Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 20

Verifiable information
I am being told by an admin, User:Jossi, that he can re-introduce challenged facts without providing a citation as long as the facts are "verifiable", as in can be verified. I moved the info to the talk page at Talk:List_of_Romanian_actors for others to find citations for them. But he insists on keeping the uncited information in the article itself saying "Moving it to talk, simply removes any possibility from the occasional editor to come and add a source". My opinion is that moving it to talk prevents readers from reading potentially false information.

he says to me "You are misinterpreting WP:V". Is this true? Why doesn't the policy say this? Where have I gone wrong in interpreting this policy? Are uncited facts really allowed to stay even after being challenged because they are "verifiable"? I want to follow the rules here, but what are the rules? Until(1 == 2) 04:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I am not a she, I am a he. I have invited you to contribute to the project by finding sources rather than deleting material because there are no sources. It took me less than 20 minutes to find sources for the most of the entries in List of Romanian actors that you deleted. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and we do that by collaborating: one editor adds material, another editor adds more, and another finds a source. If the material is not sourced, you can add a fact tag, and wait. If no source is forthcoming, you may delete, if you wish, or better do some basic research if you are inclined and find a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I didn't delete anything, I moved it to the talk page where things that need to meet inclusion standards belong. Secondly I found the first 19 references so don't imply that I never did any research. Third, removing unsourced information is an important contribution that stops Wikipedia from turning into a gossip mill. I would appreciate it if you did not diminish my contributions. And finally, fact tags are not a requirement before removing unsourced data. I gave plenty of notice on the talk page before during and after. Everything I removed I re-posted on the talk page to be addressed. I am not just tossing stuff out. But now we are just repeating ourselves, I am interested in others opinions on this matter. Until(1 == 2) 04:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You say "I am interested in others opinions on this matter." My opinion is that User:Jossi is 100% right on this. Read all his comments in this thread (section). WAS 4.250 12:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How typical, established editors 100% supporting each other against new ones. Of couse Jossi's wrong. The burden of evidence is always on those who want to keep the claim, and the first pragraph of this policy page says it literally: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.". "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page." In other words, moving to talk is the natural reaction to complaints like Jossi's, but he can't demand anything else. The use of the tag instead is recommended, but not obligatory - it's up to the challenging editor to decide whether the risk of disinforming readers is too high. Jossi has no right to re-add anything.--Anonymous44 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. I do appreciate your contributions. Moving content to talk is deleting content. The application of policy needs to be done in context. An unsourced controversial claim in a biography of a living person can be deleted on sight, for example. For non-contentious material such as a list of actors, we give some more leeway. If an entry is not sourced, hopefully someone will add it at a later point. Wikipedia articles are work in progress and there are tens of thousands articles without sources. You may want to join one of the Wikipedia projects to help with finding and adding sources to such articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to read WP:CITE where this is explained. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The key here is whether the information is harmful to the article (as outlined in WP:CITE)... since listing someone as a Rumanian Actor is hardly harmful (to the article or the person), the correct approach is to add a citation request (a tag) and leave it in the article.  If, after a reasonable period (I would suggest at least a month), a citation has not been provided, then you can delete it or move it to talk.  Blueboar 11:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course any wrong information is harmful to the article. But the fun thing is that we now have three established editors supporting each other against all reason and policy. It's getting cooler and cooler. --Anonymous44 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If I as a reader(remember the reader?) look up Romanian actors, and add some to my report that are not Romanian actors because WP put uncited information back in(after another editor challenged it veracity), that is harmful. Unreliable information is a detriment to an article. This is basic academic responsibility, show your work. Until(1 == 2) 13:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced data
