Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 16

Verifiability of television episodes
I am unsure of the specific impalementation of this policy in the case of television episodes. In an article about a specific television episode, is information about that episode not implicitly verifiable? If not, how is the episode supposed to be sourced?

The nature of this question is that Hell Comes to Quahog has been the location of a voracious edit war this past hour or so, dealing with the fact that one editor believes that content in the Notes and Cultural References sections of the article (pre edit-war version) is in violation of WP:V (among other policies). I am not a participant in the edit war, though I am trying to bring it to a resolution.

Thanks in advance for any help! –Dvandersluis 17:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Any television episode, broadcast by say one of the top ten broadcasters, is also stored on video which may be purchased. Sometimes you can also get these on loans from libraries.  So it is inherently verifiable. Wjhonson 17:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but there may be a gap of several months between the first broadcast of a television show, and the availability of videotapes or DVDs for purchase. The show might be considered unverifiable during this time gap. --Gerry Ashton 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but that gap can be closed almost instantly at times with itunes and other websites offering episodes within minutes/hours after the initial airingGrande13 20:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Gerry Ashton is also being rather USA centric there - if the programme is popular then it is likely to be transmitted in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. within a few weeks to a few months of the first broadcast (e.g. Lost, series three started on 4 October in the US and will start on 19 November in the UK), allowing for verification. Also currently in the UK the most popular programmes (Doctor Who, Torchwood, Grey's Anatomy, Desperate Housewives) are often repeated within a week of transmission, again allowing one to verify claims. --Neo 20:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Family Guy is one television shows page that should include all these cultural references and notes as some of the material used on the show is so abstract not everyone understands it ,so the episode page can be a point of reference and explanation. It is not a retelling of the joke, but more information the the reference in the joke. Since Family Guy is weak on plot, these cultural references are necessary. So basically the note and cultural references should remain 216.177.121.212 18:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem using works of fiction as a source, provided that the edits conform to the established policies and guidelines. Some of the relevant sections are quoted below.

WP:WAF - a guideline, tells us "Wikipedia policy on verifiabilityrequires that articles "rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." However, articles written from an in-universe perspective are overly reliant on the fiction itself as a primary source. Lacking as they are in any critical analysis of the subject, these articles may invite original research. In other words, lacking critical analysis from secondary sources, Wikipedia editors and fans of the subject often feel compelled to provide such analysis themselves."

WP:WAF-- "This often involves using the fiction to give plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations. This is not inherently bad, provided that the fictional passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research. Note that when using the fictional work itself to write these descriptions the work of fiction must be cited as a source."

WP:OR a policy, states-- "Any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."

WP:OR-- "An article or section of an article that relies on primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."

So as long as you are only describing something that happens in the episode and you follow the directions at WP:CITE for citing the source in the references section, then you may use the episode itself as a source. If however, you want to say that 1 work is an allusion/homage/parody of or to another work, then you must find a reliable 3rd party source that has already published that connection and cite that as a source. If you watch an episode and think that scene A looks like scene B in another show, you might be correct but to add that to the encyclopedia (absent a reliable 3rd party source that has already published that connection) is considered original research and is subject to removal. Please stop by the trivia cleanup project and check out what we are doing. Also, please check out Make Love, Not Warcraft which has been cleaned of cruft and is now being reviewed as a Good Article candidate. Cheers. L0b0t 21:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the argument being made for family guy should have an exception, as it is consists of a much higher percentage of cultural references and callbacks and the format used for south park might not be produce the same benefits for an episode of family guy216.177.121.212 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Family Guy should not have special treatment. We're not an episode guide, and we're not here to help people understand the jokes in Family Guy. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While family guy does need to be cleaned up quite a bit, I also believe that some sort of cultural reference section is needed so people have an easy and quick place to go to check upon a joke they that calls upon something they know nothing or little about. So while the note category should probably be fixed, the cultural references are a well used tool for deciphering some of the randomness of the show Grande13 22:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a verifiability issue here for things that happen in an episode. Some fairly obvious references seem to fall into a grey area for verifiability. I think the real issue here is that we need to limit the amount of these notes. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that in general we're overdoing the "cultural references". If something is an alleged reference (e.g. this sketch contains a fish so it might be a reference to that other sketch which also contains a fish) then it's original research. Using exact quotes is an obvious reference, but many inferred subtle references may be entirely coincidental, and it's not our job to speculate. ( Radiant ) 10:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Gerry you're misunderstanding what I'm stating. Every episode, broadcast by a major station, is avaliable, immediately for purchase.  You call the station, ask them for a copy, pay the fifteen bucks or whatever.  There is no waiting. Wjhonson 18:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this really apply to technical articles on facts that can be deduced logically?
I have a problem with the all-purposefulness of this "official policy"

I have a repeating problem with someone who feels he has the unquestioned right to undo any edits in a tech article where he sees no citations. And he comments his undos with the note "see WP:Verifiability".

An example: As someone who has years of experience on a specific topic, I have learned, partly from my own deductions, that certain things can be done. So I described them by adding them to an existing article. He, who has never heard (or thought) of this, undid my edit, asking me to provide a citation.

However, I can't provide a citation because it rather "new research", done by me or other with special knowledge, experience or understand. In this case, I then had to add explanations to the Talk page so others could follow my deductions to make this person realize that his undoing my edit was inappropriate.

Unfortunately, that same person has now again undone another's additions, although I fully agreed with those added statements, meaning that they were quite correct. Again, the said person removed them with the reasoning that there's no cititation to be found. Yet, more experienced people would understand that the newly added statements were correct.

On both cases it appears that the undoer is not able to comprehend the issue well, but still feels he must control it. Sure, there's also the need to educate this person that he should first ask, and only undo someone's edit after it has been discussed. But that's not my point here.

My point is: It should be made clear that this policy does not ALWAYS apply. In the cases I described, there is simply no citation to be found, yet they were correct. I do not like others to think they can question technical statements by a simple (and rather blind) reference to this policy.

Can something be done about this, please?

-- Tempel 14:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It really depends on the complexity of your deduction; could you show us an example please? Basic math doesn't require a source (e.g. stating that "77 is the natural number following 76 and preceding 78, and the smallest positive integer requiring five syllables in English." is self-evident). But complex deduction that may be easy to an expert in the field could be incomprehensibly arcane to an outsider. ( Radiant ) 14:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since I've now brought up the issue with the undo edit on the affected page, I might as well refer to it now from here. It's File_Allocation_Table. The two cases I meant were deductions that could be made from working with the FAT system. To someone who works with this enough, he'll simply agree that the things are what they are. In detail, these were: I just realized that the person who undid my first edit referred also to No_original_research. This he did when I argued that from reading the specification on the FAT file system, one could deduce the limitations I had described. Somehow, I had the impression he's not able to know the difference between a specification and a interpretation. He did quote the interpretation the the truth and the deduction from the spec incorrect. So, what would you suggest here? There was not quote to find to support what I had written, yet it could be deduced from a spec or by "reading" things readily available, even if they're not present as an article on the web or in another known form of publication. And the person I fought this over with simply said "you did original research and that does not belong in WP". Is he right? --Tempel 14:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I claimed that while a common belief is that a FAT16 formatted disk can only have certain maximum number of files (that number was 512) in the root directory, it would be possible to enlarge this number at time of formatting the disk. The person did not believe this. I explained to him that the spec provides for this without explicitly stating it (but nothing disallowed it either). He found an article saying that disk always have only up to 512 files in the root dir and took this as a spec - but it's not a spec, it's only a description of what is currently usual or common. Later others added comments telling of little-known programs or options that actually made possible what I had claimed. But those were hard to come by and I had not known of them - was that reason enough to deny my statements?
 * Recently, someone added a long section about how file fragmentation happens on a FAT formatted disk. What the person wrote was technically correct, I knew this from experience. Yet, there's no article explaining this. But "reading" a FAT disk would just explain it. Of course, not many people can do that. But the fact exists, and anyone with enough understanding would be able to see this. It's just not to be found in an article on the web.
 * Well, in the first case I would simply link to the specs (I'm sure they're on the 'net somewhere?). In the second case, I would add a link to e.g. the description of Norton Speed Disk, or a different defragging tool, or if you find none, link to the spec again. The issue in the second case may also be that the language used in the explanation is overly technical; maybe the explanation needs to explain things further? HTH. ( Radiant ) 15:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wording of nutshell
Can we add either "question" or "challenge" to the third point of the nutshell so it reads: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to question and/or remove it." ? Harryboyles 09:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done M a rtinp23 10:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not the nutshell, it's the policy (the rest of the page being merely discussion). But the change is an improvement, jguk 15:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would posit that it is not an improvment. Unsourced info should be removed on sight, not tagged  for months waiting to see if the editor that added it will eventually come back and follow policy.  We have been, I think, far too tolerant with unsourced claims, especially in articles about fictional subjects.  If one can't be bothered to provide a source then one's edits should be excised.  The encyclopedia is filling up with original Research, speculation, and inference of connections based on facts not in evidence.  Absent reliable sources, Wikipedia ceases to be a general purpose encyclopedia and becomes a blog. L0b0t 16:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * it should be removed eventually, but not instantly unless it is pure nonesense, maybe the period for which the tag exists should be a week/month so there is ample time to find proper sources or to integrate the material in some other format. If the item cant be sourced within that time period then it can be removed no questions asked. 67.184.160.211 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree, you either come correct with a sourced edit, or you don't edit the encyclopedia. The editorial standards at Wikipedia are VERY lax and if an editor is unwilling to abide by the few simple policies we do have, then their contributions are not welcome.  Cheers. L0b0t 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * that rule could be fine for new info to be added, but for information that is currently already listed, then there should be a period to find sourcing after its tagged 67.184.160.211 20:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles
Regulars to this page may be interested in this proposal. Please comment on the talk page there. jguk 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence
I'd like to amend the first sentence from


 * Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

to


 * Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's content policies. It is complemented by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

as I believe it's more important to emphasise that these policies work hand-in-hand rather than the number of them. jguk 13:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's particularly worth noting that WP:NOT is also a content policy, but isn't on this list, yet the current phrasing implies that the list is complete. JulesH 09:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

These three policies are our three content policies, so I do not see the need to change the wording. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT is one of our fundamental policies, but it is not really a content policy. This formulation has had the support of the community for quite a while, and I do not see what is prompting the need for that change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's more a case of stressing which policies are complementary. WP:NOT, WP:Copyrights and WP:GFDL are all key content policies - indeed any content not complying with these should be removed. And any discussion of what constitutes a content policy would need to consider them. I don't see anyone in the community disagreeing with that - realistically. They're just different types of policy to WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, which are complementary. It is the complementary nature of the policies that is key here. jguk 00:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The understanding that there are three main content policies V, NOR, and V is a long-standing one. That is all I am saying. If you want to change that, you'll need to do a lot of convincing around. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the important thing to note is that V, NOR and NPOV complement each other. They work hand-in-hand. Hence the suggested revised wording. jguk 12:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The classification of all policies, at List of policies, has the three main content policies in the "Content and Style" category, along with four other (lesser) policies. "Legal and copyright" is a separate category.


 * Perhaps it would suffice to change this policy so that the first sentence reads three main content policies rather than three content policies? John Broughton |  Talk 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't the key point that the policies work hand-in-hand? If so, we should stress that, not how many similar policies there are. jguk 12:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As the suggested rewording does not dispute the number of content policies (eg by suggesting a different number), which appears to be the concerns discussed I above, I'm tempted to introduce it into the text (absent further comments here to the contrary). jguk 12:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As said above, these three policies are our three main content policies, so I do not see the need to change the wording besides adding "main" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you see the number as so important? Indeed, more important than saying that they need to be considered together rather than in isolation? That's what's puzzling me. jguk 07:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I support the change. The number isn't important and it's accuracy is debatable (it doesn't matter if it is accurate or not, this debate proves it's debatable), so it might as well be removed. --Tango 23:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to change this, you will need to argue the case also at WP:NOR and WP:NPOV as these use exactly the same wording. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It should only be argued once. I'll put a note on those talk pages pointing to this discussion. --Tango 00:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The three are so tied together they should be made into a single policy. Efforts to join at least two of them is ingoing. The point is that they are tightly interconnected; not that they are "main". As they are not more important than the policies which say to stay legal by not invading the privacy of nonpublic persons (BLP), not breaking IP laws (mainly copyright), and not defaming (people and corporations). WAS 4.250 00:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Hopefuly we can soon get enough support for WP:ATT that does already an admirable job of combining V, NOR and RS into one sensible policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is such a big deal, but I note that in general our policy (and guideline) pages don't start with "this is one of our 5 legal policies" or "this page is one of our 7 spam guidelines", so I don't quite see why this one should. An important reason for having policy pages is educating novice users. Thus, listing related policies is very useful, and stating exactly how many policies we have doesn't really help them. ( Radiant ) 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Prohibiting "self-published" sources?
Hi.

Does "self-published" sources include publishing your research in an academic journal? Also, why the prohibition, anyway? Is it because there is no way to check the accuracy of such things, at least not in a Wikipedia-compatible way (because Wikipedia is NOT a peer reviewer for reference sources, Wikipedia is just an ENCYCLOPEDIA)? 70.101.147.74 03:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you publish a paper in an academic journal, then the owner of the journal is the publisher, so unless you own the journal, that isn't self-publishing. The prohibition is meant to keep people from using Wikipedia to publish crackpot science, fringe historical analysis, and other such material. Since most professional publishers have some level of fact checking or other quality review, this limitation provides some minimal level of quality assurance for Wikipedia. dryguy 15:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It also limits the use of advertisements, press releases, company web sites and so on. While these things may be valid supplementary material, the core of an article about a person or organization should be third-party reports, not the unchecked claims of the subject or affiliated persons (first party) nor of anyone with a potential adversarial relationship to the subject (second party).  The reasoning is exactly the same: we rely on others who are better qualified and better equipped to check the facts.  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That is correct. Self-published sources can be used alongside other third party sources, with proper attribution of the self-published sources. Press releases if properly attributed, can present the organization's viewpoints on certain aspects that may be needed for NPOV. Remember that NPOV asks editors to describe significant viewpoints, and these include the viewpoints of the subject of the article. On the other hand, if there are no third party sources on a subject, then most probably the subject does not deserve an article in WP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Precisely why I want to make sure that phrasing remains clear in the proposed WP:ATT. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And yet WP:ATT still includes that absurd (and thankfully oft-ignored) requirement that if we use a primary source, that source has to be intelligible to someone knowing absolutely nothing about the subject. If we're going for clarity, and common sense, we need to make clear that any reliable source can be used to substantiate claims. The nature of the source is a factor taken into consideration when deciding if it is reliable, not a determinant of whether we should use it. jguk 20:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I have seen, 99% of the time, the primary/secondary advice is right on target. Professional historians are taught to use primary sources because they are supposed to conduct original research, which Wikipedia eschues.   OR is something that should be done by trained professionals or under professional guidance: Don't try this on Wikipedia.  If you can use a primary source in a way that does not constitute OR, then you are either using it to support a reliable secondary source's interpretation (acceptable) or its interpretation does not require special expertise.   There's no third option.  Robert A.West (Talk) 20:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Two points, if I may. First, it is perfectly reasonable for a specialist writing on Wikipedia to deduce from a primary source information that any specialist in that field would deduce. That, of itself, is not original research since there is nothing original about it. Second, although the approach stated on WP:ATT and WP:NOR has some validity when talking about contentious issues where there is significant research and debate being conducted, it is far too rigorous for non-contentious points, particularly in non-academic areas. It's reasonable, for example, to use a first-hand account of a sports match written in a newspaper as a reliable source for what happened in that game. It's also reasonable to use an official communiqué from a summit as evidence of what was concluded at that summit, even if it is couched in technical jargon. Rigour has its place - sometimes we need to be as rigorous as &*!@ - particularly in our more academic articles - but at other times we can accept that for low-impact, non-contentious information, lower quality sources are ok. jguk 21:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that all Wikipedia-vetted specialists can do as you suggest. There's just one problem: Wikipedia does not vet specialists, so the set of editors who can validly do that is empty.  If the specialist can make his reasoning apparent to enough editors to establish consensus that the reasoning is straightforward and obviously correct, then specialist knowledge is not absolutely required.  It's helpful, but not essential.  As a case in point, the legal articles benefit greatly from the input of legal specialists to distinguish rationes decidendi from obiter dicta, but lots of persons other than legal technicians are sufficiently skilled in close reading to appreciate and evaluate the results.  Moreover, the conclusions can be checked in secondary authority, which answer to secondary sources in historiography.  This is not a matter of disresepecting experts, but of not accepting unverifiable claims of expertise and going with the genuine, published experts. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The newspaper account of a sports match is, for Wikipedia purposes, sufficiently separated from the event that it is not what we mean by a primary source, unless there is a serious issue of bias or culture. Consider some of the unfair and unreasonable things that were written about Jackie Robinson at the time.  I agree that the terminology breaks down, because an historian would consider it a primary source, but I have lost that point repeatedly, and think that it would be better to explain in a FAQ than argue further.  As for the official communiqué, using them for the bare facts of who was in attendance is clearly permitted.  On the other hand, any official description of what was accomplished, unless a signed protocol, needs interpretation.  What do we do with, "A frank exchange of views and productive dialogue on core values?"  We all know that probably means a verbal row, yet we can't rely on "common knowledge" to do that.  Robert A.West (Talk) 21:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What if your self-founded, self-owned publisher becomes a very big, trustworthy and reputable company? 170.215.83.4 08:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert West wrote that is OK to use a primary source in WP, provided " its interpretation does not require special expertise." This is not quite true. It's perfectly OK if the reader will need special expertise to interpret a passage that is a direct quote or close paraphrase of a primary source; it is only if the editor is using specialist expertise to interpret the source that there is a problem. Also note that when editors discuss a passage on a talk page, it is not unusual for the editors to have specialist knowledge, and the conversation may very well be unintelligible to a reader chosen at random. --Gerry Ashton 23:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are not encyclopedia space, so are rather beside the point: one cannot discuss whether to use a source and be fully within NOR/V/NPOV. In any case, I thought there was no ambiguity that we are talking about editor-supplied interpretations.  Readers are always free to interpret anything.  Of course, in some cases inclusion of the uninterpreted primary-source content would violate NPOV, but that is another matter.  Robert A.West (Talk) 23:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is that when discussing whether an article passage correctly represents the primary source it is drawn from, the editors discussing the passage are likely to use their specialist knowledge. It would seem Robert West is telling us that a consensus of the editors that the passage agrees with the source is insufficient; there should be a consensus of the editors that any randomly chosen reader could see that the passage agrees with the source. --Gerry Ashton 23:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are four basic cases. I consider the minutes of the Wannsee Conference as the source in each case.
 * The editors make no interpretive claims, and none are required. Example: The minutes are cited as the source for attendees, etc.  This is not a problem, since minutes as such are within common experience.  If we have another source that says Heydrich was late for one meeting, we can expect most readers to understand that minutes often fail to reflect tardyness.
 * The editors make no interpretive claims, and some are required. Example: The minutes are quoted to the effect that "forced emigration" was the goal.  This is improper: a non-specialist might not realize this is euphemism.
 * The editors make interpretive claims on their own. Example: The euphemistic language is exposed without secondary source.  This is improper: a reliable source is needed for such a major claim.
 * The editors cite a number of secondary sources on the nature of the euphemisms involved, and use these to interpret the primary source. This is not a problem, as the sources for the claim are reliable and secondary.
 * With which of the above is Gerry Ashton disagreeing? Robert A.West (Talk) 01:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The question in my mind is when does an allowable paraphrase become a disallowed interpretation (assuming the paraphrase is created by a WP editor and is not taken from a secondary source). I don't see anything in the minutes of the Wannsee Conference that is apt to generate grey-area paraphrases, but the problem could easily occur in technical articles. For example, text from an old published lab notebook is paraphrased, but units are converted into modern units. The editors discuss it on the talk page, and a concensus forms that the conversions are correct, so the paraphrase is OK. The editors who frequent the talk page can do the most complex unit conversions in their sleep. But, the conversion is beyond the skill of many Wikipedia readers, so perhaps the conversion is contrary to the Verifiability policy. --Gerry Ashton 02:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One does not need to be a specialist to do unit conversions. Any reasonably bright eighth-grader science student should be able to do them.   Now, some Wikipedians lack that level of skill, but enough have it that we have a reasonable expectation that there are hordes of editors and readers who remember dimensional analysis and can check the work.   Now, I understand that there is a gray area -- there always is.  What if the reasoning involved an integration by parts?  To how many Wikipedians is it obvious how Bayes theorem applies to Democratic peace theory?  The last is not common enough to salvage such an observation from being OR.  I am not sure which side of the line I would place the integral: it would probably depend on whether the math project could be expected to take a look. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, becuase that might allow bias on the part of the "expert interpreter", pontentially leading to a breach of WP:NPOV? 170.215.83.4 08:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Or, he might not do the work correctly and just be flat-out wrong. A published source will have been double-checked by someone competent. Robert A.West (Talk) 08:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean that he is "flat-out wrong"? I thought that statements need not be true, it even says so on WP:V. Any clarification here? 170.215.83.4 03:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * By "double-checked" we can only say "it says what it says". We cannot repeat the analysis or experiment that led to it saying what it says.  Verification means, going to that source and checking that it actually says what it says, nothing more.  "Flat-out wrong" is not something we do here.  We *can* however use conflicting sources to show that some fact is in conflict.  We cannot present results of our own experiments to show a conflict.  We *can* use sources, not experiments, to show that there is a conflict. Wjhonson 19:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

JBKramer's edit
In the subsection WP:V JBKramer added the following sentence: However, for articles that are about content that was published first and even exclusively on blogs, linking to the specified blogs is not only acceptable, but practically a requirement. I feel this is overly broad. For the most part, content that has been exclusively published in blogs should not have a Wikipedia article about it. --Gerry Ashton 02:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted. Apparently, the concern was over the Rather/Bush papers affair, where blogs played an acknowledged role.  Once secondary sources start analyzing blog reports, I can't see any reason to treat them less well than other primary sources.  The only risk is that the blogger will modify his blog to emphasize his role, and that is not such a huge risk. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I edited the policy to what appeared to be strong consensus, to which I deferred. JBKramer 03:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw no discussion here of those issues. What consensus? Robert A.West (Talk) 03:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was clear from the results of the RFC on killian documents that I misunderstood policy to prevent blogs as being used as sources. If it turns out that I accurately understood policy, then I suggest there are a number of individuals responding to RFCs that are not remotely versed in policy. JBKramer 03:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That article is a very specific case. There is no need to change policy to accommodate exceptions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And not much of an exception, either. The blog claims formed the basis for research by journalists, and were verifiably cited, IIRC.  Wikipedia is relying on the confirming research moreso than the blogs.  Robert A.West (Talk) 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally, I don't think 6 or 7 posts over a holiday weekend constitute a sufficient concensus to change the policy. Should we discuss whether "stories that broke on blogs, then moved to MSM" (the Killian documents and Mark Foley scandal pages are fine examples) need a specific discussion, and whether it should be on WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:ATT?  TheronJ 14:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the big issue is. As soon as MSM picked it up, the blog became a primary source supporting a secondary source, and we have rules for using those.  If something can come in under either of two theories, treat it less restrictively, not more.  Robert A.West (Talk) 14:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, WP:NOT a blog and a directory. If you want to comment on blog entries, comment on the blog's comment page, not on the Wikipedia (and opinionated comments are just about all you can make if all you have as a reference ("exclusively") is the blog, so these comments would be "by definition" totally and irredemably unverifiable and POV, so also unsuitable for inclusion by those as well.). 170.215.83.4 19:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Challenged
ElectricEye, not everything that is unreferenced is likely to be challenged. That 2 plus 2 is 4 is not likely to be challenged. The phrase implies that a degree of common sense is needed. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is correct, but common sense without presenting a reliable source is original research. ^_^ In my opinion, everything can be sourced and if things arent they should be sourced or simply erased. -- Electric Eye  ( talk ) 03:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That is your opinion, but it is neither consensus, nor sensible. By the very nature of human discourse, a few tidbits will always slip through uncited.  Mostly, they will not even be noticed.  It isn't original research to condense a list of offspring into "Five sons and four daughters."  Wikipedians can count, add, subtract and note that if Paris is the capital of France, it is certainly in France.  Robert A.West (Talk) 03:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL. No need to tell me this, I already know it: it's common sense.  I'm talking about something else. -- Electric  Eye  ( talk ) 04:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * EE, if we were going to delete every uncited sentence, we'd have to delete most of every article. By all means start the process and we'll see how you get on. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)  (that's a joke by the way, just in case ...) ;-D
 * Hehe, I've seen that joke before! -- Electric Eye  ( talk ) 04:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fast forward: User gets banned for vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 05:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would WP:AGF if any editor removed all unsourced listings of Prominent figures in some the Somali clan articles, for example. Which is part of the basis for my coming here and bringing this up. ^_^ -- Electric  Eye  ( talk ) 04:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Awwww...my money was on WP:POINT. Rats! Robert A.West (Talk) 06:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How much money? =) -- Electric Eye  ( talk ) 05:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the Somali clans where they start listing Prominent figures. You'd think common sense says to remove the unverified information to the talk page for discussion, verification and the results written into the article. Not the other way around. -- Electric Eye  ( talk ) 05:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a judgment call as to whether disputed items are removed from the text and taken to the talk page, or kept in the text until after someone is given an opportunity to provide their citation. The only exception is if the claim relates to a living person or is otherwise highly controversial (ie damage could occur because of a mistake). Different WPians prefer different approaches. Pick whichever one suits you best.


