definition of "reliable source" into this policy, plus rewriting the section discussing sources to better emphasise the need to use common sense and to suggest ways to tackle the issue. In the light of JulesH's comment above, and ever eager not to throw babies out of baths, I have added a bit more on self-published sources. Constructive comments and improvements would, as ever, be welcome, jguk 11:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That draft was firmly rejected in January/February and was moved to Verifiability/Jguk's version. Please work on it there or in user space. Creating POV forks of policies, forks already rejected, isn't constructive. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's where you suggested it before.
 * Here's where you announce you've replaced the policy with your draft.
 * Here's where it was rejected.
 * Here's the start of the old version being restored.


 * What happened is that very few people contributed to the new draft, but then because of the lack of objections, you took that as consensus to go ahead. But it can't work that way. If the lack of objections is based on lack of input, it means you have no consensus. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

jguk, based on the universal reactions to your previous attempts to completely re-write editing policies, which ranged from vociferous opposition, to complete and unequivocal opposition, you should probably assume that the default view of Wikipedians is that they by default oppose any and all changes you make, unless you first get strong agreement on the policy Talk: page from many, many editors. Jayjg (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * jguk, being BOLD with policies is generally a Bad Idea. Like contentious articles, the best course of action - the only one which is likely to succeed at all - is to discuss changes, gain consensus for the changes, then, and only then, incorporate the changes. In this case, silence does not denote consent. It denotes non-acceptance, non-support. In your case, the changes had already been discussed and rejected, so there may have been no percieved need to re-reject that which had already failed to gain support. Must we re-state objections each and every time you propose the same changes? This is disruptive. If you have something new, feel free to make a case. Otherwise, please give it (and us) a rest. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability/temp - working draft to merge WP:Reliable sources to WP:V
In the light of the above discussions, I have started a working draft on Verifiability/temp with the following aims:


 * To import a definition of "reliable sources" into the WP:V policy (to make it clear what we mean by the term now WP:RS has fallen by the wayside).
 * To stress, in the discussion on sources on the project page, that common sense needs to be applied to the definition.
 * To outline the sort of questions people should ask themselves when considering whether a source is reliable.
 * Where possible, to shorten the text without losing any of the concepts behind the current version of the policy.

Constructive comments are welcome on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/temp, jguk 12:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm noting here that Jguk is conducting discussions about this here, on my talk page, on his talk page, on the village pump, on the WP:ATT talk page, and is now proposing to discuss it on the draft talk page. This is what happened last time too. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So how about we move all those discussions to the WP:ATT talk page? ( Radiant ) 14:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I propose we move Verifiability/temp to User:jguk/Verifiability/temp, where he can work in isolation to his heart's content. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's as sensible as suggesting we move Attribution to User:SlimVirgin/Attribution, jguk 15:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really. The /temp page is basically written by one person and has no talk page, whereas the attribution page has seen hundreds of edits and comments from a plethora of users. I don't think it's wise to discard all of that; perhaps Jguk could make some changes to WP:ATT to address his concerns? ( Radiant ) 15:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To be more specific, WP:ATT has been worked on by over 60 editors, with comments on the Talk: page by over 110 editors. In addition jguk editing WP:ATT would be a bad idea; instead he should suggest any proposed changes on the Talk: page, as WP:ATT is pretty stable now, and jguk's personal views on what the content policies should say rarely coincide with either what they currently say, or what other Wikipedians think they should say. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I find that comment not very nice; you're basically implying a personal attack, while Jguk is only trying to help. ( Radiant ) 16:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We've been through this before with Jguk many, many times. His proposals don't get support, but he installs them anyway, engages in revert wars to retain them, gives up eventually, rinse and repeat. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't had much prior interaction with either of you but wouldn't it be easier if you'd both cooperate and edit the same page to reach a compromise? Incidentally I would like to see a link or two about these allegations you make. ( Radiant ) 16:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, SlimVirgin's latest assertion is that WP:NOT and WP:Copyrights are not content policies. Mine is. Which assertion do you think most people would agree with? jguk 16:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The WP:ATT page started out as being written by one person and with no talk page. That's the same with any new proposal.


 * The reason I am not participating fully in trying to improve ATT is that I find it impossible to deal with SlimVirgin. And I can see others treated similarly to me. Say something on the talk page, it is dismissed out of hand without discussion. Make an amendment to the proposed policy (together with a discussion), it is reverted (without discussion). I don't see any ability to collaborate of WP:ATT. It is flawed, though not irredeemably so, but every attempt to remove those flaws is met with a brick wall. SlimVirgin no doubt has much to add by being there - but she also needs to stand back - allow others their say - allow the page to go off in directions she does not initially approve of, knowing that if others disagree with them, then they will change.


 * At present WP:ATT is a poor substitute for the current version of WP:V. At present I feel I and others are effectively prevented from trying to improve it - and saying I shouldn't edit it is further proof of this apparent commitment to exclude editors from discussions. Go down this route, come what may you will not have buy-in.


 * Also despite what I say above, if there really is going to be a new commitment to collaboration (for others as well as just for me), I am eager to help develop good, working, easy to understand policies. This objective is common to a lot of people - I just hope this commonality of purpose can be used to WP's advantage, jguk 16:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that at least a third of the present content of the WP:V page is Jguk's (or imported here by Jguk); at least another third was written (or imported here) by SlimVirgin. No other wikipedians had such substantial contributions to this policy page as these two authors.