Sourcing is new to wikipedia. Articles written for wikipedia in the early years were typically not sourced. There remain many thousands of excellent article in wikipedia from those years that remain to be properly sourced. Do not delete any data from wikipedia that you believe to be both true and not harmful regardless of whether or not it is sourced. Sourcing is an improvement and only a requrement if someone honestly believes it is either false or harmful (per WP:BLP or WP:LIBEL for example). The reqirement is that it is capable of being sourced. It only fails this requirement if people actually look online and in libraries for a source and can't find one. It does not fail this requirement just because a question on a talk page goes unanswered. WAS 4.250 12:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All I can do is follow policy. I think any incorrect information is harmful to the article. I would appreciate it if this vague advice I am being given is explained in more clear terms in policy. Because it seems that there is a set of rules, but when I follow them I am told there is another unwritten set of rules. Perhaps an addition to the policy would clear this up. I for one am confused. I have no reason to believe that the entries on the list really are actors, really are Romanian, and really have a significants that justifies an entry in an encyclopedia. How can I know this if all this is true without a citation? How do I know we are not just passing on false data that some guy added one day after school? Why does it say I can challenge uncited facts I am unsure about when it seems I get in trouble when I do? I am not trashing the place, I am citing what I can and moving what is not to the talk page. The article is for the readers, the talk page is for the editors. I don't see why editors should keep notes about "what might be citable" in the article space. It is very hard on new users when the policy says one thing and the mob says another. Until(1 == 2) 13:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What you folks are all telling me, is it in a policy that I have not read? That would explain a lot. For example, where is it written in policy "The reqirement is that it is capable of being sourced(sic)"? Until(1 == 2) 14:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To be fair to both sides, I am not aware of this shift-to-talk being a current policy or practice. However, thinking about it, it seems that it could be sensible anyway. If there's content that an editor honestly can't tell the truth or falsehood of, is uncited and has been marked as such for some time, I can see how it might be appropriate to do this. I have no idea if that's the situation in the cases referred to, it just strikes me that there could be cases that it applies to. SamBC 14:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Verifiability says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". Note that it does not say "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is an inline citation to a reliable published source." Citing is how we demonstate verifiability when a claim is challenged. Verifiability then says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the fact template, or tag the article by adding Not verified or Unreferenced. Leave an invisible HTML comment, a note on the talk page, or an edit summary explaining what you have done. Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people." Clearly, we are not supposed to go around deleting every uncited claim. Clearly, how we deal with uncited claims is a matter of editorial judgement. There is no rule to be used blindly on every uncited claim. But editorial judgements will vary. So when you feel that some list items should be moved to the talk page then maybe they should. When someone else disagrees then maybe they shouldn't. It is all a matter of editorial judgement. See WP:IAR for our most important rule. If it make wikipedia better then it is ok to do. WAS 4.250 14:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The policy clearly supports Until. You are supposed to delete every uncited claim that you think needs to be deleted. The burden of evidence is on the one who restores it - i.e. the one hwo restores it without evidence is wrong. If you abandon this rule, you only have anarchy and edit warring left. Which some people like, I'm sure. --Anonymous44 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems to support my position that once removed a citation needs to be provided before re-adding. I have just learned the policy is supposed to be "descriptive" of consensus, not "prescriptive". So it appears the problem is not with me misinterpreting policy, but the policy misrepresenting the community consensus. In order to move forward instead of just going in circles I will attempt to draft a policy change proposal to include the communities opinion on these matters. Expect it within a few hours. I am willing to follow the rules, but it needs to be made clear what the rules are. Until(1 == 2) 15:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If your proposal succeeds, I'm leaving this project.--Anonymous44 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a good way to react to other editors. Wikipedia has dispute resolution processes you can use instead. Jehochman  Talk 20:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you slightly misunderstood my statement and the context. That aside, I see no other adequate way to react. And DR has nothing to do with this. --Anonymous44 20:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that WP:V defines "Verifiable": ""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 does not mean "Capable of being verified", it means it needs a citation to a reliable source that any editor can check. Until(1 == 2) 15:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed policy changes
I have come to the conclusion that the wording of the current policy is not in line with the community consensus on how WP:V should be interpreted. So I am proposing the following changes/additions:


 * 1) Unsourced information may be re-added despite being challenged by an editor if consensus determines that the information is capable of being sourced
 * 2) Before removing unsourced information it must be marked with a fact tag and a message on the talk page must be posted, a period of at least a (week/month/year?) must pass before removing the content (unsure of the duration, opinions on this matter are vague)
 * 3) It is the responsibility of the person removing the content to search for a citation to support the content being removed, and if one is found the content should be cited and remain (Suggestion #1 may be a better alternative to this, leaving the burden of proof on the person seeking to re-add unless consensus determines it capable of being sourced)
 * 4) It is not appropriate to remove significant amounts of uncited content from an article (more than half? a third?)

Please let me know you opinion on each change suggested. Until(1 == 2) 15:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

First, my opinion on these changes is that it is better as it is now. However, I would rather have a policy that the community agrees to and that can be followed without people getting angry at me. I will gladly accept consensus in this matter however my personal opinion is that these changes are misguided.

In regards to #1, pretty much all information is "capable of being sourced", I suppose consensus can determine this on a case by case basis. Re: #2 This seem reasonable if specific criteria are made available to the person doing the cleanup. Re: #3, it seems rather contrary to have people being forced to research other people's claims, but if the community agrees this is the duty of the person removing the content then I will accept this. Re: #4, this may be reasonable, but it also needs to be more clearly defined.