 * Just remember that the aim is to keep valid information in WP, and this means encouraging the citing of reliable sources. The way that encouragement is given is not so important. jguk 09:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jguk. I'll bring this up with some other editors who seem to be watching these articles and see what they think we should do. -- Electric  Eye  ( talk ) 11:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Confused by change
I haven't been following this closely, but I see that the following change has been made: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to challenge or remove it." Can someone give a short, clear summary of why this change was made? It seems quite odd to me. - Jmabel | Talk 07:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it seems odd. Some Wikipedians, particularly for less controversial claims, prefer to leave information in the text but challenge it on the talk page (perhaps with adding a "citation needed" message in the text too). My understanding is that action, provided it is done in good faith, gives the obligation on editors wishing to retain material to justify it. The old text covers this situation. The revision doesn't. jguk 12:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * seeking to challenge is an odd way to put it, I think. More proper would be not on those challenging it or seeking to remove it.  Putting a  tag into an article IS a challenge to whatever material is tagged.  (And I support reversing the change, with slightly clearly language.)  John Broughton  |  Talk 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding confusion by making language clearer
There's one section of this page that has long been a bugbear of mine - largely because it is so confusing. Those used to teaching people or taking people through new topics will know that once you have confused someone on a key concept, it takes a lot to get them unconfused. Much better to lay down what you mean in a clear, unambiguous logical format first.

The passage I don't like is:


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

The confusing bit is the "not truth". It seems weird to state upfront that WP does not care about truth. Of course, that's not what it means, but then there's nothing other than the "not truth" bit, in bold font, that a new reader has to work on to understand what we mean. It's no surprise that even those who defend keeping a reference to the point in the policy freely admit that many WPians are confused on the point, and no mistake that it is listed as the most frequently asked question on WP:ATT/FAQ.

We really should address this confusion, and after much thought, I think I have a formula that has a fair chance of succeeding. The revised text (absent bolding) would be:


 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. It is not sufficient for something to be true, you need to demonstrate that it is true by providing a reliable source.


 * "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

I reckon that this covers the key point of the "not truth" bit, and yet, by explaining it rather than stating it as a stark statement, means that there would be little confusion. jguk 14:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed already many a times. The formulation of "Verifiability, not truth" has been there for a long time and it is designed to make the point across. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing what it has been designed to do. I'm pointing out the quite obvious issue that it patently fails to get the right point across, and suggesting a way to put that point across that is clear. jguk 16:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe something like this, as a compromise? (I've tinkered with the last sentence, too.)


 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. It is not sufficient for something to be true; you need to demonstrate that it is true by providing a reliable source. This is particularly true for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged; without a source, it is likely to be removed.


 * -- John Broughton  |  Talk 17:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The rationale has to come as soon as the concept of "not truth" is introduced. Otherwise, you start by introducing confusion. A slight reordering of what you suggest (and either removing the bold font or putting the first two clauses in bold too) could achieve this (although I think my initial suggestion is better still):


 * It is not sufficient for something to be true, you need to demonstrate that it is true by providing a reliable source: the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. This is particularly true for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged; without a source, it is likely to be removed.

jguk 17:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd reword the first two sentences, for better flow/grammar, and change a word in the penultimate sentence and punctuation in the final sentence -- all tweaks, admittedly:


 * It is not sufficient for something to be true -- you need to demonstrate that it is true by providing a reliable source. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to confirm that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.  This is particularly true for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged: without a source, it is likely to be removed.


 * But I think you're going to run into trouble with this because the core concept - threshold - is in the second sentence, and I think a lot of poeple will argue that it should remain in/as the first sentence -- John Broughton |  Talk 15:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My original wording addresses this point:


 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. It is not sufficient for something to be true, you need to demonstrate that it is true by providing a reliable source.


 * "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

jguk 18:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Internal links to third party sources

 * See also previous discussion Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/archive8 and Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive10

I think this issue needs to be discussed further because it has been raised in the debate taking place at Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles.

Using internal links to another article which contain the sources for a statment is very common in Wikipedia articles. An example given in the earlier discussion was let us suppose that there is an article called Ten highest mountains in Africa and that, that list had been derived from 100 sources, with a detailed analysis of why those particular peaks have been chosen for the Wikipedia list. The current wording of this plolicy implies that all 100 sources need to be included in every article which mentions the list of 10 highest mountains in Africa. Placing every reference in every article for every Wikipedia link used as a source becomes a real maintenance issue: suppose that the sources for the list changes, then it would be necessary to edit all the subsidiary articles which use the list as well as the list itself. In day to day editing of Wikipedia articles, people are willing to accept statements like "mountain xyz is the fourth highest mountain in Africa", because they are willing to follow the link to the parent article for the sources. Only if the link article (parent article) does not have adequate sources are they likely to demand under this policy that the statement in the child article contain a third party source for verification. I think that this policy needs changing to reflect this because many/most articles rely to a lesser or greater extent on this premise.

There is of course a limit to how many nested links one should have to follow to find third party sources. I think that only a single link should be allowed, otherwise there is a danger of recursion where a circular link is created with no third party source cited for a disputed fact.

Some article types which rely very heavily on the use of links providing sources are:
 * Summary style (this includes many small stubs)
 * Timeline
 * List
 * Disambiguation.

If this policy is taken at face value then all disimbaguation pages need third party sources, unless one is willing to interpret the phrases: 2 Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.. 3 The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to challenge and/or remove it. to mean, as they do in practice, that an internal link can be used to provide reliable sources.

To stop pedants using WP:V as a club (and wasting a lot of time on reverts and talk page discussions), I think that it is necessary to include in this policy a statement, that reflects how Wikipedia links are already used, that third party sources can be provided by in-line links to other Wikipedia articles that already contain adequate third party sources.

--Philip Baird Shearer 12:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is the intention of the statement that Wikipedia can't be used as a source. I always consider this kind of thing as "including references by reference", so to speak.  But what we can't do is take one unsourced article and use it to back up another one; that just wouldn't work, and is what (I believe) the wording in the policy was intended to prevent. JulesH 12:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think JulesH is correct. WP:V has to be applied using common sense. A Wikipedia article cannot, of itself, be a source for another Wikipedia article - but it can be a useful reference for a list, say, provided the Wikipedia article being linked to clearly references the information being used in the article being linked from. If Philip, or someone else, can think of revised wording that makes this clear, then I'd support adding it to the policy page, if not, I'm inclined to leave it. jguk 13:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * DAB pages, lists and redirects are commonly held verifiable if they point to properly-sourced articles. Redirects never have sources.  This is less a matter of WP sourcing WP than of a distinction between entities in article space and actual articles.  Articles written in summary style are articles and tend to rely on the constituent articles, but again, they are not intended as stand-alone entities.  Robert A.West (Talk) 19:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree with the addition of "Reliable sources can be provided by an in-line link to another Wikipedia article that already contain adequate third-party sources" into the policy box.

Although true, I don't think it is as essential as the other three points already in the box. Plus, some will inevitably misunderstand it to mean that it is uniformly desirable to have internal links as sources.

I wouldn't be so concerned, however, if the text were removed from the policy box and placed later down in the discussion of the policy. jguk 13:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed a numbered item that encouraged providing a reliable source by linking to another Wikipedia article that has the source. With the specific exceptions of dab pages and articles written in WP:Summary style, this is a generally bad practice, because there is no guarantee that the source will remain in the target article. It also encourages laziness, because the target article may not use the source accurately. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I should add that I would be flabbergasted to learn that there was consensus for the addition. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Right... "This statement is referenced somewhere in the history of some other article" is a terrible way to reference something. Jkelly 17:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There's discussion of this up above at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. Can we somehow merge the discussions? jguk 17:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have boldly moved the section referenced to become the parent heading of this discussion. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To say "this is a generally bad practice, because there is no guarantee that the source will remain in the target article." is no more valid than saying that linking to on line sources is a bad idea because there is no guarantee that the source will remain on line. Are you really saying that all the articles on Wikipedia which rely on in-line links need to be source. The place to challenge for more sources is in the in-line link page not on the sentence that contains the in-line link. After all that will fix the source problem on two or more pages simultaneously.


 * The claim that in-line links to other Wikipedia articles are not sufficient is a massive move away from what is currently accepted in the day to day editing of Wikipedia articles. See for example the list I put higher up the page, are you claiming that all those type of articles should be removed if they do not contain reliable sources? Also what about the practical issue of the overheads on maintenance? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You previously asked for a detailed discussion, and I gave it to you in the section below. I am not sure what more you want.


 * As for policy. you have it backwards. Wikipedia policy is and has been that a Wiki (any Wiki) is not a reliable source.  The main reason has always been as I stated -- in contrast to most sites, a Wiki is subject to arbitrary change without notice.  The second reason is that there is no guarantee that any Wikipedia article has accurately represented its references.  If the editor of article A goes to the trouble of checking the references in article B, he may as well go ahead and include them in A.  The only reason to cite article A is to save the trouble of reference-checking in the first place.


 * As for the four special cases you cite, and which I discuss below, the deleted phrasing did not make me think about them -- it looked to me like blanket permission to bypass verifiability for any article by reference to any other article. Followed to its logical conclusion, Wikipedia could become a daisy-chain of bad information: article A relies on article B which relies on article C which once had a dubious source but now relies on article A.  Yes, there are undoubtedly thousands of articles that do this.  There are also undoubtedly thousands of copyvios, instances of original research, unsourced defamatory statements about living persons and so on.  The purpose of a policy page is not to describe what we do when we are at our worst and then enshrine it as acceptable practice.  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the daisy-chain problem if you look at the previous discussions you will see an example I gave (Bundesland), which is why I phrased the addition the way I did: "Reliable sources can be provided by an in-line link to another Wikipedia article that already contain adequate third-party sources." as this removes the daisy-chain problem. It is also phrased in such a way that it is not the tertiary information in the Wikipedia in-line link article that is being cited, but the adequate third-party sources in the inline-link article. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The five cases
There are five cases where one article might rely on another for verifiability. Some are valid, and others are bad practice. Two of the valid cases I would class as "navigational aids" rather than "articles." If the intention of the addition I reverted was to provide for the valid cases, then I think it was unfortunately phrased. In that event, it could be mentioned as a set of exception farther on down.


 * 1) Pure navigational aids: redirects and categories. There is simply no practical way to include references, so anyone demanding we do so is being a dick.
 * 2) Disambiguation pages. So long as they only contain enough information to find the correct article, they are really another species of navigational aid -- they certainly do not stand on their own.  I would commend including references for the redlinked items, since one can hardly rely on an article that hasn't been written yet, and the reference can serve as a starting point for the article.
 * 3) Lists and timelines. Some of these are similar to disambiguation pages; some make substantial assertions.  If the information given is brief, central to the article linked and so indisputable that it is inconceivable that it would ever be superseded, then no purpose would be served by a separate reference other than to make work.  Otherwise, we should insist on sources.
 * 4) Articles written in Summary style. Again, these are articles that are not intended to stand on their own.  Substantial assertions, and any assertion that could conceivably be removed from the subarticle should be referenced.   This is already covered.
 * 5) Articles that should stand on their own. Such articles should never use other articles as a verifiability shortcut.  I grant that we have thousands of examples of articles that do just this, but we shouldn't endorse it.  There are two risks: the target article might be wrong, and the statement referenced might vanish from the target article.  If it is obvious that the source cited in the target article is a good one, importing the correct source should be the work of a few moments.

Cases 1-4 are valid exceptions, although 3 and 4 are not complete exceptions. Case 5 is what I meant by "very bad practice." I have been guilty of that particular sin myself, but that does not mean that doing so improves Wikipedia. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there is a case where articles in category 5 can do this validly, and that is where the information being sourced is tangential to the subject of the article. If we have an article about a mountaineer, say, and want to say "he has climbed both Everest and K2, the two tallest mountains in the world", I think it would be acceptable to point to List of highest mountains, a well-sourced article on the subject, as a reference for this.  It's highly unlikely that those sources will be removed, and even if they are it will almost certainly be because something is wrong with them.  So I can't say I really understand your concerns. JulesH 11:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In the example cited, we would need a reliable source for the fact that the mountaineer climed both mountains. (Its just the sort of claim we shouldn't accept from a self-published source.)  The tangential fact that Everest and K2 are the two highest mountains in the world could, IMO, pass without a citation, because the fact is trivially checked using obvious works of general reference that nearly everyone has.  Its the sort of fact that is not "likely to be challenged."  Using a wikilink to reinforce the point is harmless.


 * Now, contrast this with the case where the mountaineer helped identify the bodies from a disaster. This fact is significant to both the biography of the climber and the account of the disaster and should be well sourced in both cases.  Neither article should lean on the other, because it is uncertain how each will change.  As noted in the edit summary of the paragraph I reverted, there are thousands of articles that lean on other articles in this way.  It is preferable to no sources, but we should not give blanket permission for it.


 * I have seen lots of articles that lean on other articles for sources and that should not. I have never seen an editor demand a source for a redirect, a true dab page or a list that was just a set of article pointers.   The proposed paragraph seems to be solving a problem we have not seen, at the risk of exacerbating a problem we have. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert, clearly you have not been involved in the debate about Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles, because it is a problem, believe me if it is not spelt out in this policy page then if that idea is implemented expect all the type of pages you have mentioned above to be flagged for deletion as they do not meet the WP:V policy. It is no good arguing as you have above that custom and guidelines (eg the above example Summary style | already covered) cover it, because custom and guidelines are not policy. The policy needs adjustment to reflect the real Wikipedia world and as it stands at the moment almost all of what you say above fail the policy test of "1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

Many articles are both articles in their own right, but also contain lists or are in part summary pages. Above you write "IMO, pass without a citation, because the fact is trivially checked using obvious works of general reference that nearly everyone has. Its the sort of fact that is not "likely to be challenged."  Using a wikilink to reinforce the point is harmless." The trouble with this is who defines what is trivially checked out. For example the an article might state "A mercenary is an unlawful combatant." or "Napoleon Bonaparte lost the Battle of Waterloo." or "There is no positive international law banning the use of depleted uranium sabot rounds" or "Charles I was executed on January 30 1649". What is an obvious fact to someone and easy to look up in a reference that they have, is to another an obscure fact which is why they are reading the article on Wikipedia and the link provides an easy way to check the fact in a reference that they posses. This policy should reflect the everyday fact that this is how pages in wikipedia are structured using in-line links to other more detailed accounts. This article "wiki is not paper" has an interesting section (Style and functionality) which say:  For example, CMS (the Chicago Manual of Style) tells the writer or editor to briefly gloss, or explain, the first use of an abbreviation (as just demonstrated with "CMS"). Jargon can be treated similarly. This treatment makes a lot of sense on paper: If an article mentions an arcane subject or if it uses an abbreviation or jargon, the reader may need to know more about it, and so giving a full name or a cross-reference will help find it. But Wikipedia has something even better than a parenthetical gloss of just a few words: an electronic link to a thorough treatment of the subject. paper-based publishing style: It is unclear if IBM's code page 437 (a character code set) was based on the VT-220 terminal (a computer input/output device) of DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation), or if the reverse was the case.

Wikipedia publishing style: It is unclear if IBM's code page 437 was based on the VT220 terminal of DEC, or if the reverse was the case.

I think that this argument also applies to references. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ROFL. Obviously, you are talking about a different Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles, because I helped start that thread, the proposal to limit it to Biographies of Living Persons is mine and the UfD is mine.  Since 18 November, the proposal has contained (Revision as of 05:59, 18 November 2006) and still contains (Proposed_text_.231) an explicit exception (variously phrased) for the sorts of pages I covered in cases 1-3.  Few summary style pages can go completely without references, so it is more a standard verifiability issue -- how many references does such an article need?  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that you are aware of the problem, in which case I fail to see why you write "The proposed paragraph seems to be solving a problem we have not seen, at the risk of exacerbating a problem we have". The proposals at (Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles) seemed to have been added after I raised this issue on the talk page (88155683). But I notice that in the latest proposal [#4 (23:37, 21 November 2006 208.20.251.27)] that the wording is now "The process should not be applied to disambiguation pages or those written insummary style" The trouble with this wording is that an article may be written in summary style, but the in-line references may be to wikipedia links which do not contain any third party sources! (see for example this version of List of War Crimes (Revision as of 13:44, 21 March 2006) this is clearly unnaccptable and it does not cover summary style articles which link in-line to summary style artiles (the diasy-chain problem). The proposed wording I have suggested for this policy covers text in all article, (removing the potential problem of a policy relying on guidlines for policy statments eg "what is a summary page?") and does away with the problem of an in-line Wikipedia link pages not containin adequate third party sources. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, we have a number of misunderstandings here. The first and foremost is that a proposal should be responded to by major changes in existing policy.  If there are defects in the proposals, or exceptions that should be made clearer, then the relevant project page is the place to address them.  The second misunderstanding is confusing process (XfD or a CSD criterion) with the policy that it is meant to enforce (Verifiability).  The vast majority of articles that should be deleted are not valid speedy deletions: speedies are only for the clearest cases where no discussion is required.  I'll avoid going on, because the proposal is not germane to this page, and is unlikely to become policy, except maybe in the form of BLPs only.  Robert A.West (Talk) 22:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The "SDcdfua" is only tangential to this policy page. However it highlights a problem with this policy. The experienced editors who edit this page tend to be practical experienced editors who are more than capable of making sensible judgements about when a piece of text needs a third party citation. But as experienced editors they are also immersed in the current culture of editing Wikipedia pages, and, often without realising it, they interpret Wikipedia policies and guidelines with a lens which includes custom. However when it becomes clear that the wording of a policy is far removed from what is done on a day to day basis when editing pages, then I think the policy should be altered to reflect best practice. Most experienced editors accept a sentence or paragraph which uses in-line links to well sourced Wikipedia article, as reliably sourced. They are only likely to object if the sentence draws a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." or "Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known" that are not directly supported by the in-line links. In such a case they will demand a citation from reliable sources even if the in-line links are well sourced e.g. "The moon is a satellite of the earth and it is made of cheddar cheese". My suggested changes will not protect such sentences. But they will save the need to put in citations for such statements as "At the end of the Potsdam Conference, the Allies issued an ultimatum to Japan". Adding a sentence reflecting the wide spread acceptance of such in-line Wikipedia references into this policy will stop the need for guidlines like "SDcdfua" to add a complicated clause to put into words what is the customary interpretation by experienced editors of WP:V. This change, to bring into line the Verifiability policy with its customary interpretation, will help stop trolls and well intentioned inexperienced editors wasting everyone's time. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, err, no: I'd stick to the rationale explained in Don't use internal sources for verification.
 * As a reminder, one of the issues that led to me writing that essay was the birth date that used to be mentioned in the Jimmy Wales article. What happened? In short, some time ago Jimbo (himself) had (obviously copy-pasted) some autobiography in the Foundation wiki. Then, later, that content of the Foundation wiki was used as a reference for Jimbo's birthday in the Jimmy Wales article. It cost Jimbo a whole lot of trouble to get the erroneous date deleted from the Jimmy Wales article.
 * So, no, internal links should not play a role in the Verification mechanism of main namespace content, apart from the obvious exceptions mentioned in Don't use internal sources for verification ("obvious exceptions", e.g. copyrights-related attribution in edit history when translating/importing content from another WikiMedia project; attribution of media via "image" namespace, and that's about it). --Francis Schonken 10:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The wording I am proposing does not suggest that the content of the Wikipedia in-line article that is being used as a source, but the third party sources in that article. There is nothing exceptional about this, it is what is done in many (most?) articles to a greater or lesser extent. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why, in cases of conflict over this, you could not, just simply cut-and-paste the citation from one article to the other? I really doubt anyone is going to be such a dick as to request references for trivially verifiable content.  We do not however, want to get into a position where we have circular references.  So in any case of conflict, the least confrontational approach is simply to repeat the citations in each article where they are requested.  Where is the harm? Wjhonson 18:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My objection to relying on a wikilinked article for sources is it makes the passage in the source that backs up the Wikipedia article harder to find, because when you go to the linked article, it may have a broader range of information than the linking article. If, for example, an article about Aberdeen relied on a source from the Scotland article, the poor reader would have to look through 61 different sources, many of which have nothing to do with Aberdeen. Even if the article to be linked to does not have a long list of references now, it may in the future. (Clarified based on Wjonson's comment immediately below.) --Gerry Ashton 23:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You object to my idea? I don't understand your objection.  It appears you think I'm saying "cut and paste all sources".  I'm not.  I'm saying copy the one requested citation from one article to the other.  If one article says "the tallest Mountain in Scotland is Mount Googleblat (see Hitchins, p20)" then you simple copy that one citation to the Mount Googleblat article.  Not all citations in the Scotland article.  Hope my position is clearer. Wjhonson 23:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Third-party sources
I have removed the word "third-party" from the sentence: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party source Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I'm not sure how it got to be added, but I think it must have been in error. WP:V is not a notability criterion - notability is dealt with on other page. The verifiability requirement is, and should be, for a reliable source. If a source is not 3P there may (or may not) be some question marks over its reliability. Indeed, we are likely to be more rigorous in assessing its reliability. But if the source is reliable, it is good enough to be used. jguk 17:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Re. the latest removal by Jguk. Would it not be better to say reliable secondary sources, as an article with only primary sources is a very bad idea and just inviting original research? L0b0t 17:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I could not disagree with this novel change more. The words "third-party" have been in that sentence since it was added to the policy, and that was done after significant discussion and consensus was established.  The requirement not to include topics based on self-claims is essential to maintaining any sort of credibility for Wikipedia.  Robert A.West (Talk) 17:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the assertion that an article "with only primary sources ...[invites] original research". Original research is not the same as source-based research.  I agree with removing "third-party". Wjhonson 18:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully invite you take a look at some of the television show episode articles (The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, etc) where sole reliance on the episode itself immediatly leads to fanboy speculation and interpretation (This scene with a fish in show X is a parody of this other scene in show Y that has a fish.) Cheers. L0b0t 18:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Third-party" is not the same as "secondary" and we should not confuse them. A source can be secondary in form, and apparently reliable, but still be controlled by the subject of the article.  This is often true with corporations that sponsor research related to their goals.  Further, a source can be primary and yet unrelated to any of the participants.  Thus, a newspaper account of an accident is a primary source, but is a third-party look at what happened.  If the topic has no coverage that is independent of the subject, then Wikipedia will never be able to construct an NPOV article on that topic.  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See also Don't use internal sources for verification --Francis Schonken 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that articles that rely only on self-published sources by people or organizations with a vested interest in the subject of the article are bad, and sources that are not technicallly self-published but are under the control of people or organizations with a vested interest are just as bad. I am concerned, however, that some readers of the policy might see the words third-party and think that sources written by a person with a vested interest, but published by an independent reputable publisher, are ruled out. It suffices that the publisher be a third-party; the author need not be. --Gerry Ashton 20:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's verifiability policy is already phrased to regard the publisher moreso than to the author. Professor Dryasdust's blog is a questionable source.  If the exact same content by the same author is published in The Journal of Xerology, we regard it as a reliable source.  With a newspaper, we regard the paper, not the reporter.  The exceptions (advertisements, letters to the editor, family-written obituaries, the gossip column, etc.) are based on merely cursory editorial review for those sections, and affect all content in those sections, regardless of author.  Robert A.West (Talk) 03:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"Third-party" only serves to confuse not clarify the issue. We have lived with primary and secondary for a long time. Adding another layer does not help the situation. Wjhonson 19:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't expected this amendment to be controversial. I really did see it as a mistake that had somewhere slipped into the text. Had I thought different, I would have raised the point here on the talk page first.