So, again, as I did at WP:VPP I'd ask you both to bury your hatchets, and collaborate. It has worked before: not as smooth as one would have liked, and that is my only request: make it a bit smoother this time. We all know that in the end this crucial Wikipedia policy is going to have (under whatever name) substantial contributions of both of you. --Francis Schonken 16:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What you say isn't correct. This was Jguk's version of the policy, which he inserted on January 31. This is the current version. If you read them, rather than glance, you'll see they have very little in common. Jguk did not write this policy. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't a personal issue, it's a policy issue. There's no "hatchet to bury". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * hatchet? Sorry, but the impression I get is that needs to cool off a bit, and collaborate with other editors. This is not a SlimVirgin vs Jguk issue. It is  Jguk vs "anyone-that-does-not-agree-with-Jguk-style-and-opinions" ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, Jossi. I have been frustrated - but the frustration has been at a palpable failure to discuss issues from SlimVirgin. It's the feeling that you are against a brick wall. Open a thread on a talk page, SV ignores you until you edit the project page - in which case it is "revert" without explanation. Ask for an explanation addressing the issues, there is a response that addresses none of the reasons why the content of the edit is wrong. Open a new thread on a talk page, get it swamped with comment posted to user talk pages about requests, and her refusal, to discuss the issue at hand. This is not just my opinion, two other WPians, who I do not know, have freely commented that she is responding to my comments by making ad hominem remarks (ie by ignoring the issue and playing the man not the ball).


 * It is not unreasonable to request that someone disagreeing with an edit explains why they consider the content of that edit to be inappropriate. It is also not unreasonable to request that someone explains why they have made a particular edit. And that's what I want, constructive discussion on talk pages. Only then can we collaborate. My fear is that that is not happening. Not just with me, but with many others too. jguk 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't buy it. I just looked through your contribs. Seems to me that you are in a solo campaign targeting each and every policy. May I suggest you take a short break from editing policy pages? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As you've looked through my contributions, you'll be aware of the emphasis I've placed on wishing to discuss issues and my attempts to get SV (in particular) to do just that. If you look through SV's contributions today, you will note that there are many reverts, and many comments on talk pages - none discussing content until she apparently ran up against 3RR. Things would be so much better if we could just discuss issues first rather go through all this nonsense first - such as SV's most recent revert, which is of Centrx's change of "challenged" to "disputed". Personally I'm indifferent on the issue, but Centrx clearly thinks the change is an improvement. Surely SV owes it to him at least to say why she disagreed. I though WP:CIVIL came out against reversion without explanation?


 * I have already told Centrx why I disagree. Must I now repeat myself two or three times on different pages? The reason is that "challenged" is the word used across several policies, and disputed means something different. I can challenge an edit without disputing the accuracy of it. But you can't dispute an edit; you can only dispute something in it: a fact, the truth of it, whatever. It's a question of good writing. Must every single syllable be explained several times? No, of course not. You're out to cause trouble, that's all. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  22:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * jguk, it's pretty clear you decide you want to make major changes to a policy, you sometimes announce in some obscure place that you plan to do so, and then, when you get no response (because no-one has noticed, or because you never bothered to mention it in the first place), you come in and delete half the policy and/or change its entire meaning. You've done this time and again, and the response you get is completely unsurprising. SlimVirgin just happens to watch policy pages, and is often the first to notice it. This isn't about anyone else, so please stop trying to shed blame. This is about you. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop this absurd spinning. I didn't "run into 3RR" until an hour ago, and it was you who turned up to delete half the policy without discussion. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As noted before, and as Jayjg should be aware, I am not seeking to change policy, merely to present it better - which I understood to be his and SV's aim too. Nor did I delete policy - as noted before, I reworded to make it clearer to follow. If I failed in that aim, say where - don't just attack me in the hope I'll go away. I explained my aims first at 9 o'clock today at the top of the preceding thread, and then again at 12 o'clock today at the top of this thread. Do you agree with these aims, if not, why not - and what would you have in their place? If you agree with the aims, how would you better things to meet them?


 * Stop this bizarre dishonesty. You deleted half the policy. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am still, despite asking many, many times, asking what the disagreement is over the suggested amendments. Saying something is a "major change" time and time again is just not helpful. Explicitly, what do you disagree with about my suggestion on Verifiability/temp? Are there aspects you agree with? How would you improve the text?

Please discuss these issues. Discussing possible amendments and different viewpoints is an integral part of collaboration, and collaboration, when it works, is what makes WP great. jguk 22:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * SV. Please address the merits of the edit. Saying "you deleted half the policy" means nothing. It doesn't discuss the merits of the edit at all. Your claim isn't actually true, but even if it were does not address whether it might be a good thing to do. The underlying policy is not changed in the wording. Have you even read it yet? Nothing permitted now would be prohibited if my suggested rewording was accepted. And nothing prohibited now would be permitted. Instead of shouting to the rooftops, could you do me the courtesy of actually standing back and considering what I am saying? I'm sure some bits you'll find you actually do agree with - or at least the principle behind it - even if others you disagree with. And at no point have you even commented on the many words I actually added to the policy. jguk 23:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think SlimVirgin's concerns probably significantly overlap mine: your version offers no specific guidance on how to deal with the problematic sources mentioned in the current policy, particularly sources with a "poor reputation for fact checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight" or self-published sources. You merely point out that asking whether this is the case is important, but don't say what should be done if it is the case. Your version is great for somebody who has a reasonably good idea how to deal with sources already, is mature enough to understand the importance of using good sources, and is making a good faith effort to improve wikipedia in an NPOV-compliant way. Unfortunately, not all editors live up to this ideal all of the time. The existing policy, with its specific rules, makes it easier to deal with these cases than your version would, which would probably require a lot of talk-page argument to resolve whether any individual source was a reasonable one to use. Yes, the current rules go too far in the opposite direction, IMO, but we shouldn't overreact and throw them out completely. JulesH 09:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Number of content policies
See Wikipedia talk:List of policies. ( Radiant ) 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (I'm trying to move the discussion to one place, that seems prudent. Sorry for the confusion) ( Radiant ) 16:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)