I am attempting to sincerely represent the opinions of the community in this matter, if you feel I have misinterpreted things please feel free to re-draft any of these additions. But what cannot continue is the policy saying one thing, then the community getting all upset with me when I follow it. Lets get the policy in line with consensus here, or there will be unnecessary conflict and interruptions to important encyclopedic editing. Until(1 == 2) 15:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree that things are better as they stand now. The third point, in particular, shifts the burden of proof too greatly from the person adding material to the person questioning it. Ultimately it's not hepful if anyone is free to add dubious info, and then to clean it up someone else has to prove a negative (i.e., the material can't be sourced). We have enough trouble already with aggressive pseudoscience POV-pushers and the like without giving license to add speculative claims.  Let's just leave things as they are and apply our best judgment. Raymond Arritt 15:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This current policy does not leave it up to judgment, it clearly puts the burden on the person seeking to add the information. Perhaps you can draft a change that allows consensus to override the burden of proof? I guess point #1 can cover that, thus making point #3 redundant if consensus determines it "capable of being sourced" Until(1 == 2) 16:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no need to make these changes either. WAS 4.250 gave a thorough explanation on how policy is applied. Yes, we have policies (not rules), and yes we have guidelines such as WP:CITE, but editor's good judgment is also needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ATT where this is discussed as follows:
 * Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think the policy is fine as it is now, then I expect you to follow it and not return unsourced content after it has been challenged. Even when I removed 4 names that had no citations or even wikilinks you revert me, I know you found citations, but why did you have to criticize and revert my removal, instead of just citing them before re-adding? WAS(and just now you) described a policy where that is not allowed. Perhaps you can draft a proposed addition that settles this? Until(1 == 2) 16:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mark it as fact, and wait a month. Your deletion of material that is harmless is not consistent with application of policy. What is the challenge? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So wouldn't suggestion #2 be in line with that? The challenge is that there is no way of knowing if it is true, the harm is the reader getting potentially wrong information. Until(1 == 2) 16:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "Unsourced information may be re-added despite being challenged by an editor if consensus determines that the information is capable of being sourced" (option number one above) descibes current practice and consensus for what current practice should be. Adding it to the policy page would help with cases where peope go around deleting stuff the rest of us agree should be sourced eventually and not deleted. I think we should add it to the policy page. WAS 4.250 16:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I think that is the first response that attempts to make sense of all of this. Until(1 == 2) 16:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also support this - I give more of a view below where my reasoning fits better. SamBC 17:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the starting point has to be there are no rules. Unfortunately, there are a wide variety of people out there who want to do things that aren't going to end up with producing a good quality article, therefore it is useful to have guidelines. Like any contract, they are best not used, and in business if you are reading the contract then things have already gone too far wrong. At the moment, there is something amiss with the spirit of editing: many of us grumpy folk here are here because we got Wiki-Lawyered and came to defend our position in the face of irreconcilable differences. I'm of a view that strengthening the rules undermines the guiding principles and things need to be clearer, but looser.

There is an interesting similarity with a problem that Formula 1 has on aerodynamic parts. The rule is 'no moving parts' however teams made bendy bits that accidentally moved in a favourable way under pressure at speed, so F1 added rules to say no bendy bits and must not bend under x amount of pressure. What they then found was that people built parts that bent to the test tolerance. So they adjusted the rules to say no bendy bits, the test is so and so, but the principle is still no bendy bits so if we think you are building bendy bits we reserve the right to change the rules to protect the spirit. I think this is a phase we are seeing the rules going through here: in seeking to sort out the guidelines, we are losing the spirit which is avoid rules where possible if it gets us to a good result. Spenny 16:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wonderful, I think change #1 addresses these concerns. But the way it is written makes it clear who can remove and who can re-add and under what circumstances, it mentions no such exceptions, it should if that is the case. Until(1 == 2) 16:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The wording "any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged" does not cover the situation where somebody chooses to challenge otherwise uncontroversial material in order to prove a point. However, we can cover that situation ourselves by applying common sense. Tim Vickers 16:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It actually says just that. Who says it is uncontroversial? If it is uncontroversial then what are we arguing about? It says "any material that is challenged" not "any material that common sense determines challengeable". When people disagree that is not common sense, common sense is sense that is common. If the sense was common there would be no problem, we could all just agree. I think you mean "consensus" which is exactly what I am trying to allow for in suggestion #1. Also, again, I am not trying to prove a point, I am trying to figure out the dam rules so I can follow them and cleanup Wikipedia. Please stop accusing me of bad faith, I am doing all I can to work with the community on this. I don't deserve accusations of bad faith and I am pretty sure it is against policy(unless I am misinterpreting WP:AGF). Until(1 == 2) 17:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ISTR reading something about "there's no such thing as common sense" - people are coming here from all sort of social, professional, cultural and ethnic backgrounds. If something clearly isn't common sense, because some people can't seem it that obviously, the fact that it is seen as 'obvious' should be codified (without being as patronising as I made it sound). SamBC 17:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, I think you have found the crux of the whole issue. Until(1 == 2) 17:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not needed. With all due respect to Until(1 == 2), this entire proposal seems unproductive and unhelpful (See e.g., WP:BURO WP:CREEP, as well as other reasons already mentioned above). The fact that it appears to have been motivated by a specific (and apparently still-pending) content dispute suggests Taking it outside would have been more appropriate.