 * The main point of this page is that claims should be supported by reliable sources. Other issues are discussed in addition to that, but they, important as some are, are all either ancilliary or subsidiary.


 * WP does not have a definitive definition of "reliable sources" - and it is probably impossible to have one - but we all have ideas of which sorts of sources tend to be more reliable than others. I don't think that, using the words in their normal English meaning, anyone would agree that non-third-party sources may be reliable. Accordingly, where a non-third-party source is assessed as reliable, we allow it to support a claim in Wikipeida.


 * The statement that where no reliable sources exist, we should not have an article on them, is something that follows automatically from the main point that claims should be supported by reliable sources. The statement adds no new requirement: it is not possible to agree with the main point of the policy and disagree with the statement.


 * Adding a "third-party" to the statement introduces a new requirement. And I think it is an unreasonable requirement. This is because the policy applies to everything in the article namespace - including stubs - including new, not very developed, articles - including fairly unimportant topics. It is reasonable to ask these articles to provide a reliable source. But what is gained by requiring a third-party source? If we have an article on a Simpsons episode that quotes the episode and the Simpsons website, what really is to be gained by adding a third-party source for some of the text (which would probably be in the nature of a brief synopsis in TV Guide or a TV review in a local newspaper)?


 * I just think we should be realistic here. Long, developed articles without third-party sources are most certainly lacking something in the way of credibility. I agree we should be worried there. But a stub - the beginnings of an article that may develop further? If the content can be referenced to a reliable source, surely we should let that article be, and hope it does develop, rather than argue that we should kill it at birth for want of a third-party source? jguk 18:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is not what the policy says. An article can be killed only if no reliable third-party sources exist at all for the topic.  Under those conditions, we can never have an NPOV article on the topic, so we shouldn't have one at all.  If sources can be found, but are not in the article, the article should be improved.  That is clearly stated in Deletion policy.  Robert A.West (Talk) 19:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of long-standing formulation
The original formulation of "Verifiability, not truth" makes a very significant point. I do not see any substantial arguments that support its removal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You have removed much more than that, including: the policy box (which has been here for around seven or eight months, I think), and a suggested improvement of the lead section unrelated to that point, which is discussed above, plus a whole host of other positive amendments that have been made by a wide range of people in the last few days.


 * I would also add that you have reinserted a paragraph at the start of the page which has not appeared in this policy since 8 November. This is a retrograde step, which ought to have been discussed on this page first. Please take more care with your edits - it is wrong to eliminate weeks' worth of improvements just because one WPian, and I appreciate that this is not Jossi (so perhaps I'm being a bit harsh on him), has decided to come in and revert them all.


 * Addressing the underlying point that Jossi is making (it seems it is just the "verifiabilty, not truth" bit of his revert that he intended to make), I would add that that point was not removed. It featured prominently in the text later on.


 * There is discussion on the point above - with suggestions as to how to make the point clearer, not to remove it.


 * It is the one thing about this policy that confuses the hell out of new readers. There is no reason why it should do - it should follow immediately from the key point that claims should be supported by reference to a reliable source. If it is, as you say, a very significant point, we really need to make sure we are making it in a way that everyone can understand. jguk 19:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Upon which basis are you asserting that "this policy that confuses the hell out of new readers"? The change you have made, has moved the most important aspect of this policy: "Verifiability, not truth" out of the lead, and has replaced the policy in a nutshell that is featured in all other policies, with a different box. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The policy box (your second point) has been in this policy for over half a year. It makes it clear that the contents contains the policy, with the remainder of the text being discussion. It is aesthetically nice, and to the point.

Regarding your first point, the most important point of this policy is that claims should be referenced to a reliable source. Comments that this is not the same as reporting "the truth" may be important, but are a follow-on to the main point.

However, I would not oppose re-adding that point to the lead section if (1) it appeared as the second rather than first paragraph (see WP:LEAD); (2) the point was expressed in a clear way that is unlikely to confuse (and see above for suggested ways of explaining it briefly). jguk 10:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Jguk, please do not make major changes in a central policy like this one without discussing it here and reaching consensus first. Thanks, Crum375 15:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As noted above, I am reverting to the original version. The policy box, which Jossi and SlimVirgin are seeking to amend, has been here in this policy in that form for well over six months.


 * It is for those wishing to divert from the established format on this policy to justify why they wish to change it now, not for those wishing to retain the status quo to justify why they are reverting undiscussed changes. jguk 15:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your editing behavior is becoming indeed disruptive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish to point out that, if not for the fact that I edited the page last week, I would now have protected it. Could both sides please lay off the edit war? Thank you. ( Radiant ) 16:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that 5 people reverting jguk's unilateral policy changes is not an "edit war" between "sides", it's one editor acting increasingly disruptively, as he has done many times in the past. Jayjg (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If he is as disruptive as you claim, maybe you should consider opening Requests for comment/Jguk? ( Radiant ) 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Radiant, are you somehow denying that jguk's attempted policy re-writes have been reverted by five different editors in the past 3 days?    ? What benefit do you think an RFC would add to this strong consensus against jguk's one-man policy train? Jayjg (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I meant. My point is that if the issue is Jguk's behavior (which you allege to be frequently disruptive) that should be dealt with in an RFC. If the issue is the content of this page, we discuss it here, on its talk page and doesn't need an RFC. There appear to be several issues conflated in the disagreement between Jguk and SV (see text below), at least one of which (the nutshell or lack thereof) looks like not such a big deal to me. ( Radiant ) 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Radiant, Jguk has been editing policies and guidelines disruptively since I started editing Wikipedia, and getting obsessed with tiny issues that have led to months-long revert wars and ArbCom cases against him. There won't be any progress here so long as that behavior continues. As a potential future arbitrator, I would ask you not to show any support for it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand me. I am not at all showing any support for his edits; I'm simply stating that if there's a problem with him in particular, then this talk page is not such a good place for discussing it. I asked earlier to stop revert warring; I fail to see how you interpret this as an endorsement for his actions (which, obviously, include revert warring). As I have stated before, I am unfamiliar with him or his history, so if you would please point out these ArbCom cases I could at least read up to what you mean; neither his block log nor Requests for arbitration/Jguk seem particularly relevant to this. ( Radiant ) 23:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 and Requests for arbitration/Sortan would help shed further light. I would look at Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2/Proposed_decision and Requests_for_arbitration/Sortan/Proposed_decision in particular. Jayjg (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the latest obsessions is removing "verifiability, not truth" and a dislike of the term "no original research," because he wants policies to be expressed in positive terms, not negative. He's been reverting over this pop psychology for, I believe, close to a year, with a break when he left over it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, there's an argument between "you changed the policy" and "I just reverted it to how it has been". If both sides are going to insist that you're not changing, but just reverting to "the status quo", could you provide diffs showing which "status quo" version you are reverting to? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at the diff there appears to be three disputes intermingling - (1) should the page have a nutshell box; (2) the "threshold is not truth" issue; and (3) whether the exact amount of content policies should be noted. Confusing, no? It's quite possible to cite precedent for or against any of them (indeed, see this revision), but frankly "that's the way it used to be" is not such a strong argument for either "side". Maybe we can get some better argumentation in here? For what it's worth, I don't see the harm in noting that simply being true is not enough for information to be included here, as this is a semi-common mistake for novice users ("yes, my goldfish is named Bubbles, now why can't I have an article on him?") ( Radiant ) 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So, the points of contention...
 * Nutshell or "The policy". I prefer "the policy"; it provides a clearer structure to the page that helps readers understand it more easily -- what's in the box is everything important, the rest is just explanation of how to interpret what's in the box.  Mostly on the subject of what "published by reliable sources" means.
 * Threshold for inclusion -- I don't think Jguk's change here makes much sense. The paragraph he's trying to move is the one that explains what this policy's about, which clearly must be the first paragraph.
 * Number of policies -- Something must be changed, because the text as it is at the moment is misleading. WP:NOT, at the very least, is also a content policy which according to the text we have at the moment doesn't exist.  Either drop the number, or list all of the relevant policies -- either solution works for me. JulesH 17:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Operating definition of consensus
Over the last several months I have been observing business at WP:V and sometimes participating. One pattern I have seen several times now is that someone will edit WP:V in good faith, only to be immediately reverted by an admin claiming "no consensus, no consensus" (after only very brief discussion or no discussion), frequently followed by charges that the good faith editor is being disruptive. To be fair, these reverts are often justified, but could perhaps be handled more diplomatically. I don't believe that the majority of people (aside from vandals) trying to change WP:V are out to disrupt Wikipedia. Some are motivated by what they see as unfair treatment they received under the guise of WP:V, and they want to see changes so that no one has to suffer the same treatment that they suffered. In some cases, those changes may not be justified, but I believe that in all cases, it is important to try and understand the reasons why changes are being proposed.

I also see quite a number of changes to WP:V made by admins, generally made without any discussion to achieve consensus. I don't mean to accuse anyone of bad-faith, but rather, I hope my comments will be taken as an indication that everyone needs to work more at understanding the concerns of other editors, without prior assumptions, and admins need to work to avoid the appearance of a double standard. Wikipedia would be served better if more effort was made by all parties to make WP:V be a true record of consensus. dryguy 23:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree; it's the same on all core content policy pages. All reverts for anything other than vandalism should be explained on the discussion page, maybe even broached there first. This is advised on all advice pages about reverting and admin tools but is ignored. Instant reverting represents a subversion of what Wikipedia is about, and I'm not sure if it is coincidental (because admins tend to be in a hurry) or the beginnings of an ossification of process (which will eventually lead to reactionism). In my opinion, too many admins go into admin mode where policy pages are concerned, forgetting that there is no actual problem, no misbehaviour, no request for policing, and that they should edit rather than administrate the page. They are subverting the foundation principle that anyone should be allowed to edit on Wikipedia, and they must be quietly opposed by wise editors and people willing to mull over the implications of edits rather than blindly zap them. The result will probably be similar, but it will be achieved more kindly.


 * Admins who want to edit policy have no more rights in the matter than any other editor, and they should spend time building consensus on the talk page along with everyone else. Consensus is not some agreement made a few months ago which has to be defended, or a strategy cooked up by some admins over e-mail, but is today's view, agreed to by editors on the talk page. The policy may not appear to change much over time, but it must renew itself in order to stay the same, like skin or a gooseberry bush.


 * qp10qp 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Verifiabity vs. Citability
I'm currently in discussion about a conclusion in an article which was drawn from some information available within confidential membership records of an organisation. Since these are not actually publicly available to everyone, they cannot readily be cited. However, it is possible to obtain the information for verification by approaching the said organisation and offering just cause to gain access to the records (at least, information from those records which do not reveal personal details like name or address). Would this be sufficient to meet the requirements of verifiability? Horus Kol 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Approaching them via phone or email and asking them that question will violate WP:NOR, but if you convince said organization to publish a summary of these numbers on their website, that would work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That someone can, in theory, re-create the work you did is not what WP:V is all about. The critical word is published. Original research is not any less original research even if it's relatively easy for someone to duplicate what you did. John Broughton  |  Talk 16:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the information would not be wikiceptable (acceptable to wikipedia), but not for the reasons given above. Merely asking for information from an organization is not original research.  It is "source-based research" if said organization sends you some publication or copy of a document which contains the said information.  If I ask the Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce for their membership list and they send it to me, I am not creating that document, I am receiving it as a source.  Again "research" is not "original research".  Two quite different things.  However, in your cited case above, the information is not "publicly accessible".  That is, a person should not have to "show just cause", they should be able to simply walk in the repository, and with sufficient instruction, be able to find the information themselves.  That is, at a Land Deed office, you can obtain a copy of a Deed without any cause, any member of the public can do so, with no justification.  That is public information.  That is, it has been "published" to "the public" by the Land Deed Office.  Your case however, has is not publicly accessible in this same manner. Wjhonson 17:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Asking for information from an organization is original research, if that information is not publicly available to our readers. For example, saying that you received an email or talked to an officer of that organization on the phone about these numbers and using that information in the article is what WP:NOR warns us about. The material you need must have been published in a reputable publication for you to use it in an article as a source to support a claim. As an official website is considered a reliable source on an article about the publisher of that website, and if you ask the organization to publish these numbers on their website, then you could use the material. I would further argue that if the organization sends you a copy of some unpublished material, you may not be able to use that as Wjhonson asserts, unless that material is made available under no conditions to anyone that asks. After all,[ [WP:V]] is all about our readers' ability to verify a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No asking for information is not original research. If that information has not been published, then that it the criteria that can be used to not include it.  Verbal communications, and non-public emails are not "published", the issue in that case is not original research, and is not what NOR warns us about.  And yes, if they send you data you can use that, provided that any member of the public could receive that data, with no justification.  That is what published means.  Available to any member of the public.  If any reader can verify the data, in the same manner, then its verifiable. Wjhonson 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would generally agree with the above statement - if information is avaliable, for instance under freedom of information acts, then it is verifiable, even if it hasn't been published. --Neo 19:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder if material available via the FOI Act is published? If it isn't published then we can't use it on wikipedia as publication is one of the principles underlying verifiability.  My example above, assumes the material requested has been published by the organization.  Noting of course, that self-published is still published. Wjhonson 19:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

''... at a Land Deed office, you can obtain a copy of a Deed without any cause, any member of the public can do so, with no justification. That is public information. That is, it has been "published" to "the public" by the Land Deed Office.'' With all due respect, I don't believe that "public" equals "published" - otherwise, the policy would use a different word.

If I add to an article that "X owns properties A, B, and C", and state that I got the information from the Land Deed Office, how does a reader verify that? Suppose someone else says he/she also went to the Deed Office, and didn't find what I claimed - how could the dispute be settled - by a third person going? (Note that neither of us qualifies as reliable sources per WP:RS, even if posting a scan to a web page.)

Things, of course, are quite different if the Deed Office publishes the information on the Web - now it's easy to provide a link, and easy for someone to follow that link. But treeware in filing cabinets that members of the public can obtain copies of - I don't think such information is "published" as used in this policy, and hence I think it fails WP:V. John Broughton |  Talk 19:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would accept information that can be accessed by the general public as published, but would require that the citation be specific enough that a reader can reasonably certain of finding or obtaining the information. A footnote that said "deed on file in Weschester County courthouse" would be unacceptable, but one that said "Westchester County Clerk land records, liber 7764, page 227" that would suffice. I would usually not consider information through the Freedom of Information act acceptable due to the unpredictable delay and the fact that an agency employee will review the information to be released for confidentiality, so the result may be different depending on changes in world politics, or even the whim of the reviewer. --Gerry Ashton 22:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't accept the above citation on at least two grounds. First, I accept the ordinary distinction between publicly-available information and published information.  The difference is whether the information has been transferred to some widely and readily available medium.  Placing something on file where it can be inspected by those with the wit to find it is not publication.


 * Second, I would not accept it because of the nature of the primary document. The language of some deeds is turgid enough that someone who is not accustomed to reading them can actually misunderstand what is going on.  The phrasing can be especially weird when real estate is purchased by a fiducuiary, such as the executor or administrator of an estate, and someone is really nervous about getting all the heirs to sign off.  For older deeds, the copy available for inspection may be on microfilm, which is often hard to read.  This sort of consideration is not limited to deeds -- it affects many types of archival material, which is why Wikipedia editors should generally stay out of dusty archives.  Avoiding this sort of problem is what reliable publishers do and why collections of letters and so on are edited. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't address Mr. West's second ground, but I wonder if Mr. West would withdraw his first objection if the material could be ordered by mail for a nominal fee? --Gerry Ashton 00:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * An interesting point.  Suppose one can get a copy of a three-page deed for a $5 copying fee, including postage.  That is equivalent to paying $1000 for a 600-page book: a substantial expense for a middle-class American, and quite out of reach for many Wikipedians.  The comparison fails if one is concerned with one such reference in one such article, but if the practice became widespread it would be a different matter.  In contrast, most web pages cited are available for no additional fee, once one has an ISP that can reach Wikipedia.  Most books and periodicals can be examined at no cost by anyone with access to a good free library, and especially so if it participates in inter-library loan.  The farther we stray from that standard, the more nervous I get, and especially so when the material is primary.  Pay websites bother me as sources, for the same reason.  I don't know exactly where the line lies, but I dislike getting close.  Robert A.West (Talk) 00:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I fear that our focus on the trees has us overlooking the forest.


 * What would be the end-game for Wikipedia (or any repository of knowledge)? To reflect the truth of everything.


 * Restriction of sources (be they free or leasable; easily gathered or difficultly obtained; written for the laymen or scholars) is a dangerous precedent as all sources should be accepted as verifiable in the absence of them being unverifiable.


 * How else would you reflect "everything" or "truth?" By restricting sources you restrict both your scope and depth of knowledge.


 * If we value the pursuit of knowledge, we must be free to follow wherever that search may lead us. The free mind is not a barking dog, to be tethered on a ten-foot chain. - Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.
 * Drew30319 03:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The goal may be truth, but the policy specifically says that what is true but NOT verifiable does NOT belong in Wikipedia: ''The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.'' (emphasis in original) John Broughton |  Talk 04:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of the issue here revolves around what an acceptable definition of "published" is. I would say that a good starting point for a definition would be the legal definition used in terms of copyright law (the legal definition used by defamation law -- that something is published when passed from its author to any other party -- is too inclusive for our purposes):


 * A work is "published" when it is first made available to the public on an unrestricted basis.

Perhaps something along these lines should be included here? JulesH 12:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Nolo passage cited above concerns the date of publication, not the fact of publication. The definition is found at 17 USC 101.


 * the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.
 * To perform or display a work "publicly" means –
 * (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
 * (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.


 * Thus, an edition is published on the date that it is made available to the public on an unrestricted basis, not on the date it is printed, or typeset, or whatever. The whole thing presupposes the production of numerous copies in the ordinary sense of publishing, as given by Merriam-Webster:
 * "2 a : to disseminate to the public b : to produce or release for distribution; specifically : PRINT 2c c : to issue the work of (an author)."
 * Thus, a painting is not published by being put on free public display at a museum or public gallery; otherwise, such display could interfere with first publication rights. Paintings used as book and magazine covers are commonly publicly displayed before and after sale of publication rights and even sold at public auction.   The interpretation proposed would allow Wikipedia to cite a painting as a source, so long as it has been on public display, say at a First Friday celebration, even if it is thereafter not available to the public and does not appear in print nor on the Web.
 * The point of publication from Wikipedia's standpoint is twofold. First, someone other than the author stands behind it, generally by devoting money to the project of dissemination.  This gives us a reason to take it seriously.  Second, publication makes it available to Wikipedians who wish to verify.  I would agree that Wikipedia should not consider an edition to be published until it has been made generally available to the public, but there must be an edition, and it must be extant.  I would go farther and argue that, exceptional cases aside, it should be widely available.  In the case of publication by Web, this means that the site must be up or archived somewhere generally accessible to the public.  Robert A.West (Talk) 12:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have two comments about Mr. West's comment. First, the the definition of published in the US copyright law is aimed at the issue of when the clock starts for the period of time that copyright lasts, and distinguishing published and unpublished work because the length of the copyright protection is different. Our concern is verifiability, so our definition of published might differ. Second, Mr. West wrote "first, someone other than the author stands behind it, generally by devoting money to the project of dissemination." But we allow citiation of self-published works in limited circumstances, so this point is not really relevant to defining self-published. --Gerry Ashton 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was not arguing for the use of the legal definition; rather, I was responding to JulesH's introduction of a legal definition that actually runs counter to his point. The dissemination argument, however, militates in favor of a definition along the lines of M-W sense #2.
 * Mr. Ashton is correct that the first reason for Wikipedia's concern about publication -- oversight -- manifestly does not apply to self-published works. That is exactly the reason that we accept them only in limited circumstances.  The second reason -- wide dissemination -- applies to self-published as well as third-party-published works. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need to add a little more to this policy to cover the accessibility of sources. I just came to the policy to review what it said on the matter and all I can find is what's contained in the second sentence:
 * "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

The specific case I'm involved with is an article that includes a corporate history sourced (eventually) to old press releases that aren't on the web. The editor apparently works at the company and has access to their old records. I think it's pretty clear that they aren't accessible and therefore aren't verifiable, but there's no text in the policy which directly covers hard-to-access sources. -Will Beback · † · 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

practical problem: destruction of verifiability by third parties
See This hangs closely towards the web page problem, except for it being in-between: now we can verify the reliability of the newspaper on this issue, but soon we won't because the evidence is being erased. Perhaps we must statisfy ourselves to keep it for the record on the talk page that this claim has been verified to be factual? Harald88 07:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He who controls the web-cache controls the past. Does the Internet Archive have a copy?  Is there no other source for this material?  No paper edition that can be found in libraries?   If all three answers are "No," we may be helpless.  If we put a certification on the talk page, and all independent copies go away, we are left with Wikipedians as the source, which is a pretty good definition of original research.  Robert A.West (Talk) 08:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, as stated in the link above, the only currently existing archive is on the Wikipedia Talk page and everywhere else where people are willing to put copies. The research was done by the cited newspaper (thus by definiton not WP:OR), but the newspaper's claim will become unverifiable in the future except if we come up with a mechanism that protects important currently verifiable information from a likely destruction.
 * This is an urgent example but in the long run the same problem is bound to arise with many other sources such as newspaper articles. Despite libraries and archive.org, not all information that is available today will remain available. Harald88 09:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sources have been going out of existence since writers first started using sources. Books and periodicals printed on acid paper are slowly oxidizing into nonexistence.  NASA has discovered that large volumes of Apollo data is on tapes that are too damaged to read.  Old films burn up or disintegrate, especially those on nitrate.  Even CD-ROM's seem to have a life of about thirty years -- if not recopied, that data will be lost.  One sources are lost, we have to rely on other reliable sources to relate what they said or cover the same territory.  If we run out of sources for something, the fact that a Wikipedia article claims to have been written at a time that other sources were extant is, in effect, making an earlier version of the Wikipedia article the source.  Since we have no way to evaluate whether the source is used properly, we have to presume that the no-longer-sourcable information is original research.  A Wikipedia article should be evaluated for compliance with V, NOR and NPOV based on its present content and verifiability.  Its history should be irrelevant.  Robert A.West (Talk) 09:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing suggests that future editors will be more reliable than existing editors. Obviously the decision to allow Wikipedia content to be conserved after verification or to impose deletion of verification is something that requires a wider debate. I'll mention it in the Village pump. Harald88 22:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I now discover that in a parallel discussion on WP:CITE (there really is too much overlap!) a practical suggestion is being made that goes some way in solving this problem for web content (protection against linkrot): Harald88 10:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

More on foreign language sources
I added the following to the section on foreign language sources: "The burden lies with the editor who added the source to demonstrate evidence of the content of foreign language sources.".

It now reads:

''English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. The burden lies with the editor who added the source to demonstrate evidence of the content of foreign language sources.''

My motivation is the use of foreign language sources I see in edit wars and controversial articles. Any comments? (I'm non English btw). -- Steve Hart 09:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example of the sort of thing you are trying to prevent, and how an editor might meet the burden? Robert A.West (Talk) 09:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll be back with examples, I'm generally concerned about obscure partisan websites. Originally, I included the words when language translation tools or other means of verification are not readily available, and I believe that or a translation by a third party editor would be sufficient. -- Steve Hart 10:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If the translation is reliable, then the translation can be cited as the source, with the original cited indirectly. If the translation is not reliable, it should not be used.  Robert A.West (Talk) 10:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Currently practice seems to be that foreign language sources is as good as english sources, even if no translation is available. Do you suggest that sources where no translation is available should not be used? -- Steve Hart 10:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I am having trouble figuring out what change you want, and am probably guessing wrong. Having a foreign-language source presupposes a large enough body of interested, fluent Wikipedians to verify.  If that exists, no problem.  Original translation is a fine courtesy, but is not verification.  You suggest automatic translation.  While it has progressed beyond the "Vodka is strong, but the meat is rotten," stage, it is IMO still woefully inadequate except as an aid to one's own translation. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we need a body of interest (I think that is more of an academic discussion given the audience of the namespace). I'm not suggesting automatic translation (which is why I left that part out). FWIW, I don't think the method is very important, the concern is verifiability. I have no problem with foreign language sources per se and I have used them myself on a couple of occasions. -- Steve Hart 17:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the sentence proposed should be added. It's problematic in two ways, I think: Frankly, I don't think this is a workable change. Its effect, as far as I can see, is to completely remove the possibility of using foreign language sources in English Wikipedia, which is a major change to policy that I don't think will gain consensus. Therefore I'm removing the change, pending further discussion. JulesH 12:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make clear exactly how an editor should go about providing evidence that his translation is good. And I can't really see how this can be done, unless the source has already been translated by a reliable publication, at which point that should be used in preference.
 * It places a burden on the original author of the material, when that author might not be around any more to justify his translation. At the very least it should use phrasing that includes others who wish the material to be retained.


 * The question above all is, in my opion, verifiability, since it's the heart of Wikipedia. I don't think we can apply a different standard to material which relies on foreign language sources. So we need to verify. If we agree on that, the next question should be where the burden lies. I believe the burden ultimately needs to be with who added the source. This policy states that the burden of evidence lies with the editor, to provide a source when content is added or restored, and I would argue that the burden is to provide a verifiable source. What should be avoided are editors who add foreign language sources under the impression that someone will come along some day and provide a translation. The third question should then be what types of translation are adequate. -- Steve Hart 17:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re-inventing the wheel
Until a week ago, this text could be found at WP:RS:

== Sources in languages other than English ==

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be provided whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources (assuming equal quality and reliability). For example, do not use a foreign-language newspaper as a source unless there is no equivalent article in an English-language newspaper. However, foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources.

Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.

Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:
 * Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
 * Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.

Allegedly (and I happen to believe that) this "full version" was developed by many Wikipedians as the consensus.

Just a few days ago I was thinking that maybe we should get this back in WP:V (since the language of a source is not in itself a reliability issue, but it can cause a practical verifiability issue for a Wikipedia that targets readers that not necessarily need to know any other language than English).

What I learn from the "full version" (that is not in the current paragraph at WP:V) is that if one uses a non-English source where no original English source or external translation is available, one provides both the quote in the original language (i.e. copy a quote from the source text that most briefly states what you want to make verifiable), plus a translation of that quote in English. If another Wikipedian, that does not speak the language, wants to verify, (s)he can always ask a random Wikipedian speaking that language (there are categories and lists of Wikipedians per origin/language, e.g. Category:User de for German) and ask to check whether the translation is OK. This is consistent with a description that used to be in WP:CITE (but apparently is no longer there).

Not so long ago I initiated an article that exclusively relies on sources in a non-English language (De Standaard, Belgisch Staatsblad, University of Ghent website,...), applying the technique as described above.

Somebody asked for problematic examples: The one I know of is the Sathya Sai Baba page. Well, it was problematic all over (Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba). The "translation of source quotes" issue was discussed here: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive7. What I find today (e.g. Sathya_Sai_Baba) is imho acceptable. --Francis Schonken 11:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This seems common sense to me. In fact, even if a published translation is used, a citation of the original should (IMO) be included as well.  Wiki is not paper -- we have the room. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Would, for example, this one be OK IYO: Translatio imperii? --Francis Schonken 13:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Published translation. Original cited as well.  What's not to like? Robert A.West (Talk) 18:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was wondering whether you implied that you would like that an excerpt of Le Goff's text would need to be given in French, and then exactly the same text translated in English... Apparently not what you intended. --Francis Schonken 18:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good examples, but they are not representative for Wikipedia based on my experience (e.g. ). Neither do I see where in the old text it says that a translation must be included. It talks about in principle and says that published translations are generally preferred over editors, but it doesn't mandate translations. Furtermore, editors aren't required to make a distinction between a published translation and one provided by the editor, a rather crucial question for both readers and other editors. -- Steve Hart 17:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the policy does not say that translations are required. The policy also doesn't spell when inline citations are best, or when a simple bibliographic reference is sufficient.  This is policy, not a cookbook; details have to be worked out on the basis of what is best for each article.  If there are numerous footnotes to the same translation, it might work to reference only the translation in the footnotes, where page numbers are vital, and to mention the original only bibliographically. If there is no translation available, the foreign language source is short and the article could not exist without the source, then inclusion of an unpublished translation on the talk page is probably best.  There is a difference between a source written in Ingrian and one written in French.  These are all practical questions concerning how to apply policy to specific cases.  Ironing these things out is what talk pages are for. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * First thing first then: Should there be a requirement for published translation of foreign language sources? Personally, I think that's a good idea. In that case, I assume the translation needs to meet WP:RS too? -- Steve Hart 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the former paragraph from WP:CITE I referred to above (my bolding):

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.

It went missing 01:15, 21 November 2006 (afaics the vandalism reverters missed it thus far).

If you want to have those two in-line references from the Rehavam Zeevi article checked, I suppose you could mention them at Notice board for Israel-related topics, surely there must be some people there that can help you out translating, and checking whether these sources are reliable at all.

Let that not stop you from finding sources in English asserting the same, if these are available. Maybe also for finding sources directly in English, people from the Israel-related notice board can help out.

For clarity, here are the two sources implied by the link Steve Hart gave above:
 * http://business.msn.co.il/news/StatePoliticalMilitary/Political/200511/20051102134000.htm
 * http://www.ynet.co.il/home/0,7340,L-1410,00.html

They are used in the two last paragraphs of Rehavam Zeevi (that is, before the first subsection of that section).

Re. "editors aren't required to make a distinction between a published translation and one provided by the editor" - I read "published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly" in the former WP:RS section, so editors are required to make a distinction. Also the reader could usually see the difference: only a text given in two languages (English + original language), without a source for the translation mentioned (mentioning the source for a translation would be a copyright-related obligation if you import a translation in Wikipedia) would indicate that the translation was made by a Wikipedian. --Francis Schonken 18:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all concerned about the two cites from the Zeevi article, they were given as an example. Nor am I embroiled in any controversy about this, but the question of verifiability has been on my mind for a while. I note that the missing paragraph from WP:CITE says "should" and not "must", though. I also think that the reader (and other editors) should be told (as opposed to assume) when text is translated by editors, it goes to the question of credibility. Maybe. -- Steve Hart 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, __
 * 1) I undid the vandalism at WP:CITE, alluded at above: if you think the text should be further tweaked (from "should" to "must" or whatever), I'd refer you to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. For me "should" would be fine in that context.
 * 2) I replaced the "limited" section regarding source languages in WP:V, by the "full version" retrieved from the WP:RS archives (as quoted above), see Verifiability. I'd take it from there. This section might benefit from some "smartening up", but it is OK as far as I'm concerned, and I repeat here that I've always been told it was the result of consensus (reports of people contending a consensus developed around the precise wording can be found in the WP:RS talk archives, I'm not going to contest that). --Francis Schonken 10:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just removed a very offensive picture (vandalism)with the tag " " which I don't know who posted... __


 * Well, it's better now, after you restored the text. But we still do not address how to verify foreign language sources when there is no translation available. While it is expected that editors check book citations themselves (e.g. by going to the library), it is not as easy to check the accuracy of foreign language sources when the cite is a link to a webpage with a bunch of text on it. I see there's not much of a discussion, so I'm pondering fireing off an email to the maillist to see what people think about this. -- Steve Hart 08:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I was one of the original editors who contributed to the original section on non-English language sources, that was later removed. I wrote more on the subject at User:Uncle G/On sources and content, which you might find helpful. Uncle G 12:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This modification to policy does not fly in my view. It is now being used to justify removing translations... period. That is not the intention at all. So the wording should be cleaned up in TALK before trying to foist it into being policy which it never was previously. Wjhonson 15:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Re. "It is now being used to justify removing translations... period." - this seems unlikely to me (who? where? someone must have been misreading something). I'd rather refer to don't include copies of primary sources if I thought a translation was too long, inappropriate, or otherwise doesn't belong in Wikipedia. WP:V rather is a very limited policy-level exception to don't include copies of primary sources for sources that aren't accessible for language reasons to users of the English Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken 16:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Common knowledge
Where do we set the bar between common knowledge and facts that require verification? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Common knowledge is frequently false, and therefore not knowledge. That said, I would not bother giving or asking for an explicit source for an incidental fact that can be looked up in the sort of references that I would expect to find in any household:
 * A decent dictionary or thesaurus,
 * A good-quality almanac,
 * A gazetteer or atlas,
 * A handbook of useful tables (weights, measures, currencies, forms of address, etc.)
 * Note that I say, "incidental fact." Substantial assertions central to an article or section should always have a reference cited at least bibliographically, if not inline. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

One way to look at it, that is at least a useful heuristic: If the person could verify it with 5 seconds with a Google search or by asking a 5-year-old child. —Centrx→talk • 06:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Though certain information is generally thought of as agreed upon truth, a policy whose very first line is "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" is pretty much cut and clear that the bulk of Wikipedia's articles should be suscetible to scrutiny and in need of citation. Really the "just the facts mam" approach applies to the situation.  There are some cases where as Robert mentioned above, "incidental" fact can verify adequetely enough.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk)  03:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

An example of common knowledge getting it wrong - Captain_Pugwash... it was even in print, so verifiable. Horus Kol 11:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Uncle G/On sources and content. Uncle G 11:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

School newspaper: verifiable?
There's a discussion at Talk:Taylor Allderdice High School over whether a school newspaper is a reliable source and how information sourced from it should be represented, if at all? Thoughts welcome to build a consensus. Hiding Talk 16:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"One of three content policies"
Is this expression a hang over or do the three policies cited really differ in nature to the other two in the top policy content box? --BozMo talk 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean the other three in the policy content box. And no, I don't think they're any different.  You need to consider all of them to determine if content is appropriate for wikipedia. JulesH 11:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability
Ok, I've checked some of the sources on one of today's "DYK" articles and the citations are highly dubious and definately NPOV. I'm tagging it as NPOV but I also want to put something on there to indcate that the sources do not say what the article says it says.Balloonman 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:V and 3RR
By reading this policy I see this Any edit lacking a source may be removed.... Since this is a binding non-negotiable policy does this mean if someone continues to add the unsourced material over and over you can continue to remove it until they provide a source?--Crossmr 16:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really; it does mean that somebody else may remove it though. Read it again: it doesn't say any user may remove the edit. It just says that it may be removed. 3RR is pretty unequivocal; it has a number of exceptions, but they're usually interpreted narrowly.  Removing material not allowed by another policy isn't one of those (unless the policy in question is a legally-inspired one, not simply a content policy). JulesH 17:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Biographies of living people are an exemption to the Three revert rule. In other cases, there is less sense of urgency and we expect discussion and consensus to prevail. One can go to Third opinion, a WikiProject noticeboard, or other places to request uninvolved parties to help sort out Verifiability problems without Edit warring. Jkelly 17:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see some potential for abuse there then. It gives an editor who wants to push in some content the ability to jam it in there for some time while they force a wait for a third party, consensus, or other intervention. Burden of evidence also states that its the requirement of the editing wanting to add the material to provide those sources. Yet even if they fail to do that, the material could still sit there while its sorted out if they insist on it?--Crossmr 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is a person editing who has no interest in following our content policies, that's a user behaviour problem. Edit warring isn't the answer to that.  Jkelly 17:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If an edit violates policy, there should be more than one editor who object to it. The 3RR applies to each editor, not to groups, so if there are three editors who object to the unsourced material and only one who wants it, the material can be kept out while obeying the 1RR.  If the three have listened and considered the arguments for the material, then I would consider that an enforcement of consensus, not edit warring.  (75% is a pretty good functional consensus).  If the lone wolf persists, then dispute resolution is in order.  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree that 75% represents consensus. 75% might be ok in some situations, but in others it isn't.  For example, there is an article that I watch that has 3 rabid editors who I suspect know each other (it's a university article.)  They are all very liberal and believe that their position is right.  There are also a few alumni who believe their edits are full of POV.  We don't edit much because they will, en masse, revert our edits and come dangerously close to WP:CIVIL violations.  Their edits are, IMHO, wrong... but the only way to overcome it is to do an RfC.  So while, your guideline works most of the time, it is not fool proof.  (I still won't do a 3RR, but I do not believe a voting block necessarily represents consensus.)Balloonman 20:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it sounds like you are not discussing 75% agreement: Based on your description, there are three rabid editors, and a somewhat larger number that have let themselves be intimidated.  If the majority is silent, then there is little that anyone else can do about it.  Qui tacet consentire.  Robert A.West (Talk) 00:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:V#SELF is stupid
i cite blog and people say it not verifiable so they remove. but blog provides pictures and links to back claims up. still not verifiable, tho, according to people who cite WP:V. week later, news.com.com come along, talk about same story, and not try at all to prove anything. they just say and u have to believe.

WP:V is ad hominem. if a argument boils down to rules of logic then it no matter whether blog notable or not. if a argument boils down to "im right because i have credentals" then yes, a blog posting from a non-notable blog is not sufficient. if a argument boils down to rules of logic then it no matter whether blog notable or not.

i propose WP:V be rewriting. it should not imply that blogs are bad sources no matter how cogent there argument is. that kind of knee-jerk reaction is why sexism exists - "she a girl, so her point is a piece of crap". sexism is wrong and so is your knee jerk reaction to blogs. judge people or posts for their points - not for some superficeal quality. 72.36.251.234 21:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Idealistically, I agree with you. When something is obviously right, we should be able to use it.  However, there is often substantial disagreement over what exactly is "obviously right". This is why we need some sort of standard beyond the apparent quality of the argument. We need to know that people who really know about the subject agree. That's where a reliable publisher comes into play. Publishers check facts, they make sure arguments are correct (usually). By relying only on what they've published, we can make Wikipedia more authoritative. This is at the cost of sometimes not being able to make points that we know are right, but which have never been published. Often, a publisher comes along later, at which point they can be used. Sometimes, that doesn't happen. JulesH 22:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As a good example of what I mean by disagreement here - your source for corruption at digg is disputed in its own comment thread by the accused digg user. There's no easy way to tell what, exactly, the truth here is. JulesH 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not cite the references which the blog cites? Horus Kol 09:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * as i said, the blog also contain pictures. screenshots.  should i upload them to wikipedia?  should i include them in article?  i think it deserve mention - i do not think it should take up disproportionate space on page 72.36.251.234 17:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * if its notable, then why not? as for pictures - only if they are properly licenced... Horus Kol 08:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability as a basis for deletion, Burden of Evidence Section
I was recently engaged in a debate on the Administrator's Noticeboard where I was being chastised for using wp:v as a basis for PROD tagging articles that did not have any sources cited. The argument was, that verifiability is not a basis for deletion unless the topic cannot be verified, but should not be applied if the article lacks sources, but some suspect on personal knowledge that it could be verified. I propose we consider tightening the language in the Wp:v section to reflect consensus. One editor suggested the word topic implies that we must consider the verifiability of the topic, not the article itself. See the Discussion Alan.ca 02:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * if they no like policy, they should post here - not u. it there responsibilety to change it to what they like - not yours. 72.36.251.234 05:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Deletion policy used to rely upon this page for its explanation of deletion for being unverifiable. Since the information about procedure has since vanished from page, that broke the deletion policy.  But the policy of long standing is this:  An article is only unverifiable if both it lacks sources and a reasonable search for sources (which is what the nominator and all participants in an AFD discussion should perform) turns up no sources.   An article is not unverifiable if it simply lacks sources alone.  Lacking sources alone is a matter of cleanup, not deletion.  To show that an article is unverifiable, you must show in your deletion rationales that you actually looked for sources yourself and couldn't find any.  Uncle G 12:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And once that search has been made and no sources can be found to verify the article's material, that should be a non negotiable deletion criteria. We'd have a lot less hand wringing over at AfD if that were the case. The only argument would be on what are reliable sources and that's where the argument should be. - Taxman Talk 13:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Uncle G beat me to it, but that is essentially my understanding as well. As a practice, before I AfD or PROD anything for failing WP:V I do some investigation (Google; Google Books, library database search, etc) to see if there is a chance that a source exists out there.  If there are sources out there, I try to source the article.  If they are offline sources that I can't access I tag the article as unsourced.  If I can't find sources, I PROD/AfD.  Showing evidence that no sources exist (empty google search etc) definitely helps your case if you are arguing something is unverifiable.--Isotope23 14:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. There has been some discussion under Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles of demanding that new non-stub articles after a date certain have sources and allowing for routine deletion for those that do not.  While I think that we should be that hardnosed for biographies of living persons, I don't think that it is necessary for other articles, provided that closing administrators ignore WP:ILIKEIT votes.  I do, however, think that five days is a little short for checking on the availability of sources -- I would prefer that verifiability deletions go through a two-week process where comments are strictly limited to finding and evaluating sources.  I have, however, found few supporters for that idea. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the problem is it was presented as a speedy deletion criteria. If we split it off to a process like you mention and if the consensus is the sources aren't there to support the material, perhaps we'd have something. - Taxman Talk 03:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In support of the aforementioned statements, maybe we should consider drafting some wording for a procedure for checking basic verifiability? Alan.ca 03:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Such a basic check, though, should not ignore the fact that most sources are not available on-line; verifiability predicated on internet availability strongly favors the West (geopolitical) in representation here and that is a systematic bias the we should try hard to overcome. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 14:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Internet checking also favors the modern age, specifically the last five years. There are many people, famous in their own day, who you cannot find on the internet even yet.  Even with Google books.  Simply because Google books is a project that is not finished by a long shot.  If the article's claim is that a person was notable in some specific location, in some specific century, then the effort to check a relevant source should be made that is specific to that time and place. Wjhonson 18:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: The problem I see with this discussion about if a subject is verifiable, not the actual article, is that it creates an impossible question to answer.  I don't think anyone in an AfD debate can confidently say there are no available sources in the world.    From my perspective, I think if an article has not been verified by the person who created it, then it most likely should not have been created.  If the creator had no source for what they wrote, the article is either rumor or original reasearch.  Since we delete articles, not subjects, I think we should be looking at the article.  To say that a person proposing deletion should do a reference check first is somewhat reasonable, but to say that anyone who declares it not meeting verifiability must be willing to conduct an exhaustive reference check only serves to delay the process of deletion inevitably as it is impossible to disprove the existance of a a source.  Alan.ca 04:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is the responsibility of the editor who first adds an article to provide a source. Supsequent editors who come upon unsourced information have the option of finding a source, adding an appropriate citation needed template, or proposing the article for deletion. The fact that the subsequent editors are more apt to add sources if easy-to-find online sources exist, and thus create biased coverage, is the fault of the first editor who neglected to provide sources, not the fault of the subsequent editors. --Gerry Ashton 22:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I was unable to verify any of this article or its discussion, so I recommend it for deletion. Any article pertaining to academic standards of verifiability must contain ONLY self-referential comments. Try again, and get it right this time. No independent thinking of any kind is allowed here. If someone else hasn't already said it, it cannot be said 70.106.60.44