There are many mature WP contributors who are quite capable and very familiar with what does and does not contribute to article improvement. Spoon-feeding them with step-by-step edicts and rote formulaic recipes is not going to help. The experienced contributors already know these steps and apply them as appropriate; because they work, not because they are legislated from on-high.

What's worse, less mature contributors are not even going to bother with these recipes, except when they can be used against someone else. What's even worse, is that you appear to be saying nothing more than: "cites count, but so does consensus" ... Consensus (et. al.) already cover that.

If you really feel strongly about your viewpoint, create an essay (Category:Wikipedia essays) just like everyone else who has a personal viewpoint to share and promote. If it gains traction there will be enough "consensus" to elevate it to policy status anyway. Changes to policy should not be considered the first choice for resolving recent or pending content disputes. dr.ef.tymac 17:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But what I am being told the rules are does not reflect in the policy. I am just trying to figure out the rules here. This is not about a specific content dispute, it is about what I do next. I need to know the rules. If what I am being told is not really what the rules are, then I need to know that. I came here to clarify policy, and my suggested changes are directly based on what I was told on this very page . These are not my opinions, but the opinions of the community that are being applied to me. What I would really like is the policy to be enforced as it is now, which it is not. Until(1 == 2) 17:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad that you want to "follow the rules", but what you need is an understanding of the principles upon which these "rules" have been drafted. As a new editor, it is best if you look around and see how things work, before making suggestions on how to improve upon existing "rules". It is not that hard or complicated as it seems. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What you've been told is the viewpoint of the contributor you were talking with, there are other views as well. The fact still remains that this discussion is inextricably mingled with the dispute that started it, and arguably beyond the scope of this discussion page. I'm fully confident in your good-faith motivation, but clearly Category:Wikipedia essays, Taking it outside, Consensus, and WP:BRD are relevant here, and should be reviewed, *especially* if you want your proposal(s) to merit serious consideration. dr.ef.tymac 17:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * False dilemma. Your approach is too literalist. We cannot take bits and pieces of any relevant policy in isolation. As others have mentioned, verifiability, consensus and other relevant policies and guidelines work in concert. It's also hard to imagine many editors not exercising common sense even if the policy doesn't spell it out (although it's being proposed.) And Unit, don't take this the wrong way; I don't think anyone has accused you of bad faith as far as I can see, but some of your objections honestly seem a bit... point-ish. Also, you really should use the preview button a lot more often. This  has been making it difficult to follow all the discussions, not to mention the countless edit conflicts it is creating. — Zerida 17:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that there is not a consensus for the rules I am being asked to follow. I am trying to understand what you want, I spelled out what I thought you wanted, then you would not agree to it. What do you want me to do? What does what you want me to do differ from the points I suggested above? HELP ME. Until(1 == 2) 17:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, here is an idea, help me make a guideline/essay that explains what is expected of me, leave the policy as it is. I don't want to change things, I just want to know what you want. Until(1 == 2) 17:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a start: User:Until(1 == 2)/Removal of uncited content, feel free to move it to WP namespace if you think it is appropriate. Not tying to disrupt, just trying to continue properly. Until(1 == 2) 18:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This may be the core of the issue, Until: I don't want to change things, I just want to know what you want. There is no "what you want", there is "what we want". This is a community of peers. You can embody the "we" by not only following rules to the letter, but by gaining an understanding. I am sure that you have learned quite a bit from the last exchanges, and so have I. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am trying to gain understanding. I have started by putting questions on the essay talk page User talk:Until(1 == 2)/Removal of uncited content. While these things may be vague and unwritten now, there is no reason why a consensus driven essay cannot be formed to make it more clear to new users. I hope you realize the absurdity of asking me to follow rules then not letting me know what they are. Until(1 == 2) 18:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This may help: The_role_of_policies_in_collaborative_anarchy ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that helps me follow rules that apparently cannot be put into words and agreed on. Until(1 == 2) 18:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (ed conf) We are here not to follow rules, but to create an encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would just love to do that, but I need to know how to avoid being interrupted. Until(1 == 2) 18:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced these rules need to be written. The first is obvious from the fact that while this page says information may be challenged & removed if it isn't sourced, it doesn't say it must always be sourced. The second is a fairly obvious corollary of WP:CIVIL -- people get upset if content they're working on is arbitrarily deleted without warning, and we should strive not to upset other editors. The third is merely a good suggestion but I wouldn't want it anywhere near policy, because it would stop us from dealing with content that we knew was wrong efficiently. The fourth I don't think is even a good idea. If an unreferenced tag or large numbers of fact tags have been on an article for a long time, or if it is negative BLP, then it always appropriate to remove uncited information, however much of it there is. Even if there is consensus for any of these, it's more of a guideline issue than a policy one, so here isn't the right place for it. JulesH 18:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Every time I get advice it is a little different. Until(1 == 2) 18:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So, here's the thing... I don't agree with Until's method of conducting this debate - I can assume enough good faith to assume that he didn't create a straw man deliberately, but that's what the original proposal seems to be. However, I do think that there's a genuine concern here: there are ways that I have seen that popular practice (and, by