"Verifiability not truth" is THE threshold for inclusion
This statment is misleading, since WP:NPOV (the thing about "significant" views), WP:NOR, WP:NOTE, WP:DELETE, WP:NFT and more all form parts of the "threshold" for inclusion. 70.101.147.224 04:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * V not T means verifability is the threshold as opposed to truth. It doesn't mean it's the only threshold. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps so but the statement still seems to have that suggestion of V being a sole criterion. 70.101.147.224 04:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It arguably is. Notability rests on it; if sourced carefully, material won't be OR etc. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's right. If it is truly verifiable it is likely to be notable. NPOV is a different matter as it refers to how we handle the information after it has passed over the threshold. If material is verifiable but presented with POV, then we fix the presentation by making it neutral rather than by deleting it. -Will Beback · † · 07:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is that a lot of different things are conflated into single umbrella labels of "content" and "inclusion": I've long idly thought of writing a page that helps people to keep the adjectives and nouns straight. I've seen many editors talk about such nonsensical things as "verifiable sources" and "notable sources". (Of course, there are other, well-known, problems with the "verifiability, not truth" maxim, most particularly for novices who look up "verify" in a dictionary.) Uncle G 13:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Verifiability applies to facts and to information. Readers should be able to independently check all facts and information for themselves.  Therefore facts and information that are not verifiable should not be included in any way.  The opposite of inclusion is not having mention of the information in any article.  Verifiability does not deal in how and where information is included, only in whether it is included at all.
 * Notability applies to article subjects. Amongst other things, it addresses in broad strokes how and where facts and information should be included, by addressing what subjects warrant their own articles and whether merger or deletion is the right course of action for those subjects that do not (cf. Notability and User:Uncle G/On notability).  Not giving a subject its own article is not the same as not including verifiable facts and information.
 * Copyright applies to the prose expression of the facts and information, as does the Neutral Point of View.
 * Reliability and credibility apply to sources. They are aspects of sources' reputations to take into account when deciding whether a source is acceptable.
 * What word should I use in this example? Someone says, "Real donuts are made from moon dust" and cites as a source an article by Astronaut Joe Blow in Donut Shop Magazine. If I can find Donut Shop Magazine at my local library and read that Astronaut Joe Blow really said this in his article then I have done what? --Gbleem 11:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Tag
Is there a tag or something to bring such articles to somebody`s attention?--Tresckow 21:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Which articles are "such articles"? There are plenty of tools in the toolbox and plenty of template messages. Uncle G 18:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources only in a foreign language
A wikipedian is an unreliable source. Not only are their own translations self-published, but they are not independent of the projection of that translation upon the encyclopedia. That is, a wikipedian may use a translation to foist a POV surrupticiously upon the project. If the language is sufficiently obscure or the material is, it may go for quite a long time before being caught. We don't want to be in that situation. Therefore I propose that we only allow reliable source translations to be cited as sources. And we as wikipedians should not be arbitrating whether the translation is "accurate" whatever that means, we should be arbitrating whether it can be cited and verified. Wjhonson 16:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not prepared to see this *guideline* raised to policy with NO discussion. As an editor it is simply not my job to verify if a translation is accurate, it is not my job to link to the original language and it is not my job to even prove that the published translation cites the original.  It is simply my job to cite the translation, period. Wjhonson 16:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So, your position is, no published english translation, no citation? We have articles whose only reliable source is a foreign-language source translated by a Wikipedian. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Allowing editor-provided translations seems internally inconsistent with this policy. These are arguably OR, and even with a full citation that allows another editor to check, doesn't seem to get over the bar, because the policy requires that " any reader " can check the source. It doesn't say "an editor with the appropriate language skills". The point of RS, which dovetails into this policy, is that WP relies on other parties to provide editorial checking — because WP can't. If there are whole articles in the English language WP whose only source is in another language, doesn't that suggest that those are likely NN? MARussellPESE 15:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If a foreign language text is the only source for an individual fact/opinion, that's probably okay, as translations are possible, and therefore available to any user. This same argument is sometimes made to exclude offline sources, which is pure madness. On the other hand, an article that solely bases itself on foreign-language texts may not have a place on the English Wikipedia as a standalone article (though certain mathematical/scientific concepts may be exceptions to this). -- nae'blis 17:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for coming in late, but I have to disagree here. This is an encyclopedia about all things of importance anywhere in the world, and the encyclopedia is written in English. This is not the encyclopedia of all things of interest to English writers. One of the great aspects of Wikipedia (well, any encycloepdia) is learning about things you knew zilch about beforehand. I am a contributor on European comics, and there are different authors with millions of books published, with transdlations in four or five languages, and no English sources (or no WP:RS English sources, only some webpages which may or may not be acceptable). It would be a great loss if Wikipedia could not have articles about such subjects, and I would leave Wikipedia if this was to be policy. Of course we should use English sources whenever possible, but the rule that when no English sources are available, foreign-language ones are acceptable, must be kept. Fram 11:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Any reader" is meant (mostly) to exclude specialized knowledge that few interested readers share. If an article requires calculus to comprehend, then we don't expect someone with only first-year algebra to be able to verify much.  I would agree that a knowledge of Ainu is specialized knowledge.  I am not so sure about knowledge of French, which is shared by a large number of Wikipedians.  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you can find more people that are able to verify a translation language than people who are able to verify the use of a source in some advanced topics in physics or mathematics, even if the source is in English. A translation is not original (at least in some contexts such as copyright), it's a derivative work. If we can trust wikipedians to read a source from a journal, book or newspaper and write something correct and verifiable about it, we should trust them regardless of the language of the source. If you want to verify a translation but don't speak the language, ask someone who does. Many wikipedians happily advertise their language skills in their user pages, and I'm sure you'll be able to find someone willing to help. And finally, for many topics regarding non-English-speaking countries, the best (as in "most official", which is especially important if you are writing about topics such as government institutions) sources are not in English. Itub 15:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Referencing TV shows
In a few different articles, I've seen content cited to a particular TV show. Given the difficulty of finding a tape of a specific show (when a date or episode number is even given), do these citations really meet verifiability? (Citations to something generally available on DVD or VHS would be different.) In one case, I am almost certain a TV show citation was simply made up to satisfy demands for a citation. Guidance or comments on this? Gimmetrow 19:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I asked about something similar and I got a comment from one person that said difficulty of verification should not be part of the criteria. --Gbleem 13:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But possibility should. If it is not possible for an arbitrary user of wikipedia to get hold of a copy of the source, it isn't an acceptable source.  In the case of a TV show of which copies are not available commercially for purchase and for which the producer will not provide a copy either, I'd say WP:V isn't met. JulesH 10:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Video clips may remain on the web for a short time. For some news programs, transcripts are available, but I don't know if they remain perpetually in print.  These are good, solid sources, but verifiability may become a problem after a time.  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Same comment as in the section above. Transcripts are available, even if they are not free, therefore it's still a valid source. The "anyone can verify" is meant to exclude personal conversations and untraceable statements, in my view. -- nae'blis 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a valid source, but the difficulty of verification leads to practical editing issues. How do you handle dubious information that is "cited" to an old TV program? It can be tagged with dubious or verification needed. How long should those tags remain before it is OK to remove the "cited" content? Gimmetrow 19:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Difficulty of verification isn't a factor. As long as the source exists and it's possible to get a copy, it's a valid source.  This isn't unique to TV shows, the same thing could happen with obscure books, periodicals, or audio recordings.  --Milo H Minderbinder 19:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The validity of a TV show or obscure book as source is not disputed. The question is: how do you handle any dubious information that has been cited to a difficult-to-verify source? Gimmetrow 19:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on current WP policy, it looks like you have to get your hands on that source to verify it. It's a tricky situation - on the one hand someone could fake info by referencing it to something obscure, but on the other hand someone could delete valid info with the excuse "it's too hard to get that source" (I've seen it happen).  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Television shows are much less obtainable than books or periodicals. The vast majority of editors can obtain a huge number of references through inter-library loan. Even if I do not happen to live near the British Library, for example, the University of Tennessee library still contains millions of volumes, and will mail them to the local library. And hundreds of editors do live near the Library of Congress, the British Library, the Boston Public Library, the University of Sydney library, etc. There do exist some extremely rare books that would be difficult to find, but those would be more analogous to a 1950's one-season show (though even that is not close rare books). The problem mentioned here appears to be finding any television program. Does my local library have episodes of the Brady Bunch? I don't know, but every local library in the English-speaking world will contain the most famous books. —Centrx→talk • 10:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What about including a link to an episode summary? Try Tv.com, Imdb.com, plus web sites belonging to the network or show. Squidfryerchef 03:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about a fact revealed in the show, episode summaries are quite likely not to include that particular fact. JulesH 09:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Have we carried verifiability to the point of a fetish?
I guess this takes the form of a remark on the way out the door (which is not to say I'm quitting entirely, but it will probably be my last posting on a policy-related page in the foreseeable future). While I am entirely in favor of Wikipedia's rising standards in regard to verifaibility when it comes to serious topics, I think these standards have become a fetish, to the point of forgetting that Wikipedia was supposed to have some Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy elements.

I always said that if Wikipedia became so tight-assed that we decided to delete List of songs containing covert references to real musicians and/or List of songs containing overt references to real musicians, it would be time for me to leave the project. Right now the former is up for deletion and I am the only vote to keep. The consensus is pretty clear.

This is not intended as blackmail: I understand that the poll is about the article, not about me, and I don't intend to entirely leave Wikipedia, but I take it as a gauge of an unwelcome change, and I do intend to cease, at least for a long time, to be a major contributor. (Details of my intentions on my user page.)

I would suggest that, judging by that poll, it is almost certainly also time either to put Ignore all rules up for deletion or at least to mark it as former policy. If this is about increasing Wikipedia's credibility, I would far more suggest keeping articles like that, but deleting ones like List of anti-folk bands and musicians or List of singer-songwriters (which are equally unverifiable, but much less interesting). - Jmabel | Talk 08:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you 100%. I've been trying over the past few days to reconcile WP:V with WP:NPOV, with little to no success. The example I like to use is the Sun article; no one has visited the sun, we have no samples of the matter making up the sun, and we take (largely on faith) the word of scientists about the sun, even though they could hardly be called NPOV sources. It would be like having religion articles only sourced by clergy. Anyway. I feel your pain. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 11:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a minute - is scientific evidence now being considered POV? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 14:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it? If your citation for an article about a scientific subject is a paper written by a scientist published in a scientific journal, that's a POV source; just as a citation for an article about a religious subject being an essay written by clergy, published in a religious magazine would be POV. My point being; using WP:RS as the sole basis for deletion is suspect. It's being used as a license to delete, and in the process is subverting the very nature of an open project such as Wikipedia. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 15:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think if somethng is proven, then it is fact, and therefore not POV. BUT! I have found that some members of the scientific community and editors here on Wikipedia are often in favor of removing any unscientific material from articles despite it being genuine beliefs of people and that those beliefs are both notable, verifyable and relevant to the article in question, such as some recent edits to the Carbon dating article, for example. --Rebroad 18:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Well. I thought I wasn't going to post again, but I can't help myself. There's a Jewish joke from the last years of the Soviet Union, mentioned in our Jewish humor article:
 * Q: Comrade Lev, why now, just when things are getting better for your people, are you applying for an exit visa to make aliyah to Israel?
 * A: Well, comrade, there are two reasons. One is that my next-door neighbor is Pamyat and he tells me that after they get rid of you communists, they are coming next after the Jews.
 * Q: But they will never get rid of us communists!
 * A: I know, I know, of course you are right! That's the other reason.


 * I don't know whether Weirdoactor here is being serious or sarcastic, but, either way: that's the other reason. The war on quality has two fronts. - Jmabel | Talk 18:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So...either way, I lose, huh? Awesome. Thanks, dude. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 03:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see where one needs IAR to keep the lists in question, nor does the debate seem likely to end in a deletion. But, what would be wrong with finding and putting in references, either in the list or in the article linked to by the list?  Will the list somehow be less useful or entertaining with references?  Robert A.West (Talk) 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * At the time I wrote my initial remarks above, all of the votes in the poll were simply Delete without further comment. It seems that in the wake of my comments, the debate has shifted around, but my decision to take at least half a year basically away from any involvement in Wikipedia more active than writing or translating the occasional article and uploading photos has not. And frankly, having had a few nastygrams today (see my user talk page, if you care), I'm not so sure I'll choose even to do that.


 * I suppose I should not let myself get sucked back into continuing this discussion further. This will be my last comment here. - Jmabel | Talk 02:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Question !
i donno if im in the right place to ask or not hehe, anyways , just wondering ; do famous places such are cities and landmarks which are shown in public need extreme sources ( for each new addition ) or not , because i was disscussing with some friend :) Ammar 01:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Uncontroversial/uncontested statements do not need a source in every instance, but if something is challenged (removed with a request for verification, for example), then the person re-adding it should provide a source, yes. Not every single sentence needs a citation, but anything that even hints at opinion "best, friendliest, warmest, etc" should have one from the start. -- nae'blis 17:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATTRIBUTE (again...)
I just recently saw the proposed WP:ATTRIBUTE and I'm very excited about it. My main point: ''many editors, especially me, do not read the policies. All we know are the titles and wikipedia abbreviations.'' We argue saying "that's not WP:NPOV" and sometimes even use subsections like undue weight. But unfortunately we have our own interpretation of what these labels mean, especially when it comes to WP:VERIFY. I have been on wikipedia for a while now, and I didn't know the "not truth" part of "verifiable, not truth". This knowledge would have been very helpful in an argument that I recently had. The reason I'm excited about ATTRIBUTE is that it is a significantly better label than VERIFY. I can verify that 2+2=4 without external evidence, I can verify that a philosophical argument is correct through my reasoning, and I can verify that God exists by praying for long enough with an open heart. My point is that the label VERIFY is not effective, and the label ATTRIBUTE captures the essence of WP:V and WP:NOR in a way that gives us a much better arsenal of labels to back up the core content policies. Take a weapon like WP:NOTTRUTH, it could single-handedly end all the edit-wars on wikipedia :D --Merzul 05:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just noticed how naive I was to think using policy as a weapon could even be effective... I still believe attribution is a better word than verifiability. If we can get the people who annoy me to understand attribution and people like me to understand WP:CIVIL, then Wikipedia would be an easier place to work in. --Merzul 13:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Merzul. I'm not sure about your 2+2=4 arguement. To me, and I'm sure many other people, we would all agree that 2+2=4, but as far as I understand the policy, one would still be within their rights to delete "2+2=4" and insist that someone cite sources for it (which in this example would be quite easy to do). However, for more complex maths, it might be more of a challenge, and if sources could not be cites, then it might be argued that some maths constitutes original research. I'm not saying I would argue this, but I'm sure some would - particularly those bad at math perhaps!! --Rebroad 19:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Self published vs. Original research
I have recently been involved in an argument about whether an author should be allowed to cite his own self-published material.

Specifically the author is quoting "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." from here (WP:V) along with "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." from WP:NOR.

In my interperetation, these two statements are not intended to apply to the same person, or at least attempting to apply both exceptions at once is a tight stretch. Isn't citing your own self-published material more or less just spam? Is it worth amending this guideline to mention that someone should not cite their own self-published work? Or is my interpretation off the mark here? - Rainwarrior 09:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are absolutely right, self-published material should be avoided as much as possible, and these exceptions should not be combined. I'm not sure how to amend the official policies in this regard, but I added the following very harsh statement to WP:ATT "self-published sources should never be used to argue against or contradict information from well-established peer-reviewed academic journals or publishers, but used only when no such information is available" Since WP:ATT is a proposal, you can be more aggressive in editing it! :) I think editing and discussing that proposal will lead to more discussion and better understanding of these policies. I've noticed there are many different understandings of what they all mean. --Merzul 13:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If the material is relevant and important, I see no harm in allowing its author to add it. But it should be noted that there is, generally, a presumption against using self-published sources (described both here and at WP:RS) unless they provide important information.  If the editors at the page feel the source is inappropriate, it should be removed.  The same applies to any dubious souce, regardless of who added it to the article. JulesH 14:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI and planned clarification
As a result of This thread at WP:ANI as well as all the associated nominations for AfD, I am proposing we clarify the "Burden of Proof" section of this policy. As currently written, it gives harbor to the idea that every single uncited source should be deleted on site. That is not a constructive path. As a look at even a few of our Featured Articles will show, there are few, if any, articles here that could survive that level of scrutiny.

The new proposed wording is:

"Burden of evidence"
 * For how to write citations, see Citing sources

The burden of evidence lies primarily with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic is impossible to furnish with reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

At the same time, we must realize that we have much work to do before every statement on Wikipedia is sourced, and that other editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. There may be better avenues than completely removing the statement. It is not practical nor desirable to remove every unreferenced statement. As a preferred alternative, consider looking for a source and adding it in yourself. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider posting it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the template, or tag the article by adding  or. You can also make unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding after it, until reliable sources have been provided. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done.

Be careful not to err too far on including unsourced statements in the case of information about living people. These articles fall under WP:BLP which strongly encourages all statements to be sourced, especially if they are negative.

The above version has several advantages: Adopting this version will keep us heading towards a better-referenced encyclopedia, without the havoc of willy-nilly deletion of statements and articles. Johntex\talk 09:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It stresses the importance of sources while still acknowledging the reality of what level of sourcing can be expected.
 * It encourages moderate behavior, rather than simply deleting all unsourced sentences on sight.
 * It makes clear that biographies of living people are held to the highest standard.
 * It removes the quotes from Jimbo as Jimbo has previously said ...as a general rule, I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think.


 * I'm currently grinning madly at the irony of using "Jimbo said [...]" as an argument against quoting Jimbo. ;) JulesH 10:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are people so afraid of removing unsourced information from Wikipedia? I adamantly oppose weakening the verification policy. A big problem with Wikipedia is that the verification policy is not applied rigorously enough, and weakening it will only make matters worse. -- Donald Albury</b> 12:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * People need time to find sources. There's a reason why that tag exists, so statements can be challenged, souced, and then the tag removed. Squidfryerchef 17:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's right. Improvement takes time and improvement is preferable to deletion.  A single person could easily delete hundreds of uncited sentences a day, but wholesale deletion as a first recourse is not any benefit to the project. Improving the article is the preferred recourse.  Tagging it will generally be second.  Deletion should be used immediately for libelous statements. Johntex\talk 18:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is, it shouldn't have to take time to find sources because the editor adding his addition should have his source right in front of him and be able to easily cite and attribute from it. Else wise its original research or (at worse) unattributed plagiarism. I also oppose weakening the guideline. Our community's lack of commitment to this most basic of principles is already a determinant to the project. Weakening it further certainly will not help. Agne 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing any weakening. I'm proposing a clarification.  It is clear from the AfD and ANI threads, as well as the lack of consensus to implement Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles that the community does not believe blanking unsourced statements should be the first recourse.  The above merely makes this clearer in the policy statement. Johntex\talk 20:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Even a conscientious editor, with all the sources in front of him, wouldn't footnote every single noun, verb, and adjective. There's a lot of gray area that some people would consider general knowledge and not footnote, but others would consider specialized knowledge and will ask for a reference.  This why the "cite" tag works.  It keeps our articles sourced without cluttering them up with references for things like "Mercury is the closest planet to the sun" Squidfryerchef 22:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, the common knowledge argument. Ever hear of Vulcan (hypothetical planet)? -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 17:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Johntex, the problem is that most tags get ignored. My experience is that if a request for citations has not produced results within a couple of days, it is unlikely to ever do so. I have a stepped scale for removing unsourced content. I immediately revert/remove vandalism and unsourced material than may reflect negatively on a living person. I immediately revert questionable material that has just been added. I remove unsourced material that has been tagged for at least two weeks. In my mind, there is no excuse, other than inexperience, for not providing sources when you add new material to an article. And there is not excuse for fighting against removing material that has not been sourced within a reasonable time (no more than two weeks) after requesting that it be sourced. Do you think I am damaging the Wikipedia? -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 17:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is really no need to be alarmed by the change in focus from quantity to quality. We are increasingly demonstrating that we don't have to lower our standards in order to continue to grow the project, and, in fact, asking new users to reference their additions minimises conflicts and misinformation and even helps keep our articles NPOV.  See, for instance, many of our articles on breaking news events over the last year, which are both edited heavily by inexperienced editors and are often very well referenced.  Jkelly 21:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you. Asking editors to reference their contributions is a good thing.  Indiscriminate deletion of all sentences that have not yet been referenced, however, would be a bad thing. Johntex\talk 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I support this wording. The entire point of editing Wikipedia is to improve articles, and only delete articles when it becomes clear their content cannot be salvaged as an article capable of standing on its own. Effort should be made to improve stubs and poorly referenced articles first and, only if that fails, should it be proposed for deletion. Speedy deletes still apply for obviously unsavable content, but anything else should at least get an attempt at improvement before resorting to deletion. -- Kesh 00:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly supported. We have too much unsourced content to drop it cold-turkey, and stressing the value of improvement in a key policy page is a critical goal.  I've saved a small handful of articles from AFD (and one from beyond a prod's death) with that in mind.  If the policy change encourages even one editor in one hundred to work on sourcing who would not otherwise, we'll have made major strides.  As one tweak, though, I'd suggest: "At this time, it is neither practical nor desirable to remove every unreferenced statement."  Let's keep one eye on the future, because that is the ultimate goal.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 03:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I thoroughly agree with the proposal. Recent events have shown that deletion can be taken to extremes. It is very easy to delete information that is uncited, too easy really. To CyberAnth's credit she has (I think I'm right in saying she?) attempted to find sources, though her standards for acceptability are unacceptably high. Encouraging more flags gives those of us trying to build articles up more of a chance of improving things, otherwise we end up with gaping holes in our coverage and lots of very short, perfect looking, articles that deserve to be much longer and better sourced. Malla  nox  02:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth weighing in
This proposal is, at root, a weakening of the policy in a time when Wikipedia needs to focus on strengthening the policy on this utterly foundational matter to the success of this Project. Think of it: Many elementary school (!) do not allow WP to be used as a reliable source, and nearly all high school and college instructors do not allow it. That says to me we need to re-visit our paradigm of the past.

As has already been stated by another user above, "a big problem with Wikipedia is that the verification policy is not applied rigorously enough."

And as has also already been stated by another user above, "it shouldn't have to take time to find sources because the editor adding his addition should have his source right in front of him and be able to easily cite and attribute from it. Else wise its original research or (at worse) unattributed plagiarism."

I could not agree more.

To cite Burden of evidence, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

The next paragraph of the policy is clearly optional and should stay that way. "Any edit lacking a source <U>may be removed</U> [not "should be removed"; not may not be removed until"], but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. <U>If you want</U> [not "However, you must"]..." add tags first.

No one is arguing for <I>indiscriminate</I> deletion of materials. Any argument saying that people are wanting that is a straw man. What I arguing for is <I>policy-driven</I> deletion of materials. Removal of material without warning or tagging is clearly permitted in the policy, but qualified by a time frame: "Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles <U>for too long</U>".

The time-frame standard for removing unsourced material is "for too long". This is obviously open to a very broad interpretation. This is why there is a proposal elsewhere to define the period for new articles to 14 days.

The articles I have AfDed or removed materials from on grounds of WP:V (among other things) have been unsourced <I>for years</I> (the lone exception was 1.5 years), and many of them that were tagged <I>were afterward subject to dozens or scores of edits from the same users</I>.

This means that is standardly ignored, <I>because it is not enforced.</I> But somehow, when an AfD comes along, sources start showing up in just hours or days! Because people finally take WP:V seriously.

So this argument about "you have to give people more time" is just plain spurious. They generally do not need more time. They generally do not need a gentle nudge from a tag. The editor adding his or her addition should have his or her source <I>right in front of them and be able to easily cite and attribute from it</I>. Else wise it is original research or (at worse) unattributed plagiarism. No, what editors sometimes need is an alarming announcement where their article's existence is suddenly at stake...and then the sources start showing up in just hours or days! I am not saying this approach is always the case, but there should certainly be room for it because it is needed and fully supported in policy.

Sorry to go quoting Jimmy Wales, but he is completely right on in this: <BLOCKQUOTE> I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. <U>It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information</U>, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." </BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, I have been doing this to try to help Wikipedia become better and adhere to its foundational values. And some people have not liked it. And now someone is trying to weaken the policy.

I think most who have been upset have become so because they have become very accustomed and comfortable in an environment where policy is either ignored or just not enforced.

In that environment, policy has become merely what editors and some admins <I>want it to say</I>, not what it plainly and clearly says. Or, editors and some admins just do their own self-styled thing and follow their own subjective views, and they pull out a few policies here-and-there to meet their preferences.

No, the last thing we need is a weakening of policies. We need the current ones to be stringently enforced while they are concurrently strengthened for the new climate in which Wikipedia finds itself.

CyberAnth 00:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Cyberanth, welcome to the discussion. Since your over-zealous attempts at content deleition are what demonstrated the need for the policy to be clarified, it is very fitting that you should chime in. Johntex\talk 00:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do believe you're misinterpreting Mr. Wales words there. He's not saying that every unsourced statement should be removed. Just that things proposed that cannot be verified beyond "I heard it somewhere" should be promptly deleted. Your own edits & AfD submissions were not based on that, they were of a Scorched Earth nature. That is what this proposal seeks to avoid. As a further note, while I respect Mr. Wales, his comments are not gospel. They make sense but, as we can see, are easily misinterpreted. -- Kesh 00:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume that your deletion of my comment above was an accident, CyberAnth. As such, I've re-inserted it. -- Kesh 01:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Folks might want to visit some of the many discussions around about the mass deletion of fair-use images by certain admins. It has caused a tremendous upheavel and stir among many Wikipedians. I agree that all fair-use images of living people should be replaced by free ones, except in the case of famous ones "with an image to protect".

But the whole matter of massive deletion of images by a certain admin was brought to Requests for comment/Chowbok. The vast majority of people sided against the user's deletions, until this: Requests for comment/Chowbok.

Folks should definitely have a look.

CyberAnth 01:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The important thing is that Jimbo never said we must delete all unsourced statements from articles. On thing he did say, however, I mentioned above.  I will repeat it here since you have turned the conversation to Jimbo quotes.  Jimbo said, "...as a general rule, I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with 'Jimbo said...' is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think." - Johntex\talk 01:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's return now to some merits of the proposal:
 * It makes clear that improvement is the first goal.
 * It encourages discussion with regular editors to the article.
 * It still allows for removal of material in a number of ways if truly necesary (E.g. move to Talk page, hide in mark-up, out-right removal).
 * It emphasizes that WP:BLPs still get special attention for sourcing.
 * It encourages moderate behavior, rather than simply deleting all unsourced sentences on sight or after an arbitrary number of days.
 * For a the perfect illustration of why the wording needs to be clarified, please read CyberAnth's comments above. He/she defends his/her actions by saying they were according to policy. A large majority of people both at ANI and at the numerous AfD's proposed by CyberAnth agree that his/her action was too extreme.  Therefore, the policy statement should be improved to (a) better capture the community sentiment (b) ensure that policy is not cited as a safe-harbor for such wide-spread deletion of article content.
 * As I pointed out in my original post, CyberAnth's actions could have easily been applied to even our very best articles as even they don't provide a source for every single statement. That is another example of why the literal wording of the policy must be clarified to strike a better balance.
 * The proposed wording change still pushes us to better sourcing while ensuring no one goes over-board with content removal in the future. Johntex\talk 01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Any statement that uses deletion as antonym for improvement will go nowhere. Some people need to understand that expansion does not equal improvement. ~ trialsanderrors 06:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * An insightful, quotable comment, trials. CyberAnth 00:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Deletion isn't an autonym either. Deleting good information in place of being bothered to go and find sources is inexcusable. Malla  nox  00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts
Two points Any thoughts? Agne 07:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Most pertinent is the need for clarification that while not every bit of information or sentence needs a footnote attached to it, every bit of information or sentence does need to be verifiable and "attributable". There is a stark difference between the two and it should be clear that asking that every bit of information be verifiable and attributable is not asking for a footnote on every sentence. Rather, it should be a reasonable and fair expectation that every bit of information can be attributed to one of the references that is used in the article. Being clear in this regard is vital to staving off original research, "I heard it somewhere" factoids and potential inaccuracies when memory is not as clear as it could be.
 * An area of compromise that I see is developing something that parallels BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It seems the biggest ire from CyberAnth's AfD was the editors who wanted him to take it to the talk page first prior to just deleting it. I can see the fairness in that request and I wonder about the benefits of a Attempt, Request, Edit cycle. Attempt to find a source for the info or article yourself. Request a source with a tag on the troublesome info and note on the talk page. After giving sufficient time (yes, which can be subjective), the editor should be free to boldly Edit. If another editor objects to this deletion and want the information to return, they should be bound by the Burden of the Evidence to provide a source in a sort of Revert & Cite cycle.
 * There is no need to put up new procedural barriers that will protect material that should not be in Wikipedia. It is very easy for Wikiversity editors to find Wikiversity content that should be deleted because it is not suitable for Wikipedia or impossible to source. Sadly, there is an army of editors who never follow Wikipedia policy except to look in the policies for loopholes that allow them to wikilawyer endlessly in an effort to keep this content in Wikipedia. The simple solution is for these wiki editors to take this content to the hundreds of other wikis that welcome and thrive on trivia and unverifiable information. --JWSchmidt 17:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a procedural barrier; but a courtesy and a service. Losing edits that are in fact verifiable because they happen at the moment to be unverified is a loss to Wikipedia. It is a cost that has to be borne sometimes; but not all the time. I like Agne's proposal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

An example
I too like this proposal, as it encourages discussion between editors and it encourages people to look for sources. As an example, I added a citation needed tag to the Eurostar article yesterday. Eurostar claim that their services are directly responsible for "a saving of 393,000 carbon dioxide-producing short-haul flights". A claim was added today that this figure is inaccurate because many people who travelled on Eurostar would not have made the journey by air had Eurostar not been an option.

This could be true, it could be spin made up by airlines on the defensive or it could be original research. If it is the former then it should be easily verifiable, for example by passenger surveys or hard figures (if the total number of travellers on all modes decreases during periods when Eurostar is not operating for example). If it is spin from airlines, it should be verifiable that the source of the statement is the airline industry. If the statement is verifiably true, then not including it would potentially harm the neutrality of the article, so had I immediately deleted it as not verified when I saw it rather than giving it chance to be verified then I would be doing NPOV a disservice. If however it turns out the figure is neither verifiably true, nor verifiable as having been stated by the airline industry, then it should be deleted. I do not have a source for the statement, but that does not mean there isn't one. Thryduulf 00:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A step in the right direction
Without a doubt, we should insist upon verifiability and references. However, if we deleted or blanked things with no cites, then we'd probably be down about 75% of the encyclopædia.

Rather than slapping an afd or prod tag on an article, try and find some cites. It's a lot more constructive, and it makes Wikipedia even more reliable!

Lankiveil 08:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's too much here to read through, but it's worth pointing out that the policy doesn't say any unsourced edit should be removed. It says: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source," and that's what it means. It goes without saying editors should use their common sense when applying any of our policies. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it should go without saying . . . The point seems to need to be made again and again. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know it can be very frustrating when people use the policy as a weapon. I was recently asked for a source showing that most animal rights activists are either vegetarian or vegan. :-( Then when I produced one, from a well-known academic who specializes in animal rights, I was told he was too biased. But we can't change the policy to accommodate editors who are being disruptive in that way. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 12:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that more and more often lately - an editor will refuse to accept a reliable source (such as a book published by an expert in the subject) because the author is claimed to be biased. So "reliable source" = "agrees with me". CMummert 12:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can one be blocked for repeated POV?--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH (User  Talk) 12:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems that discussion above has would down. Considering this thread as well as the AfD's and the WP:ANI thread that prompted the discussion.  It seems there is general support for the idea that people be encouraged to fix problems rather than delete text/articles, wherever possible to do so.  There is a counter-concern to ensure that we continue to encourage reliable sourcing.  Since the above proposed wording has received several voices of support, and since no alternative solutions have been put forth, I will now make the modification to the policy statement. Johntex\talk 07:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Francis Schonken, I am disapointed to see that you have blocked the change to the wording. Did you get a chance to fully read the wording?  It is not dramatically different from what was there previously.  As to Jimbo's opinion, please read the  quote by Jimbo that says, ...as a general rule, I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think. - Please join in the discussion instead of reverting.  The consensus is shown not only here but also at WP:ANI and the AfD's that prompted this. Johntex\talk 15:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Johntex, but any change to this policy is far, far too premature. I see no real consensus. I see about half of the folks wanting the policy strengthened, while another half wish it weakened. That should lead to a default of "leave as-is". CyberAnth 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with CyberAnth. Whether your change is an improvement or not is not the question. There certainly has not been any concensus for any change to be made to WP:V- some have argued it should be stricter and others that it should be more relaxed. I would describe the discussions that have taken place to have ended in stalemate, not in any particular concensus. WJBscribe 04:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the two of you are overlooking the discussion that also occured on WP:ANI due to CyberAnth nominating for deletion numerous sexually related articles because they did not yet have sources. Most them were sourcable.  The feeling at WP:ANI and at those AfD's was over-whelmingly in favor of imrpoving articles first, and deleting them only as a last resort. Johntex\talk 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have restored the JKelly version as a compromise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johntex (talk • contribs) 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
 * (edit conflict) I think the sex articles AfDs were a completely separate incident. AfD noms are not what the change to WP:V CyberAnth reverted was about. Changes to policy require strongly established concensus, to synthesise it from a number of only tangentially related discussions is a problem. I suggest starting a new section at the bottom with the proposed changes and inviting comment on them. If a concensus is then demonstrated for a change to WP:V, by all means make it. WJBscribe 04:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In particular I don't believe a concensus has been established to include the sentence: "It is not practical nor desirable to remove every unreferenced statement". Many would see that as precisely the ultimate goal- doing so overnight is in my view a bad idea but many users supported CyberAnth's actions here and at WP:ANI. WJBscribe 04:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you agree to a solution that omitts that sentence? I would also be willing to include it with the modifier "currently".  I myself am a devoted proponent of heavy referencing.  I have even been accused of putting too many references into articles, an assertion I find ridiculous.  Never the less, it is true that we are so far away from that right now.  Deleting every unsourced sentence in Wikipedia would cause havoc.  Please see dumpling and beef and shrimp for just three examples. It is not just sexually related articles that would be susceptible to over-zealous deletion.  I mention the sexually related articles only becuase that was the specific incident. Johntex\talk 04:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't really what I'd support. You can make me happy with very few changes to your version. But I cannot speak for the community. As it is this discussion is lost halfway up the talkpage and most people probably have no idea its going on. It needs more users to contribute to it before anyone can say a concensus can be achieved. I agree with you that trying to delete every unsourced statement from Wikipdia overnight causes chaos. I argued that point with CyberAnth on his talkpage. But his present removal of controversial material from BLPs, noting the deletions on the appropriate talkpages, is necessary and effective. I understand your need to achieve something after all the discussions that have taken place, but I don't think there is concensus for any change to the policy, sorry. WJBscribe 04:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that you and I would decide this by ourselves. I am just asking what you could support because you are part of the community and part of building the consensus.  I will start a new section here, but it will take me a little time to prepare. Johntex\talk 04:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Blatant advertisement: Template:dubious
It would be really nice if Template:dubious was mentioned in the guideline, because I really hate seeing those massive disputed tags on top of pages where there is a dispute about some one detail, and I think it is also useful for more complicated questions such as quoting out of context. There is now a draft that probably reflects some of the points from the above discussion at WP:ATT, except I have already inserted my support for Template:dubious. :) However, none of this should soften our stance against information that is embarrassing to wikipedia: crackpot science, crackpot history and crackpot philosophy should be aggressively eradicated. --Merzul 01:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Meta-incorrectness! Incorrect source on quote claiming importance of sources
I found this pretty amusing: under the 'Burden of evidence' and 'Biographies of living persons' sections, the references quoting Jimmy Wales do not contain the quotes printed in the article. Is this incorrect? Currently it's reference numbers 2 and 3. Joie de Vivre 16:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * JdV is correct. I went back into history, and the links appear to have been wrong for at least the past seven months.  I had sworn that I had followed up and read the originals at least once, but am mystified.   Perhaps someone who is familiar with the list could correct the links?  Robert A.West (Talk) 11:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I fixed them. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The case of the missing affidavit
A rather iffy secondary source (The Skeptic's Dictionary) makes some extreme claims via quotes from an affidavit. The Skeptic's Dictionary gives a link to the text of the affidavit that's hosted on a POV site. This page says that the affidavit was presented in a 1986 court case. I've examined the Docket Entries List for that court case, and the affidavit isn't part of the court record. Therefore, the oiginal affidavit is unverifiable. It only exists on POV sites, and has the text only -- no pdf or jpeg with the original text and signature.

Can these extreme claims from the affidavit (which the author of the Skeptic's Dictionary doesn't corroborate) be quoted in an article in Wikipedia? Does WP:V apply in this case? Or could it be argued that The Skeptic's Dictionary is a qualified secondary source, so it makes no difference that the original affidavit isn't available? Thanks! TimidGuy 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have any documented evidence? Does the other side not deny the validity of this document? Otherwise it can indeed be argued that we can rely on the skeptic's dictionary. If this information is wrong, then we are not to blame. However, if the situation is highly suspect, then you might try to convince other editors to use prose attribution as explained in this proposal to distance Wikipedia from those claims; but it is not our job to actively try to refute available sources. --Merzul 00:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, using a source which there is good reason to believe is inaccurate (as in this case) seems like an unwise choice. JulesH 08:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks much. These are very helpful comments. Jules, are you referring to the primary source or the secondary source? TimidGuy 12:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe he is referring to the skeptic's dictionary, but the problem with his suggestion is that in this case there must be many editors who believe using that source is extremely wise, otherwise I don't think you would ask for advice here. There is one more thing you could do, write a polite letter to anybody in a position to place a response on a reliable source, if you explain that you are trying to defend them etc I think they would be willing to help you, but the point is that you need to have a source outside Wikipedia that can take responsibility. Then you have a much greater chance to convince those editors, and at the very least you can add to the article that the validity of this document has been called into question. --Merzul 12:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Thanks! TimidGuy 16:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Timidguy and I are on opposite sides of the debate, however, we both have the shared intention of following wikipedia guidelines. How would one go about verifying the existence of the affidavit? The entire affidavit is listed here [], and it sure looks real enough, however, I don't think trancenet counts as a RS.

Or does it?

If it doesn't does anyone have suggestions how one could go about verifying or getting one's hands on the origonal affidavit? Sethie 23:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Can one create an article that centers around the fact that blogs accuse the person of being a murderer?
I have been calling for the Speedy Deletion of Benjamin M. Emanuel, which hopefully by the time this is read will be deleted for being an attack page. I maintian that the article is an attack page because it cites anti-Semitic blogs as its source to assert that its subject the father of US Rep. Rahm Emanuel is a murderous terrorist. On the talk page Talk:Benjamin M. Emanuel I cited and quoted the wiki-standards that called for this article to be deleted. I was opposed in this by User:Mel Etitis who I have been told is an Admin. He wrote on the talk page "Moreover, WP:V simply doesn't rule out the reference to a blog, it rules out the use of blogs as (the sole) source for what articles say about their subjects. if the article said that he was a murderer, and cited a blog, that would be wrong; if it says that he's accused of murder in a blog, that's very different." Apparently he feels that because the article uses qualifiers like “asserting… speculates…not to document his sources…tinged with anti-semitism, and also does not cite all of its sources…assert…speculates" that this prevents this article from being slander. I replied "The use of skeptical caveats does not allow for wiki-pages to use unsubstantiated charges that come from non-reliable unnotable sources. Saying 'While most people are skeptical that Joe Smith is part of a terrorist network, private investigator Sam Incognito insists that this is true' is no more allowable than just saying 'Joe Smith is part of a terrorist network'. Then another Admin User:NawlinWiki told me that the page should stand unless the regular AfD process decided against the question of notability. NalinWiki was the admin that removed my first call for speedy deletion and the title of her edit in the history page stated "doesn't seem to be an attack page, has sources". Is this really the case? Can any charge be repeated from a blog as long as you say it came from a blog and add caveats around the claims? I thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability banned such things, but now admins are posting on my user talk page that I'm "misusing templates", being "disruptive" and "abusive", causing an "edit war", and that I'm the one "misinterpreting the guidelines concerning blogs". Please instruct me.--Wowaconia 04:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has been sent to AFD. That seems to be a good place to ponder the issues. Johntex\talk 08:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not just about the one article, this is about whether if I knew of a blog that claimed Johntex was a puppy-eater and then wrote a wiki-page called "Puppy eaters" and said "While many people familiar with Johntex's habits claim that they can not remember ever seeing him acting like a puppy eater, JohntexEatsPuppies.blog has made claims to the contrary, "You just have to look at Johntex to see that he's a puppy eater" said Xetnhoj who would not elaborate further (ref = JohntexEatsPuppies.blog). Now go back and replace the words "puppy eater" with "murdering terrorist" and you'll see why I have a problem with this use of blogs.--Wowaconia 09:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this claim by Admin User:Mel Etitis true or not: "Moreover, WP:V#SELF simply doesn't rule out the reference to a blog, it rules out the use of blogs as (the sole) source for what articles say about their subjects. if the article said that he was a murderer, and cited a blog, that would be wrong; if it says that he's accused of murder in a blog, that's very different."
 * Is he right that is my question--Wowaconia 09:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that this is inherently true. A blog is *always* a good, verifiable source for what that blog says. Whether the information is notable enough to include in the article would need to be decided with reference to factors like how prominent the blog is, etc. It's messy, but I think if a well-known and respected blog started making such accusations about somebody, we should report it. If a largely unknown and unimportant blog makes the accusation, we don't care. JulesH 10:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that, as far as living people go, definitely not, per WP:BLP, which demands that we use a higher standard of verifiability when dealing with living people, especially with potentially libelous matters. Now, had a newspaper columnist read JohntexEatsPuppies.blog and written about it, you've got a whole different kettle of puppy eating fish.  Personally, I'd extend the same courtesy to dead subjects, too, although that's increasingly edging towards gray areas that Wikipedia policy hasn't quite come to terms with yet.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 11:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't libelous to report that somebody has accused somebody else of murder. Unless of course the accusation was never made. JulesH 12:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is clear that WP:BLP rules out an accusation based solely in blogs. If, however, the New York Times (say) were to report that a blogger had accused someone of murder, then we have a reliable source. In the end this is an issue outside the formal scope of WP:V. That said, in this particular case the accusation isn't the problem; the article is about a person who is otherwise unnotable. That indicates there is no reason to have an article. The fact that Emanuel's father was in Irgun is reported in the WaPo and other sources so can be used; the accusation of participating in particular terrorist acts, though, is not sourced satisfactorily. Disclaimer: I have voted delete for the article in question. --Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note on WaPo: actually the Washington Post only says he was a member of "the pre-independence Israeli underground". There is a big jump between "the underground" and a paramilitary force - if you shelter Allied pilots in WWII France, your part of the underground that doesn't mean you took up arms against the Nazis. Had the post mentioned Irgun I would have just deleted the refs and quotes taken from the anti-Semitic blogs and quoted the WaPo about Irgun.Wowaconia 12:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Making Verifiability easier for newcomers to understand and follow.
An overwhelming majority of Wikipedia's information is unreferenced. Therefore, enforcing the Verifiability policy would entail destroying an overwhelming majority of Wikipedia's information, and biting tons of newcomers in the process.

Something's definitely wrong.

I believe it's because most information is contributed by newcomers, who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies, such as our verifiability requirements. (Here's my reference.) In contrast, most established users, instead of adding referenced information, are fighting vandalism and getting involved in people politics.

My own experience confirms this. When I joined Wikipedia in February 2005, none of the information I contributed to articles was referenced. I only learnt how to format references in September 2005. Since then, when I contribute information to articles, I try to provide a reference (though I don't always succeed).

We should make it easier for newcomers to follow the Verifiability policy, while encouraging established users (who are familiar with the policy) to contribute referenced information.

Based on my experience, following the Verifiability policy requires three steps:


 * To understand the Verifiability policy, and the concept of reliable sources.
 * To find reliable references for information they add to Wikipedia.
 * To know how to format references.

How could we make these three steps easier for newcomers? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think deleting good information just because someone hasn't cited a source is silly. The reader can see there is no source and the unsourced information can give structure to the article. Only really out there stuff should be deleted for not having a source. I like the build it and they will come approach. Write a really good article and then have people who have access to research libraries do the source thing. Just like there are people who get off on correcting spelling there will be people who get off on adding sources. --Gbleem 14:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed, there are some who like adding sources, but one thing could simplify things for all of us. It is much easier to do a quick fix like this than to actually search and find the source. I'm trying to say that the last step ("To know how to format references") should not stop anyone from adding refs, we should encourage newcommers adding refs with just "Author, Book, page" or just add an inline link to some URL, such as to the abstract of a journal article. Let geeks like me format the refs for you! --Merzul 17:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that both the guideline on Disputed_statement does not recommend deleting material immediately. And the proposed guideline on attribution says about WP:ATT: "If you encounter a statement that lacks proper attribution, then first and foremost, why don't you try to find a reliable source for it." But please note that none of this should make us take a soft stance on crackpot articles and original research. --Merzul 17:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the following two points: However, I stand by my statement that we should make the Verifiability policy easier for newcomers to follow. If most newcomers referenced information they add, it would save us lots of time trying to find references and eliminate original research. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is bad to delete unreferenced information without requesting references be added (BLP being the main exception).
 * When adding references, it is not neccesary to format them perfectly.
 * How can we make this policy easier to understand and follow? Are you thinking in the lines of WP:NPOVT, creating a verifiability tutorial and giving examples of how one can attribute properly? Or do you want the policy to be simpler, then what is your opinion about WP:ATT, which is a proposal that tries to simplify WP:V and WP:NOR into a single policy. --Merzul 13:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I started this discussion with the aim of getting suggestions for making the policy easier for newcomers to follow (and, of course, implementing good suggestions).
 * Someone suggested that a sentence informing newcomers about Wikipedia's notability requiriments should be added to MediaWiki:Newarticletext. I think the sentence "Encyclopediac content must be verifiable" (which appears above the "edit summary" text box) does not adequately explain the verifiability policy to newcomers. Perhaps a more prominent, easier-to-understand sentence would help? (Few, if any, anonymous editors will read policy pages before editing.)
 * Having a "verifiability tutorial" would be a great idea. Although WP:V and WP:RS offer some guidelines for evaluating reliability of references (which should be summarised in the tutorial), I could not find any policy/guideline page that offers suggestions on how to find reliable sources. The verifiability tutorial could offer such suggestions. Moreover, it should offer a simple explanation of reference formatting.
 * Regarding the proposed Attribution policy, I think it is a great idea. Merging WP:V and WP:NOR into a single policy would make it easier for newcomers to understand. Furthermore, I believe that the current "content policy triangle" (V, NOR and NPOV) is flawed, as it suggests that verifiability is less important than NPOV. I believe they should be given equal weight, although NPOV is a foundation issue. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Talking about this "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." text, if one could add "please provide the source of the information in your edit summary", or if there was an additional field called "source" (default to "myself" or something), it would be awesome, except I'm doubting the technical feasibility of this last solution. But there are so many genuinely good edits by anonymous users, stuff like this edit that you just neutralize and wikify, but how do you find a source for it? I'm sure the person who added it could have provided a source, but he maybe thinks the wikipedia style is to say "some people argue" :) --Merzul 23:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Several months ago, the explanation "briefly describe the changes you have made" was added above the edit summary box. Did adding that explanation lead to an increase in edit summary usage, and better edit summaries, by unregistered and new editors? If so, I support the idea of a "source" field.
 * Of course, filling in the source field should not be compulsory. Besides adding information, unregistered and new editors may also correct spelling and grammatical errors. When they do so, do you expect them to cite a dictionary which shows the correct spelling?
 * Incomplete source information can also be useful. For example, if an unregistered user adds information, mentioning "the straits times" as a source, a Singaporean editor could find the relevant article in The Straits Times, and hence get all the information needed to format the reference. In contrast, if an unregistered user adds information, mentioning "my cousin" as a reference, that just screams "ORIGINAL RESEARCH!" (unless their cousin happens to be an expert in that topic).
 * I will raise this suggestion at the technical section of the Village Pump. In the meantime, who's going to write a verifiability tutorial? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent)We now have as part of an edit the count of characters added or deleted. It seems to me improbable that someone adding several hundred or more characters is involved in minor copyediting, as opposed to adding new information that should be sourced. How hard would it be for the software to be changed so that when the added-character count is above a threshold, the system checks if at least one URL has been added, and, if not, tells the user about the problem before the edit is saved? Something like: "Content added without a source is much more likely to be questioned or deleted. Please consider adding a URL or other information to your edit that shows where your information came from; see WP:CITE for how to add a complete citation." John Broughton  | ♫ 15:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Too many false positives. Asking for a URL or cite template or ref tag or one of a certain list of phrases (such as 'According to' or 'Source:') would reduce the false-positive count somewhat, but it would probably still be too annoying to use. I'd prefer the source-summary box mentioned above. --ais523 18:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not make it overly complicated. A "source" field, with a simple explanation, would do. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Challenged"
A question on this policy: the word "challenged" in "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Does the addition of a tag automatically constitute a challenge? So that it is always wrong to remove such a tag without adding a citation unless it is mistakenly applied to something that was already covered by a source? I've also looked in vain for something about "obvious facts": this relates to an editor's comment that (the tag) "is like asking for a citation attesting to the speed of light in a Physics article". This relates to a very minor dispute at Talk:Beowulf but I'm really more interested in establishing what I (and presumably other editors trying to follow policy) should do in future. Thanks. Notinasnaid 14:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article Speed of light has a quite extensive references section (Speed of light). Err. What was your question again?
 * If different scholars have (or: had) different opinions on when the Beowulf was written, then name the most prominent of these, each with what they think (or: thought) the most important indicators for placing the date of its composition.
 * This is a WP:NPOV issue ("where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly") too. Then, apply WP:V for each of the conflicting views, getting rid of the vague "Traditionally" (who represents this/these traditions?), "More recently" (who are most representative of these more recent scholars?) etc. See also Avoid weasel words. --Francis Schonken 15:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the trouble with giving a specific example... the question, to simplify: is it ever legitimate to remove a tag (unless the text is already covered by one)? In what situation? Does the addition of a [citation needed] tag automatically constitute a challenge? So that it is always wrong to remove such a tag without adding a citation unless it is mistakenly applied to something that was already covered by a source? Notinasnaid 15:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the importance you give to that question, or what you want to derive from an answer to that question, or where you see a problem with the current text of the WP:V policy...
 * Technically, the person who put the fact tag in the Beowulf *challenged* the sentence preceding it ("The precise date of the manuscript is debated, but most estimates place it close to AD 1000"). That may be a "frivolous" challenge (which means the challenge to the verifiability of the sentence should not be taken serious): WP:V says nothing about frivolous challenges, they're handled by Vandalism and the like. So assuming the challenge is not frivolous (as in: even the "speed of light" needs references), a source should be found for the content of the challenged sentence. You can help too, this not a game of who can place the most fact in Wikipedia articles, and get away with erasing content. Again, then you would be in "vandalism" realm, editors have been blocked for trying to play that game. Vandalism is as much a policy as WP:V.
 * But forget that previous paragraph, it is thoroughly unuseful, I only wrote it down because you asked a "split me a hair" type of question. The problem is that the entire Beowulf section lacks sources. The *general* references/links in the references section of the article only list translations/glossaries and the like. Similar for the "External links" section. Or these references/links don't make clear which ones are about the manuscript. Now there must be scholar books about the Beowulf manuscript, that would verify the content one would expect to find in a Beowulf section. Maybe even some of the translations have such analyses in their introduction. Only now the reader of the article is left at a loss where to find these data. So, either the references section is clarified/expanded so that it is clear where general introductions about the Beowulf manuscript can be found (these then need to cover all the assertions found in the "manuscript" section of the Beowulf article), or individual references (which may be Harvard style too) are added to the Beowulf section so that each assertion is covered individually.
 * If your question is how to police that, well, err, try Consensus first. --Francis Schonken 16:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Your first paragraph was actually very helpful as it clarified what is meant by "challenged". I really didn't want to try escalating the dispute just yet.