implication, consensus) deviates from the policy/guidelines that I've seen, at least within sub-groups and topic areas. New users do read policy and guidelines and try to apply them, in good faith, and it is frustrating when it turns out that what the handy documents tell us, or seem to tell us, isn't what people expect, and they in fact get quite annoyed. I think what's happening here is that a user has sought clarification, and then suggested that that clarification ought to be in the documents new users tend to read. SamBC 18:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going away for a little while, I hope that some clarification grows on the essay I started, I put some draft ideas on the talk page. Until(1 == 2) 18:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought I kind of liked this project, but that was because I had read its rules. Now I see that, in a blatant case such as this, pretty much every experienced contributor around here takes a side against these rules, or at least shamelessly reproaches those who advocate them, or at best pretends to ignore the nature of the conflict altogether. Obviously, what seemed good in the rules was mostly the result of an accident, and so was my liking it. The rules were an illusion, and the reality is the behaviour that I see here.--Anonymous44 20:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem can be illustrated by clicking on "random article" a few times. I just did and got Jan z Tarnowa. It has no external links or references or tags warning of lack of references. It was created in 2005 before the current push for sources. Wikipedia is not helped by deleting that article, unless someone does a good check and finds no sources. On the other hand if someone just now added it, it would be ok to demand sources as the burden lies on them. Perhaps we need to say that this policy is different regarding older articles. Grandfathered in? WAS 4.250 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody ever said that everything without a source must be deleted. According to the policy, anything without a source may be deleted; i.e. an editor is allowed to delete it if he thinks that it should be deleted (because it is or appears likely to be incorrect). The assumption is that editors wouldn't lie and delete for pleasure. If an editor thinks he has reason to believe that a sentence in Jan z Tarnowa is incorrect, then the sentence should stay out of the page until sourced. As for the deletion of entire articles, that is a special area, covered by other pages. --Anonymous44 21:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * i.e. an editor is allowed to delete it if he thinks that it should be deleted. Not really. That deletion can be challenged as well, in particular if the deleted text is not controversial, or if the material is easily verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it can't be challenged. The policy doesn't say that. What do you think "burden of evidence" means? If the material is easily verifiable, the editor who includes it should verify it (source it). If it were uncontroversial, it would never have been deleted in the first place per definition.--Anonymous44 23:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we adapt this to the situation. A critical fact on which notability depends must be sourced;a fact that is important to the subject and really controversial must be sourced--if one person claims someone is Ukrainian and another Russian and it matters to the article then it must be resolved by dispute resolution if necessary; if it does not matter to the article the statement of nationality can be removed altogether until someone finds a source; if there is a poor quality source--which will in practice often be the case whatever it supports stands until someone finds a better.
 * The way to get articles sourced otherwise is to keep reminding people, and to have efforts looking for sources of a particular type in likely places--it would make sense for a group of editors to systematically use, say, an Italian biographic encyclopedia to verify unsourced articles about Italians. Asking for the verification of scattered articles is much less effective. Excessive pushing for sources where they are not critical will have one of two results: the removal of potentially good articles, or the provision of low quality sources.
 * This said, the continual improvement of sources will be a major theme in this or any similar project. DGG (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) How likely is it that a List of Romanian actors be "incorrect" (as opposed to lacking references)? It's a list after all. Notice that the dispute which precipitated the editorial conflict on the policy page was mostly in regard to academic/scientific/medical topics, where the potential to mislead can have different consequences; hence no contradiction as Anonymous44 maintains. I don't see, however, how this situation calls for changes to policy as suggested by Until. In fact, I would say that only those things which clearly do not satisfy WP:V, WP:N, WP:BLP, WP:NOR and simple vandalism that should be summarily deleted. A clearly valid article lacking sources can be remedied. The rest, such as NPOV disputes, can be worked out through discussion and consensus. I think this is a more constructive approach to building an encyclopedia, as Jossi has pointed out. Furthermore, for the list of Romanian actors, it was hardly necessary to cite every single actor who already has an article on Wikipedia. The references should have probably gone into the individual articles where they are actually needed. The topic of Romanian cinema itself may be difficult to source by many English-language references, but this is not justification for deletion by itself. This is, however, more about the content dispute than the policy, which should have been worked out on the relevant talk pages. — Zerida 23:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about a contradiction between the "academic" dispute and this one. You are pointing to the concrete case, which I admit is kinda weird, but we are being asked about general principles here, and that's what I've been talking about. The claim that a Romanian actor exists and is an actor can indeed be "correct" or "incorrect", and it should be easy to be sourced (though probably in Romanian); on the other hand, an editor is not expected to demand such a source just for the principle's sake, without any reason to doubt it (a misperception that Until obviously had at some point). But if he does demand a source, it should be provided. Otherwise, anybody could claim that anything is "uncontroversial", "obvious", "true", "easy to source" and hence needs no sourcing, and edit warring decides the outcome, turning Wikipedia into a complete anarchy. --Anonymous44 23:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * btw, after this "dispute" started, the result is a list in which all entries are now sourced, besides just a couple. Which demonstrates that it is always better to source, than to delete. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * also note that lists are in the mainspace, and as such they need sources as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