But I do have one further question. I am cautious in this area because I was once found to be in the wrong for removing a tag from an article with good references but no inline citations. Should not citations be used for everything in the article, rather than just references at the end? For instance, should not speed of light cite the speed quoted? And for that matter, the statement that it's important, represented by c and so forth? (I should add that I have no intention of making a point of that article, this is just an illustration to be sure that the policy is understood). Notinasnaid 18:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be taking a wrong turn... did you really think my hair-splitting comments more helpful than my general advise to work by Consensus? ...doesn't seem to promise much good.

How references are "formatted" is pretty open. Rules involve not to change formatting of the references someone else introduced without generally acceptable reason, unless there's consensus (this has been the subject of ArbCom cases), and whatever referencing technique you use, try to make it as clear as possible. Further, see WP:CITE.

When (for instance) a person has two or three well-known published biographies, and the Wikipedia article on that person summarizes what is covered by all these established biographies, then there is no reason to add a footnotes pointing to each of these biographies after every sentence: just list the two or three biographies in the "References" section.

For the "Manuscript" section in the Beowulf article, whatever that makes clear where the theories about the age and other characteristics of the manuscript can be found in external sources. That can be a single source, that gives an overview of the different theories, or that can be a link to a separate source for each of the theories. --Francis Schonken 19:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, if I am taking a wrong turn: are you saying that a consensus of editors can override the policy? I would be delighted to be able to say "it's OK, I've been told we can ignore the policy and remove the citation needed tag, because this is a well known fact"? I know a consensus can ignore guidelines, but it is the first I've heard that it can ignore policy. Or am I misunderstaning the policy? Notinasnaid 21:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, consensus DOES overrule policy, that's what WP:IAR is all about, and improving the articles is indeed more important than who is right about policy. Why is this surprising? But you can not remove the tag because it is a well known fact, you can remove it because you have convinced the person who challenged it that this is a well known fact. I have sometimes been convinced that my demand for sources are not justified, because editors have competently explained the situation, so it does work and not everybody who demand sources are doing it to vandalize! If, however, the person just stubbornly refuses to listen and does not give any reasons why they think it needs a citation, then you should report it as vandalism! Abusing our most essential quality assurance process is the worst kind of vandalism.  --Merzul 23:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the replies, which are helpful. I have to say I'm a little surprised that, on first seeking clarification of policy, I'm told to ignore it and go for a consensus instead, but it certainly makes solving the problem simpler. Notinasnaid 19:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Negotiable only at foundation level?"
At present, we have the sentence "The principles upon which these policies are based are negotiable only at the Foundation level." I suggest that this sentence is removed, because: Enchanter 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, this doesn't reflect an actual statement by the foundation.  The document on meta that the statement links to does not mention verifiability at all, and in any case is not an official document issued by the foundation.
 * In some other Wikipedia projects and languages verifiability is not core policy - for example it has guideline status in the French Wikipedia . (This was also true of the English Wikipedia in its first few years of existence). In practice verifiability is not a policy which the foundation imposes uniformly across all the projects, as the statement would appear to imply.
 * The real reason why verifiability is one of our core policies is because there is an overwhelming consensus among Wikipedia contributors to support it (notwithstanding genuine disagreements about exactly how the principle should be applied in practice). The sentence could give the impression the policy is there because of some edict by Jimbo or a committee, which is not the reality of the situation - like other Wikipedia policies, the policy was adopted primarily because there was a consensus in favour of it.
 * Good reasoning. All valid points.  I agree that the sentences should be removed. Johntex\talk 00:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting at this point that the foundation issues have nothing at all to say about verifiability. I don't know why this sentence is here, and I hadn't noticed it before, but it is certainly completely wrong.  The other incorrect statement we have here is that there are only 3 content policies on wikipedia; there are at least 4 (WP:NOT is also a content policy), possibly more depending on interpretation. JulesH 15:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now done. Enchanter 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the above discussion is wrongly reasoned. Moreover, I do not believe that such an important and long-standing statement should be removed on such short discussion over a weekend. The sentence in question does not state that Verifiabiilty is a non-negotiable requirement of the foundation -- it states that NPOV, NOR and Verifiability are based upon a priniciple that is. The observation that Verifiability has a guideline status in other language Wikipedias does not change the sitaution one iota.
 * 1) NPOV is a Foundation principle and can only be negotiated at the Foundation level.
 * 2) WP:NPOV is based on this principle. I think this point is beyond dispute.
 * 3) WP:NOR follows directly, because we cannot push original research and report neutrally.
 * 4) If one has a non-negotiable principle, one must be able to verify that it is being adhered to, or the principle is meaningless.
 * 5) Verifiability (whether as policy or guideline) follows from this.
 * 6) The authority of Jimbo is also a Foundation principle.
 * 7) Jimbo has stated unequivocally that information that might be reasonably questioned must have a source.
 * 8) Verifiability is an implementation of this edict.

Accordingly, I am replacing the phrase, with a slight addition to make the point clearer. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your reasoning is incorrect. One can provide original research that is presented neutrally, and one can present unverifiable material that is consistent with NPOV. So Verifiability is not a corollary of NPOV. &mdash; Matt Crypto 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I never asserted that verifiability was a corollary of NPOV. I said that if we cannot verify that we are being consistent with NPOV, the principle becomes vacuuous.  Verifiability is a method (not the only possible method, but one of our methods) of implementing NPOV.  Robert A.West (Talk) 20:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Robert made the Argumentum ad Jimbonem in point 7 of his reasoning chain above. Just noting, because some Wikipedians (including Jimbo himself) think that to be an invalid step in virtually any reasoning, and because I'm going to do the same nonetheless (combined with an "Argumentum ad Virginem" so to speak, while the same quote was used on this talk page before, by SlimVirgin, somewhere in the middle of this section: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 10):"Actually, I consider WP:V to be so central to Wikipedia that if there were ever a significant majority of contributors who wanted to do away with it, we would have an internal war on our hands that would make the userbox wars look simple by comparison."No mentioning of "Foundation" or Jimbo himself for WP:V (note that for NPOV Jimbo did name himself as ultimate authority a few times, see references in WP:NPOV) - just the whole weight of deciding on WP:V *internally* (an internal war, not a war with himself, nor a war or even an "issue" with the Foundation). Wikipedians, and that's it. So, no I don't agree with Robert's update, nor with his chain of reasoning. Please, start to feel a bit responsible, all of you. WP:V depends on all of us, there's no "magic protection" from the Foundation for this policy. There's no way of getting too comfortable (and doze off) over this, expecting that the Foundation will straighten this out if it goes wrong. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but there's no benefit in pre-emptively devolving responsibility regarding this policy to them (at a point we aren't even sure they want to take this responsibility: if you want to know, ask them, you should know where you can find them). --Francis Schonken 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't follow your charge that my position is irresponsible. NPOV is central to the entire concept, and is cited as "essentially beyond debate" here.  I don't see how Wikipedia (or any Wikimedia project) could abandon it without becoming something else.  Absent verifiability, NPOV would be an empty platitude -- same result.  For every human endeavor there must be something that defines that endeavor.  Is the goal of Wikipedia to create something named Wikipedia, regardless of what that may be?  Or is it to create something more specific?  I see the linkage of NPOV and Verifiability as unavoidable and essential to that identity -- a position that I hold to be highly responsible.  The point is not the Foundation on a white charger (what they would do if the English Wikipedia abandoned or vitiated NPOV is anyone's guess -- for all I know they might just give up and shut down the servers) the point is that we owe it to ourselves and everyone else who has put time and effort into the project to be uncompromising about NPOV, and to do what is needed to make NPOV real.  Otherwise, the whole project isn't worth the bother.  Robert A.West (Talk) 02:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your reasoning. NPOV is a foundation issue, granted, but even you said that verifiability doesn't necessarily follow from that. "Verifiability is a method (not the only possible method, but one of our methods) of implementing NPOV." So, if it is just a method and not a direct consequence, then it is not a foundation issue itself (and it being a guideline on the French Wikipedia proves this). Trebor 13:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. NPOV has been here far longer than the other two, and is a crucial goal of Wikipedia. V is not a foundation issue, nor a central pillar, nor on the original list of essentials.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Will someone please do me the courtesy of carefully re-reading the text in question?  Nowhere did it state that Verifiability is non-negotiable, or a central pillar, or any of the other things that are being disagreed with.  Thus, the fact that Verifiability is not itself a central pillar (as opposed to being designed to buttress that pillar) does not strike me as an argument against the text.  But, I'm not going to win this argument, so I will just ask for the courtesy and leave it there. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. It is a vacuous truth, in that all policies are based on the foundation principles, and we already know that foundation principles are not subject to change by the community. At any rate, the entire paragraph clutters the page with meta-information, and should be removed. For instance, WP:CIV doesn't say either that "this is one of our five people policies and based upon something non-negotiable blah". Policy pages are too long as it is, without meta-info added to the top.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Re. "the entire paragraph clutters the page with meta-information, and should be removed" - I completely agree with you there. WP:V is an important policy, yes, but I don't think we need to put policies in competition with each other for importance, and: surely there are other methods to draw attention to its importance. --Francis Schonken 10:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for explaining your objections in terms of what the sentence actually said. I appreciate the courtesy and understand your viewpoints better. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Organizations' "Self-Published" sources
If this has been addressed already, apologies. Could someone point me to the proper archive in that case?

There's a grey area it seems when it comes to organizations and religions. This section seems to need expansion and/or clarification to include organizations as well as authors.

A narrow reading of this policy, as written, would mean that the Catechism of the Catholic Church of the Roman Catholic Church would not be kosher, even in an article on the Church or the Catechism. Neither would the Book of Mormon for the LDS, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures for the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the The Constitutions of the Free-Masons for Freemasonry. The trouble is, is that all these are used as sources in their respective articles.

How about a Greenpeace press-release as a source for a policy position of theirs? How about the NCEES model professional engineering law in the Professional Engineer article. How about this DoD transcript in an article about the Guantánamo Bay detainment camp. Again, narrowly read as currently written, this policy would seem to state "no" as well.

I'm not trying to hold up the Book of Mormon as a WP:RS for the North American Indians, but it ought to be acceptable for LDS articles when properly cited and used. Organizations need to be able to speak for themselves, and these statements considered reliable statements of their own positions. WP:NPOV and WP:NOT are still important tools to use to keep articles from becoming soapbox.

Existing text:
 * Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)
 * Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as: …

Proposed text:
 * Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves
 * Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s), organization(s), or religion(s), so long as: …

Thanks, MARussellPESE 20:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My first suggestion would be to ignore this policy and use Attribution instead. Failing that, notice that WP:V says:
 * See also: Reliable sources


 * Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.


 * When one refers to Reliable sources, one finds the statement "In articles on religions and religious practices, religious scholars (recognized authorities on the religion) are considered reliable sources for the religion's practices and beliefs...." So I would conclude that the sources you mentioned are reliable sources, not self-published sources, and so the section about self-published sources does not apply.


 * If an article about an organization is signed by an individual author, it is not self-published, unless the individual is in a position to dictate what the organization published. If it is not signed, the organization is the author, and Wikipedia articles about the organizations are also about the author. So I think the issue has been narrowed to articles signed by an individual who controls what an organization publishes, that are about the organization. So if you want to revise the wording, I would approach it from that angle. --Gerry Ashton 21:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that WP:RS, being a guideline, cannot override what is said here.
 * The problem with the change proposed is that it is a bad phrasing (using "themselves" referring to sources to mean the organisations that published those sources) that has existed before and generated, at that time, a number of comments about its ambiguity -- does "themselves" refer to the source documents, i.e. would that mean that the Book of Mormon could only be used as a source in an article on the Book of Mormon, or does it refer to the author/publisher of the source? The current phrasing is actually, therefore, IMO better.  The "author" of the Book of Mormon is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (at least under the assumption that the book is self published; if it isn't, this isn't an issue), therefore it is a valid source to use in an article about said church.  So I don't really see the problem. JulesH 18:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

On a similar matter, can I have comments on this question. Organization X on their website makes a claim about themselves or their activities. There is no external evidence beyond their statement about themselves, to confirm or deny its accuracy. I'd like to see this situation more clearly addressed if possible, and clarification that we must make clear when it's cited, that it is their self-claim, and not treat it as a verified fact (because we can verify they claim it, but not verify if it's true). FT2 (Talk 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Intra-Open-Publishing
This is a question, comment, and thought experiment, maybe not in that order. The question is, can Wikipedia articles cite an article in an open-publishing format, such as Philica or ArXiv, as if it were a vetted source? Note that this is already happening. Obviously, it would be odd for wikipedia, as the most prominent open-publishing experiment, to have a policy against citing open-pub sources. But then, we don't cite other wikipedia articles, we just link to them.

Still, if scholarly open publishing takes off (as I imagine many wikipedians hope it will), we are going to have to deal with a much wider universe than "peer-reviewed" vs. "self-published." For example, we will have to deal with incomprehensible screeds that have been published, and peer reviewed, but are rated very low by the reviewers. And (of course) there will not be one single rating system, there will be dozens or hundreds. What is our game plan in this scenario? Ethan Mitchell 04:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Open publishing systems are logically equivalent to self-publishing, and this policy strictly limits cases in which self-published sources may be used. It happens that many (perhaps even most) of the articles on ArXiv at least conform to these restrictions (i.e., by virtue of having been written by a professional researcher).  And I doubt that "scholarly open publishing" as a field will supplant peer-reviewed journals any time in the near future, at least not in its current form.  Review is an important step in the process of publication, whether it be in science or any other field. JulesH 11:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The question is not restricted to a counterfactual situation where ArXiv supplants Nature, or whatever. It's already occuring; there are wikipedia articles that cite open-published scholarly articles.  In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I've authored such an article, on Philica, which is being cited here although it has not yet been reviewed in Philica's open-review process.  While I'm happy to see my work being used, and obviously I think it's good information, frankly I'm concerned that we are entering a very weird terrain with our eyes closed.    (I could always put a VC or OR tag on the reference to my own article, I suppose.  But that almost seems like an AUTO violation...)


 * I appreciate that the articles on ArXiv, etc., are mostly written by academics. But if that is the sole criteria for reliability, why did we invent peer review in the first place?  Whatever may happen to the world of scholarly jurnals, I don't think these questions are going to go away.  Ethan Mitchell 15:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ethan - there isn't a problem here at Wikipedia with things like ArXiv. [WP:RS]], which is in some ways the detailed implementation of WP:V, does not require that a source be peer-reviewed in order to be considered reliable.  Rather, it lists 11 criteria to evaluate sources that aren't in the normal peer-reviewed ("scholarly") realm.  And WP:V itself says  Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field.  So, yes, ArXiv articles will require more analysis than articles in (say) Nature to make sure WP:RS is met; so what?


 * As to your question of why did we invent peer review in the first place, that's really not a question that can or should be answered here. Perhaps a journal that discusses the history of science?  John Broughton  |  ♫♫ 02:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize that WP:RS offers us a range of other criteria by which we can judge a source. But I question whether or not we are actually using those criteria, which in any event are painfully time-consuming to research in the absence of outside peer review.  In a case like ArXiv, which has something of the "look and feel" of a peer-reviewed journal, I think it is easy to give articles a pass, without looking too hard at who put them there or what they say.  Again, it is disconcerting to me that I can post an article on Philica which has not been reviewed in Philica's house system, and that article is then cited here as a reliable source.  Moreover, I think this problem is bound to grow with time, insofar as we will have more and more sources that are neither clear-cut junk nor traditionally peer-reviewed articles.  Ethan Mitchell 03:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources in languages other than English
Hi. Could I get some clarification please on this language? "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation." Over at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat, there is a difference of opinion about how this should be parsed. What does, "there should be a clear citation of the foreign language original" mean? It's slightly ambiguous. Does this mean "the article should clearly point to the foreign language original" -- i.e., the usual meaning of WP:CITE; or does it mean "the original source being translated or paraphrased should be included in the article", as suggested in the proposed WP:ATT? I could argue both sides of this one, but would rather know what the actual practice has been here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wording at ATT#language, for ease of comparison:

"English-language sources should be used whenever possible, because this is the English Wikipedia. Sources in other languages are acceptable when there are no English equivalents. Published translations are preferred to editors' translations; when editors use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, perhaps in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves."


 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing I'd like to stress for consideration is that the language used, "Published translations are preferred" and "original-language material should be provided", seems to imply a guideline that urges, rather than mandates, such inclusion as a source. The reason why I mention this is because any consensus here may have an impact beyond the Criticism of Prem Rawat article and may be used to remove previously stable cited material.   Mael-Num 21:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So we don't each of you do some hunting around, and find some examples of usages (in unrelated articles, please) that support your position? It would be a good thing to clarify this, as we have an obvious case of two quite reasonable interpretations of the same policy, neither of which provide a satisfactory solution to a problem that may well not have one. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what sort of proof you're asking me to produce. I'd be more than happy to search around for it, but could you please give me some specific direction of what you're looking for? Mael-Num 04:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you're saying it's ok to quote or closely paraphrase foreign sources and just cite the original non-English source. So find some examples of articles that contain exactly that sort of thing. Jossi gets to find some articles that fully include the original of what they are translating or paraphrasing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mircea Eliade contains references in Romainian. Andries 12:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Re. Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat,
 * If you're talking about things like the large quote in Dutch included in the Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat section, that's no example of anything, except an example of a bad habit. It has been explained to Andries in detail how it works (Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive7, at that time the "translate foreign language citations" was still in the WP:RS guideline) - I have no idea why Andries keeps getting it wrong both on the point of length of quotes, as about need to provide translation. If there is a translation, others can check it. I speak Dutch, and know quite a few En-Wikipedians who also speak Dutch, so if anybody asked, help for checking translations from Dutch to English could be provided in a swiff. Without translation English Wikipedians can't make a *consensus* decision whether the quote has any relevance at all in English Wikipedia (*consensus* decision implies that all can participate in the decision on the same grounds). So, please proceed and 'snip' out any text presented in article (or article talk) namespace that is not in English and for which no English translation has been provided. If such non-English quote presented without translation is used as a unique reference for a contention in the Encyclopedia, then the thus referenced material should be removed too, until an acceptable reference is provided (that is: either, preferably, a reference from a RS in English, either, if there is no other solution, a reference in another language, quoted in that language along with a translation made by the one who provides the reference).
 * Criticism of Prem Rawat has been merged to Prem Rawat. As a consequence Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat is an archive page now. The work to be done is now at Prem Rawat and its talk page. Treating criticism in Prem Rawat on a by author basis is however not a good solution. For starters, it is instable, see current edit-warring between Momento and Mael-Num. Secondly, it doesn't work in view of several NPOV-inducing guidance (like Criticism). The only workable solution I can think of (there might be other methods but I can't think of any better), is to start treating topic by topic, e.g. create a section on Prem Rawat's financial assets, give the facts about them (with references), describe what he and his followers think about them ("not important" or something in that vein, with references), describe what scholars & critics think about them (with references). It goes without saying that "with references" in this context means *exclusively* "with references to reliable sources" - There are enough policy and guideline pages that explain what "reliable sources" mean in this context. So, neither testimonies of non-notable premies, nor testimonies of blog-like critics (etc etc) should be included. I'm sure there are enough reliable sources to "present all conflicting views fairly", as the WP:NPOV policy requires. --Francis Schonken 11:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing non-English citations of reputable sources from the article talk pages strikes me as seriously flawed. I agree with treating the article per subject or chronological and not per POV, scholarly or otherwise. I have provided more Dutch sources and its corresponding translations here and will expand User:Andries/Prem_Rawat/Non-English Andries 12:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Recommending ("recommending" as in: there's no guideline that makes this obligatory, but usually this should work) to use the following kind of format for translations:

Or, for multi-paragraph quotes:

In wikicode (table syntax):

Note that this format can be used in footnotes afterwards, if the quote is deemed relevant & reliable, and the translation accepted.