WAS 4.250's example, the article on Jan z Tarnowa is a good case study. WAS found it using random article, and found that no sources were included. Great. How long it takes to find a reference? I found hundreds of sources on the first five minutes, unfortunately the sources are all in Polish. If I am interested in building an encyclopedia, I would contact a Wikipedian that speaks the language (Category:User_pl) and ask for assistance. If I am interested in following the rules, I would mark as unreferenced and come back two weeks later to delete the material and ask for a speedy deletion. That is the difference between applying the rules for rule's sake, and building an encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... no, I don't think unsourced articles should be blanked and speedily deleted merely and solely on the basis of the fact that they are unsourced (as I just noticed that Until had apparently advocated or even done something like that before the current discussion; I guess that could be part of the reason for some of the people's reactions). WP:DP specifically deals with the issues, and it does not mention lack of references in itself as a sufficient reason for deletion. It also explicitly says that serious attempts must be made to find sources before deletion is considered. However, removing unsourced claims is fully acceptable, and the only alternative to that principle is the Law of the Jungle, where in conflicts between arbitrary "editorial judgments" about what "might potentially be sourced, if one tried", the strongest (least busy, most stubborn) editor or the strongest (most numerous) faction wins. --Anonymous44 23:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Law of the Jungle? That is not my experience. If that is your experience, you may have missed the dispute resolution process we have in place. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't - and don't - have a DR for each sentence that some like and others dislike. Edit warring and the potential for it are often decisive; policies are supposed to amend that. BTW, being one of the "least busy, most stubborn" ones is a requirement for affording a DR at all. --Anonymous44 23:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many ways to engage third parties, such as WP:3O, and WP:RFC, and if that is too much work or if to ask for help requires "being stubborn", so be it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh my. It sounds as if you have never been engaged in a serious edit conflict - which is, of course, not the case. DR can be part of the fun, but it is certainly not the end of the fun. But in any case, my point was that the policy has to specify some general rules. Appealing to one or several persons is not an alternative to the policy; rather, the only reason why it could help is because these persons want to observe the policy. Otherwise, it is just another form of the same conflict - e.g. in ex-Yugoslavian issues, the virtual Yugoslav wars are also waged through straw polls, which are theoretically supposed to be part of DR.--Anonymous44 23:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure I have been involved in editing conflicts, and surely I have solicited help via WP:DR. Does it take effort? of course. But rather than calling it "stubbornness" I prefer to call it "I care enough". Straw polls can be used to gauge consensus, but if there is no consensus, you ask for third opinion, ask a mediator to assist, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you believe that WP:DR is broken, then endeavor to improve it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe anything is broken. I believe pretty much everything that we are discussing at the moment is fine, except for your interpretation of the policy. The policy specifies who the burden of evidence lies on. As I already said, appealing to the community through DR is meaningless if the community has no principles to follow; and the "burden of evidence" thing is one of these principles.
 * To sum up before "withdrawing" for today - the criterion for something disputed being kept on Wikipedia is whether it is sourced, not whether it seems nice and lovely, according to consensus or appears to be likely to be potentially sourceable, according to consensus. If there is something good in Wikipedia, it is due to the prevailing of the former principle; the latter is a travesty, and a potential disaster. --Anonymous44 00:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You will be hard pressed to find experienced editors that would agree with deleting harmless material from Wikipedia articles, just because it is not sourced. Now, if the material is dubious, and if you have made efforts that did not result in finding sources, delete by all means, after placing a fact and waiting for a while. That is the way this works and is described in policy and guidelines. The policy speaks of "unsourced material that is challenged", for that the challenger needs to provide some basic data on the reason for the challenge. This is a collaborative environment, after all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.' What does this mean?
 * # An editor can challenge material that is unsourced
 * # An editor that wants to keep the material needs to provide a source
 * # If a source is not provided to support the material, it may be deleted
 * It does not mean: "Delete material that is unsourced" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (Sorry for having been absent in a day.) The text is: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page." This means you may move it to the talk page as soon as you see it, and then editors can look for sources. The period is unspecified and optional. The reason is obvious - in some cases, material seems too likely to be inaccurate, and yet editors with strong agendas may like to keep it. It's better for wikipedia to have no info than to have highly inaccurate info that misleads readers. As for (relatively) experienced editors I've done this many times (indeed I can't imagine editing without the ability to do it) and I've seen many people do it, too. --Anonymous44 14:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read the talk pages of the articles in question you will see I got a third opinion on each of them. Both confirmed that I was working within WP:V. Until(1 == 2) 02:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, and the third opinion told you to (my highlight) "Remove from this list the eight unsourced names until/unless a reliable source can be found for them." Not counting the many other editors that told you not to gut an article as you did. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We should add that randomly deleting unreferenced information is considered disruptive. A real life friend read this policy and tried to do that. He was blocked. --Kaypoh 06:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They policy says "Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people". Change the policy, I will respect it, but if you cannot reach consensus on a rule, it is really just a few people with opinions pushing them. Until(1 == 2) 12:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a wiki. A few people pushing their opinions are sometimes the people who insist that the written policy stay the way it is rather than be changed to what the consensus position is. The only way to tell which is which is by observing behavior and consequences. What was your behavior and what was the consequence? Which brings up the possibility of position pushers both controlling written policy content as well as a second position pushing person or group creating consequences. See wikipedia does not have a cabal. We have dozens. WAS 4.250 13:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed I know. And when you all get together and decide that, whatever you want, should be a rule, I will follow it. But I have gotten nothing but contradicting advice and lack of consensus here. I will stick to established consensus. Oh, and the consequences of my acts was that 2 article that had 0 sources are now sourced. Until(1 == 2) 13:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "the consequences of my acts was that 2 article that had 0 sources are now sourced." That's how wikipedia is supposed to work. Not to prevent conflict. But to transmute conflict into a better encyclopedia. Welcome aboard! By the way, if you aren't having fun editing wikipedia then you aren't doing it right. (I say that to everyone.) WAS 4.250 14:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I am glad this conflict led to a better set of articles, but I think the articles could have had the same net benefit without my part being criticized, and the unsourced content remaining on the talk page until sourced. The real problem has been that my part was deemed wrong, despite being helpful and within policy, and that others refused to follow established policy and insisted on keeping uncited information in the article space instead of the talk page where policy says it should be kept. WP:V: "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page." Established procedure, good advice. If you have a better way, make a policy change proposal, but please do not ignore existing policy. Until(1 == 2) 14:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am glad this conflict led to a better set of articles ... This seems to sum it up quite well. Disputes arise from time to time, but if the parties involved can agree to a mutually-acceptable outcome that unquestionably improves WP content, then it's a definite win/win scenario.