I implemented this (with comments) in User:Andries/Prem Rawat/Non-English. --Francis Schonken 15:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But, the examples we were looking at in the original article weren't presented as quotations, but as paraphrased "XXX said blah blah blah". Not necessarily the same issue, though similar. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see User:Andries/Prem Rawat/Non-English, I commented on a paraphrasing I thought problematic. --Francis Schonken 15:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this edit. It doesn't look as good now as it did then. AvB ÷ talk  17:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Blogs
Why are blogs not reliable for information from bands and artists, such as info about line up changes and reasons for breaking up, ect? I would say these would be the most reliable sources, as blogs are pretty much used as press releases now. Diabolical 03:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Experimentally, the Wikimedia Foundation often gets complaints on OTRS from actors, bands etc. asking the Foundation to take down "information" we have on them, sourced from blogs. Thus, no, blogs are not a good source for that. They often spread rumors and gossip. David.Monniaux 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely if they are the party responsible for the blog, it must be more accurate than a random news website and also they must want the information in the public domain, if they post it. Diabolical 12:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Would not an artist's own blog be covered by this section? of the policy, allowing use in articles about the artist? Gimmetrow 13:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed for the artist's own personal blog. I was thinking of fans' (or haters') blogs. David.Monniaux 14:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks. It's just I've seen people removing sources from blogs referencing WP:V which would be covered under that clause. Diabolical 18:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fans or haters blogs are not WP:RS and never will be, whether or not they're the first to publish news and whether or not anyone sends them press releases. They are self-published, and can say pretty much anything they want that isn't sheer libel (and even then, who is going to sue them? -- they can just take it down and apologize).  As for also they must want the information in the public domain, if they post it, what they want is attention and (ideally) the ad revenue that comes from visitors to their website.  What they publish is not in the public domain; that has a very specific legal meaning that you might want to read up on.  -- John Broughton  |  (♫♫) 19:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am speaking about blogs published by bands about the band in question, not random people's blogs. Such as a band, who's page I have in my watchlist, got a new drummer and posted about it on their myspace in a blog, someone added this info and referenced the blog in question. It was later removed citing WP:V as the reason. I asked this question due to the growing nature in which bands prefer, possibly for convenience, to announce news in blogs rather than on their sites. --Diabolical 02:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Blogs published by the band about itself should be OK as a source, though the content has to meet the criteria listed: Relevant to notability (not that they recently held a birthday party for a band member), not contentious (claims that they are the "best" can't be sourced to their own blog), not self-serving (not advertising a future gig), and not about a third party (not their opinions of some other band). That rather limits usable blog content to such info as the timeline of the band, who the members are, names of songs, and their self-described style. Gimmetrow 02:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Legal blogs and similar professional blogs
In France, these days, there are a number of bloggers who are legal professionals (such as: attorney, law professor at a major university, etc.) and that comment, from a professional point of view, on legal issues. For instance, they will put up lengthy and well-sourced comments of bills, laws etc. Some (Éolas, Frédéric Rolin) are quoted by the national press.

To me, a blog by a well-known professional (I'm talking professors at major universities etc.) on his field of expertise is probably considerably more reliable than a press article, since the press article is very likely to have been written by a journalist with no expertise in that field.

For that reason, I think that we should reflect that in our guidelines. David.Monniaux 10:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an argument I've raised before, but not a lot has happened. You may want to look at the proposal at WP:ATT, which is potentially your best bet at getting a change to policy accepted. JulesH 14:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The current version of this policy contains the following:
 * Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field' or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
 * The current version of the proposed policy contains the following:
 * When a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, produces self-published material, we can rely on it if material produced by that writer would normally be regarded as a reliable source. However, exercise caution: there may be a good reason no reliable third party has published the material.
 * Either version seems to cover the case. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why you believe either version covers the case. The suggested sources were written by somebody who is neither a researcher nor a journalist.  My proposal all along has been to change "researcher" to "expert", which would certainly cover this case, but the objection has been that it is hard to define exactly who is and isn't an expert. JulesH 06:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't legal professionals do research as a large part of their jobs? Granted, few do groundbreaking original thinking, but if one wants to know the state of the law, one wants research into what the courts have said, not essays on what they ought to say.  Robert A.West (Talk) 04:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it's a stretch of the meaning of the words to say that this means you could call them a professional researcher. JulesH 08:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue with self-published blogs, is that there is no fact checking in the act of publishing. I would agree with David above, knowing that many newspapers that supposedly do fact checking, don't do it, or do it quite unprofessionally. So, at end of the day, we ought to assess these sources individually and within the constrains imposed in the policy: "may be acceptable" and "exercise caution." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-published and unreliable sources as primary sources
This issue has come up in WT:ATT, but since there is no certainty that will ever be policy, I'll raise the issue here. If a self-published or unreliable source is discussed in reliable secondary sources, and that discussion is properly used in an article, which should govern: exclusion as a doubtful source, or inclusion as a primary source with interpretation provided by the secondary sources?

Example #1: A self-published webcomic with feminist themes becomes notable and is written about in secondary sources. Under the policy as strictly interpreted, one could not reference the comic in an article about the comic, but one could in an article about the artist. Even if we don't distinguish an article about the comic from one about the author, one certainly could not mention it in an article on "Feminist themes in comics," even if a majority of the secondary sources discussed the webcomic.

Example #2: The National Enquirer publishes a theory that the gold has been removed from Fort Knox and the site is being used for secret research into alien technologies. The rumor becomes popular and notable, and is commented upon in secondary sources. There isn't enough material for a full article, so a section is created in the article on the gold depository. Although the secondary sources refuting the rumor can be cited, and their quotations of the original article can be re-quoted, the exact same quotations could not be cited back to the original article as a primary source. In fact, by strict interpretation, even an article on "Conspiracy theories about Fort Knox" could not use the source, because the article is not about the author or publisher.

These examples just seem silly. Now, in real Wikipedia articles, reasonable editors don't have problems, but this can lead to reasoning that is almost Talmudic in its complexity:
 * A crackpot is really a professional researcher in an obscure and deprecated field, so can be cited in articles narrowly related to that field.
 * A publisher is, via a theory of agency also an author.
 * An article on a theory or work of art is, via a legal fiction, an article about the author.
 * We find a reliable source, no matter how obscure or out-of-print, that quotes the original and lift the quotation from there, rather than from the original.

I am not suggesting opening the floodgates – I have argued long and hard against doing that – but I can't think why we should prohibit using some primary sources and not others, subject always to the need for secondary sources and for care about editions and that on-line sources have not been altered. And, I can't think why we should prefer mental gymnastics to a straightforward statement. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are confusing the issue by stating "primary sources". The issues raised are not whether the author is creating facts and statement (thus primary), but rather whether the work is reliable.  All of the issues above are covered by "reliable", without the need to bring "primary" into the argument whatsoever.  The National Enquirer is excluded because they are not reliable (i.e. they lie), not because they also are primary (i.e. they create new statements). Wjhonson 02:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And, I think you have my question backwards, and in the process illustrate my point. The lawsuit between Carol Burnett and the National Enquirer is, properly, mentioned in her biography, though currently unsourced.  The substance of the libel is repeated in the article, and is appropriate for inclusion, because it, together with the fact that it was libel, appeared in reliable sources.  If one were writing a term paper on the topic, one would unhesitatingly cite the issue, page and column in which the libel appeared.  Even if no quotation or paraphrase was desired beyond that available in the New York Times, the primary source is the most authoritative source possible for its own contents.  Yet, as you pointed out, Wikipedia rules would not allow this perfectly normal procedure, because the Enquirer is unreliable as to the truth of its own assertions.  The problem is not (non-existent) exclusion because it is primary -- the problem is that the proper use of a primary source is excluded because of a factor that is irrelevant to its use in a particular instance: if the Enquirer were reliable, there would have been no occasion for a lawsuit. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your response seems possibly confused on the method of proper citation. IF you got the citation from a reliable, secondary source, then you cite *that* source.  You do not cite the issue of the Enquirer unless that source itself cites it.  I.E. you quote and cite the source you actually read, not it's underlying original source. So in this case you would say "According to the National Review, Carol Burnett sued the National Enquirer over..." (National Review, vol 42, issue 9, Sep 17, 1977).  You would not cite the underlying issue of the NE unless the NR does itself. Wjhonson 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not confused as to proper citation. The question of whether to live with a secondary source's choices of paraphrase and quotation, or to go directly to the primary source, is a routine question.  If the NR says that CB sued NE over paraphrase-of-X, then I can quote the NR's paraphrase or re-paraphrase it, and cite only the NR.  Or, I can obtain a copy of the NE and quote directly.  (While the NR is not in the habit of footnoting, routine fact-checking would require that they consult the relevant issue of the NE as well as the court papers, so NE has been implicitly cited.)  Whether I should do so and to what effect should be an NPOV and stylistic question, not a technical question of what sources are allowed. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a situation in which a primary source (the NE) should not be cited. They are unreliable and in a case like this, their unreliability goes much higher than normally unreliable. I would object to the inclusion of anything they said in a contentious issue, even to the point of quoting what they said. It's like quoting a White Supremacist group on a Jewish History page. Wjhonson 18:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is, in my opinion, perfectly acceptable to cite the Enquirer as having said on such-and-such a date that so-and-so did this-and-that, when the question at issue is what the Enquirer said, and when what the Enquirer said has been discussed in reputable sources. If WP:RS prohibits this, WP:RS needs to be changed.  Quite frankly, I don't think any reasonable editor would object to such a citation, and adding such a citation can easily be defended on the grounds of WP:IAR.  There is a huge difference between article content that reads "X said that A did B" (source - X) and content that reads "A did B" (source - X).    For the first, the "reliabilty" of X is largely irrelevant, if a library copy of X is available.  -- John Broughton  |  (♫♫) 04:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You don't even need to cite IAR for it - it's a source of dubious reliability that meets the standards here.  There's no need to complicate the primary/self-published source parts of this policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In my experience, not all editors agree that it meets the standards here. (Otherwise, I wouldn't have brought it up.)   I agree that they were being unreasonable at that moment, but the black letter of the policy would seem to back them up.  Can someone point out to me just where in this policy an exception is carved out for such citations?  Robert A.West (Talk) 17:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I've linked this before, but it's right here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OIC. Since, by hypothesis, the Crackpot Theory is relevant, and Professor Weird is at least notable enough to be quoted on the subject of the theory, then the Crackpot theory must be relevant to Professor Weird's notability.  I think my eye just jumped past that point.  So, I have a reply the next time someone calls me to task on the subject.  Thanks.  Robert A.West (Talk) 15:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) If a Wikipedia article discusses whether unreliable newspaper U committed libel or not, the rule cited by Badlydrawnjeff would allow articles published in U to be cited and quoted, unless there are claims about third parties. But the person allegedly being libeled is a third party, so no passage that includes the name of the person allegedly being libeled could be quoted from U, at least as the rule is currently written. --Gerry Ashton 23:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And that's fine. If there isn't another (reliable) source that mentions the name of the third party (allegedly being libeled), then the name of the person is not newsworthy.  Plus, mentioning the name in Wikipedia would be encouragement to the unreliable newspaper, which we wouldn't want to do even if there was no rule here specifically against it.  -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:18px;">John Broughton |  (♫♫) 23:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait, wait, staying with the Carol Burnett example, she would not be considered a third party on her own page, right? If X publishes a libel about Y, and this suit is mentioned on Y's page, and we have agreed that X is usable source in this instance, then nothing meaningful is accomplished by refusing to use a passage in X that contains Y's name.  I think the point of the third-party clause is that if there is an Enquirer story that says "Paris Hilton gives birth to woodchuck," and a libel suit ensues, we can't properly cite the NE passage as relevant to a libel suit on the marmots page. Ethan Mitchell 14:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If I were writing on my own website, and I was writing about a possible libel that had already been repeated in several reliable sources, I wouldn't hesitate to quote the original source of the possible libel, even if it were published by an unreliable source. If the Verifiability policy is read strictly, I don't think this is allowed in Wikipedia, but I would argue that the policy was not developed in a way that makes the policy suitable for mechanical application, and it is necessary to discern the intent of the policy. I think the intent is to not harm people's reputation by repeating an allegation from an obscure source in Wikipedia, which is anything but obscure. If the allegation is already circulating in media more widely read/watched/listened to than Wikipedia, there is no point in not mentioning the allegation here.


 * Nevertheless, there may be editors who just mechanically follow the rules as written, and avoid quoting sources that could enhance an article. So, I would welcome a better wording of the policy. --Gerry Ashton 18:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Quite frankly, I don't think any reasonable editor would object to such a citation, and adding such a citation can easily be defended on the grounds of WP:IAR" I have had to go to substantial lengths, in the past, to defend the use of a usenet post to indicate that a concept was in use on usenet on a particular date. Whether or not the editors who insisted on removing it were acting reasonably or not isn't really relevant -- they clearly believed that policy prohibited it. Many (perhaps even most) wikipedia editors are not aware of IAR -- it isn't the most well publicised of policies -- so relying on that is perhaps not ideal. I firmly believe that this kind of use is both acceptable and within policy, although the current wording of policy does make it difficult to see that it is. JulesH 09:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And, I argue that IAR is a two-edged sword. It can be cited by those whose actions improve Wikipedia only in their own minds.  We need a safety-valve for when our rules are poorly-written, or for when an oddball case comes up, but we should write rules in such a way that we have recourse to IAR as rarely as possible.  Robert A.West (Talk) 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The National Enquirer is not a realiable source on anything except what appeared in its papers on a certain date and that only on its own article space. Not anywhere else.  If a lawsuit by Carol Burnett is newsworthy it will appear in other sources and those should be cited, not the National Enquirer on those issues. Why? Because the National Enquirer is not a reliable source. Wjhonson 18:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I don't know much about the National Enquirer, but I would say for instance that the article Freddie Starr should not only mention The Sun's famous cover story "Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster", but should cite the edition in question as a source -- because it is the most authoratitive source on what the Sun said about him.  As long as we are careful (a) only to repeat notable claims (e.g. by requiring other reliable sources to have mentioned them) and (b) not to repeat tham is if they were true (e.g. by requiring it to be made clear in the text that the content being discussed is the unreliable source's claims, not wikipedia's) I see no harm at all in citing a normally-unreliable source for the purposes of describing that source's claims.  But that notability is established via additional reliable sources is particularly important. JulesH 18:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Precisely so. By Wjhonson's reasoning, we should practically never cite any primary source directly, which is preposterous.  If we are discussing the libels that Thomas Jefferson paid Callender to publish against John Adams, then obviously those publications are not reliable as to Adams's character, but they are reliable as to the libelous text.   No reasonable editor would object to quoting a passage or two

from the originals, alongside, say, David McCullough's commentary on the incident and its relation to the Alien and Sedition Acts. What, besides the passage of time, is the difference? Robert A.West (Talk) 20:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The National Enquirer is not a reliable source for any article other than it's own and then only in regard to its own actions, not those of others. By taking your point to a ridulous extreme you do nothing to advance your own argument, perhaps you'd like to get back on-track?  Libel sheets are not reliable sources, except on their own pages.  That's a well-founded basis of wikipedia.  I highly doubt you'll get support to change it, but you're certainly welcome to try.  In the meantime, if anyone knows a page that actually cites the National Enquirer, let me know. Wjhonson 23:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The scandal-sheets of James T. Callender were the National Enquirer of their day, and are no more reliable. There is no difference between the two cases, yet you accuse me of taking the argument to extremes by pointing this out.  We use unreliable primary sources all the time, and concern ourselves only with the accuracy of the edition.  It is only when the primary source has been published within living memory that people get confused.  Robert A.West (Talk) 23:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Something that is being lost in this discussion is that there are reliable primary sources and there are unreliable primary sources (and the same is true for Secondary and Tertiary sources). The "class" of source does not determine its reliability.  We are actually in the midst of a reworking of the "types of sources" section at WP:RS (see the talk page) to point this out.  But one thing we are keeping the the idea that editors are encouraged to look for secondary sources for referencing most statements, rather than relying on primary or tertiary ones.
 * That brings me back to the discussion... in the Carrol Burnett/Enquirer matter, while we might use NE as a primary source (and get into all sorts of arguments and edit wars about it's reliablility) since we have plenty of reliable secondary sources that are available, we should use those instead. Blueboar 00:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But this is one of the advantages of consulting secondary sources: all of them will tell you Callender was an unreliable scandal-monger, before settling into the argument about whether he was right, or partly right, about any particular scandal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Truth is far more imporatant than verification.
When I read an article in Wikipedia, I want to read the truth. What value is there for it to be verified if it is not the truth? Why on earth would someone want to read that which is false but verified as opposed to the truth?01001 00:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Only reputable sources can be used as citations. So, truth and verifiability are strongly correlated :) Count Iblis 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The way I would put it, a Wiki that does not show where information came from is so unlikely to present truthful information that it isn't worth reading, and it does not matter whether unread information is true or false. --Gerry Ashton 01:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody would want false but verified, but then again, even if you had truth, how would you verify it? And if you couldn't verify it, then how do you know you had the truth? Therefore since truth rests on verifiability, it's actually more fundamental.WolfKeeper 02:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not in the slightest. We simply do not judge. We can check that someone said what they are supposed to but we do not have a mechanism to judge its correctness. Truth does not rest on verifiability at all. It is simply not in the same domain of enquiry. Grace Note 08:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't consider that statement true. Any way I can verify it? :-) WolfKeeper 00:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you can check whether I said it ;-) Grace Note 05:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is not "verification" policy; there is a "verifiability" policy, which only says that material that is not even theoretically verifiable is not appropriate. I don't believe there is any claim in the policy that false material is appropriate. CMummert · talk 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a clear and correct inference that false material is appropriate, because your false and my false are not necessarily congruent. Where the OP (and you) are going astray is in your belief that truth is something that could be ascertained by this kind of programme. Sadly, the misconception is widespread here, so we usually have votes, and whoever gains a majority gets their "truth" printed. Grace Note


 * That is a very interesting comment, and I'm interested in hearing more of your opinion about it. Could you explain what you mean by "this kind of program"? The overall goal is to build an encyclopedia which is a valuable reference, which means that the information it contains has to be chosen somehow, and informally one selection criteria is that it is "true" or "correct". The issue here seems to be precise meaning of the word "true".  Of course it can't mean "everyone agrees" or worse "I agree with it". There is some discussion at WP:NOTTRUTH that I mostly agree with. CMummert · talk 14:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By "this kind of programme", I mean the effort to construct an encyclopaedia that is "neutral" in the sense we use from particular sorts of sources and not others. You are entirely wrong about the selection criterion for material and this policy puts you straight, or should. If you create articles in accordance with the policy here, you have no means to interpret materials that would allow you to judge "truth" or "correctness". Grace Note 05:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a common mistake made by newcomers. I would encorage 01001 to actually read the policy carefully and avoid jumping into quick conclusions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Truth is not even an issue. I would encourage 01001 to read Francis Bacon on the issue. It's instructive. Maybe you'd enjoy it too. Grace Note 08:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To expand a bit on what Grace Note has said: the question of what is true, or even whether or not there is such a thing as truth, is not something that everyone agrees about. We don't have to get into angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin epistemics to see this.  Many people would consider the statement "The United States invaded Iraq" to be true; many others consider it to be false.  Yet there is a set of statements that both parties can agree are verifiable.  For wikipedia to have a "truth policy," it would need to define truth, and exclude all the editors who did not agree with their definition.  Since the assembled philosophers of three millenia have not been able to agree on what truth is, it would seem...well...problematic to do this.  But if we have a verifiability policy, then we can create a resource which is useful to anyone, regardless of how they view truth.  I want to go one step farther and say: if someone objects to being presented with verifiable information on the grounds that it might not be true, they are surrendering their own intellect; they are asking the world to provide truth to them in a pre-packaged form that they can have faith in.  They are saying, "I don't like to think; you think for me."  That demand, I think, is essentially sociopathic and there is no reason for anyone to cater to it. Ethan Mitchell 16:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia editors can agree, in general, on what is verifiable, and what is a reliable source. Very, very few differences of opinion - when they occur - get resolved by a Request for Comment (presumably what is meant by a "vote", above).  By using only reliable sources, the probability of adding something untrue to the article is reduced, but it is certainly not eliminated.


 * By contrast, if the criteria were "truth", then editor who have personally witnessed something, spoken to someone who did, etc., would be empowered to argue that such information should be added to articles -- and determining the truth would then come down to evaluating credibility, and, for those who believed elsewise, trying to minimize or discredit other editors or their sources. That's a prescription for disaster.  Those who started this encyclopedia settled on "verifiability, not truth" as the formula that gets as close to the truth as possible and is still a workable process for building an encyclopedia (my words, my emphasis).   -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:18px;">John Broughton  (♫♫)


 * While I agree with what J.B. is saying, I want to add that the verifiability policy is also workable for those editors (like myself) who do not believe in 'truth,' or who believe in truth but do not think it is a valid goal for an encyclopedia. So verifiability is a common denominator; we can make everyone fairly happy this way.  Ethan Mitchell 04:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that truth is a laudable goal for any publication - but without having some kind of reference to support a statement, how can you be certain of its truth... There are some truths that can be inferred quite simply (such as 2+2=4), but there are more complex truths that cannot be simply stated - for example, the Religion in Scouting has been such an article - I have had personal experience on some of the points discussed in the article, so I knew them to be true - but without an independent verification of those points, they were not valid... Ultimately, I think the article is now that much stronger and balanced because the verifiability policy (and a few editors) have caused myself (and other editors) to be careful to research and reference the article. So the question is - what is truth without the ability to verify it as truth? Horus Kol 11:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's the question, at least it's not the question we are concerned with here. If all wikipedians agreed epistemologically about What Truth Is, and we only disagreed about the truth-value of different statements, then the verifiability policy would help us with that.  Sure.  In fact, we have a much more serious problem: wikipedians no more agree on a definition of "truth" than they agree on a definition of "good."  Lucky for us, the verifiability policy still works--everyone gets the information they need.  Ethan Mitchell 13:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Truth as an object is a myth. Truth is not a thing, it's a journey.  There is no end to that journey.  As the articles here get better cited, more neutral and more broad, they become more *true* if you will, but none of them ever *arrives* at the end of that truth-journey.  Now go get your begging bowl, the ashram needs a new ...um... limousine or something. Wjhonson 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This may be Wjhonson's view, but it is not everyone's, nor is needed for the policy. The fact that some truths are very complex and that we have no perfect means to know them does not mean that they do not exist.  Articles on such subjects can only hope to be approximations of the truth, and the rest of Wjhonson's analysis holds.  Verifiable articles will, on balance, be better approximations of the truth than any other workable method.  Robert A.West (Talk) 00:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Per definitionem, verifiable articles will only approximate some representations of the "truth", which makes your statement entirely false. Why? Because verifiability will show that "2+2=4" (the symbols mean that) or that "the" is used in English as the definite article (again, he symbol means that) but other "truths" are not easily constructed in the same way. It will also show that "(Wikipedia states that) X said Y" is true because it can be shown where X said Y. These are a priori truths (or truths of reasoning) and it's trivially easy to show them to be true because you need only show that the premises exist. However, truths of fact are more difficult, and truths of interpretation simply impossible. Grace Note 05:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Re "Truth is far more important than verification." -- The problem is that we frequently can't tell for sure what is the truth. How tall is Mount Everest? What's the population of India? How many Iraqis have died during the current U.S. occupation of that country? Sources disagree, and how can we decide which ones are "true"? We can't really know for sure - all we can do is cite various sources to support various estimates, measurements, or claims; i.e. "verifiability." Writtenonsand 02:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Linking to essays
I wrote an essay pertaining to verifiability and original sources, which can be found at WP:NRSNVNA. Is the "see also" section an appropriate place to link to this essay? If not, where is? Thanks! - Chardish 06:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I consider the first sentence to be flat-out wrong, I suggest not linking to it at all. An example of an article that contains no cited reliable sources and yet is acceptable is a list, especially when the items in the list are wikilinks to articles that do contain cited reliable sources. --Gerry Ashton 13:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * An list still requires sources - either those are in the list themselves or in the wikilinks to articles that have sources that explain why they're in the list. Unsourced lists are not aceeptable. Notability requirements aside, I can't create a list of "Politicians frequently seen wearing striped ties" without sources that would back up "Senator so-and-so always wears a striped tie." But this is beside the point, and outside the scope of this talk page. - Chardish 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Gerry, some editors believe that lists of that type should not be admitted to Wikipedia (cats are better) and it is of course policy that lists of foos should be completely sourced.Grace Note 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that linking to an essay that propounds a theory that is far from having consensus (that unsourced articles should be deleted) from a policy page is an appropriate action. JulesH 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)