Another win/win scenario would be if any further comments or discussion on this matter could be moved to the relevant Essay and User talk pages. Thanks to all involved for your consideration. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 15:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How to interpret this policy

 * 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. But there is no standard for ease of verification. A long standing trusted editor may reference a published book only available in one library's special collections division while a new editor pushing a position may have an edit deleted that cites a web site that requires payment to read. Also every article has a certain amount of knowledge prerequisites in order to understand the text or the sources (eg math, language, topic knowledge). We are volunteers with limited time and reputation plays a big part in managing the place.


 * Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. But note that articles written years ago should not have claims deleted merely for lacking cites as they were created before the sourcing requirements and are slowly being properly sourced. These things take time. Make wikipedia better, don't delete things unless you have good reasons to doubt them.
 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article.
 * Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references.
 * If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page
 * You may tag the sentence by adding the fact template, or tag the article by adding Not verified or Unreferenced. Leave an invisible HTML comment, a note on the talk page, or an edit summary explaining what you have done
 * Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Also, if you are new to wikipedia, don't upset long established editors by redeleting content they restore and quoting policy to them when they indicate that their considered judgement is that the material needs to stay and be sourced as it likely is valid yet just not sourced. Good faith, editorial judgement, and reputation all play a part. Policy is not everything.
 * Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Claims made about living persons or claims that seem to be unsourced libel or copyright violations or OTRS issues are important exceptions to our "eventualism" method of writing this encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 15:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree fully with this summary of the policy. It is not quite a summary of the policy, I see you slipped something in. "Also, if you are new to wikipedia, don't upset long established editors by redeleting content they restore and quoting policy to them when they indicate that their considered judgement is that the material needs to stay and be sourced as it likely is valid yet just not sourced. Good faith, editorial judgement, and reputation all play a part. Policy is not everything.(sic)", are you suggesting we add that to WP:V? I would support that, if that is what you are suggesting. Without the spelling mistakes of course, and I think the division between "new users" and "established" users is contrary to Wikipedia philosophy, it should go both ways. Frankly it looks to me to be identical to my proposed change #1, "Unsourced information may be re-added despite being challenged by an editor if consensus determines that the information is capable of being sourced". Please try to keep policy and opinion separate instead of mixing them together(it is hard to notice such additions). Until(1 == 2) 15:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I could get behind "Good faith, editorial judgment, and reputation all play a part. Policy is not everything. Unsourced information may be re-added despite being challenged by an editor if consensus determines that the information is capable of being sourced." or some variant, but that whole, new user obeying experience user thing is nonsense, we use consensus not seniority. Until(1 == 2) 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Reputation is what I meant. Not senority. Some old hands have a poor reputation. A new user that uses his real name can have an excellent reputation. Thanks for the correction. WAS 4.250 15:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you saying you would respect my opinion on content and policy matters more if I revealed my true identity? Not gunna happen. Until(1 == 2) 15:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to change policy as expressed abundantly already in this talk page. If material is verifiable, then verify it by looking for a source. If you cannot find a source, tag it as fact, and give others a chance to look for sources. Unless, of course, it is a BLP in which case you delete on-sight. It is all in policy and guidelines. Now, lets move on to help build the encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What you are saying is contrary to policy, and does not seem to enjoy a consensus. The policy explicitly recommends moving content to the talk page to ask for a citation, as I did. What we have is a difference of opinions, we are both trying to help the encyclopedia, you are only being insistent. There is no reason why your opinion should trump mine in absence of a consensus. Until(1 == 2) 15:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have agreed that reputation counts and editors with excellent reputations have refuted your mistaken interpretations. You are rapidly creating a poor reputation. Is that what you want? Stop fighting. WAS 4.250 15:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And what you are doing, is contrary to the principles upon which these policies were developed. You are tagging articles with prod as in here, when all it took was 3 minutes of research to find a source to support the entire content of that article. Are you here to build an encyclopedia? Want others to take your edits in good faith? Then demonstrate you care for the work of others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As for consensus, read WP:CITE, read WP:BLP. It is all there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone who is here to delete claims that are verifiable yet just not cited are here to destry wikipedia and should be indef blocked. WAS 4.250 15:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, propose a policy for it, I will follow it. Please try to remember, I didn't delete anything, I moved it to the talk page as the policy told me to do. In the interests of this talk page, you can continue this dialog with me on the essay talk page where I hope to represent both policies and the opinions of all involved in a neutral fashion. I will not be posting here unless a change to the policy is proposed. Until(1 == 2) 16:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC

Unsourced statements - may? or might?
I hate to belabor a topic that seems to have been settled, but I have one further thought about the discussions above, as they relate to the line:

"Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

I think the word "may" could be the problem. On one hand it can be read as a warning to editors who are writing articles - that any unsourced material they add "might" be removed. On the other hand it can be read as giving permission to editors who are reviewing articles - that they "are allowed" to remove unsourced material. Given that the rest of the sentence is addressed to the editors doing the writing, I have always assumed that it was intended as a warning... but it is obvious from the discussion above that others see it as granting permission (or even granting a mandate) to delete. So what is the intent?

If the intent is a warning, I would suggest changing the word "may" to "might"... as it would make the intent clearer. If the intent is to grant permission, then I think we need a clear pointer to a guideline that tells editors when they should do so. Blueboar 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, no... the may vs. might grammar question... :) See page 2 of ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * May poses a possibility; might adds a greater degree of uncertainty to the possibility. In that context, it may be better to use might(no pun intended). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This ambiguity did not occur to me. I took it as a clear statement of what can be done under ones own editorial judgment. If it is indeed meant as a warning that "under some circumstances it could be removed", and not "you can remove this", then it indeed needs to be made more clear. I don't think just changing "may" to "might" will do it. I agree with Blueboar that we need a clear pointer to a guideline that tells editors when they should remove content, when they can use their own judgment, and when they must not remove content. Until(1 == 2) 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * [ed conf] I don't think so. This policy has been used successfully by tens of thousands of editors so far and there was not ambiguity expressed. We are here to build an encyclopedia collaboratively, not to delete content just because it is unsourced, unless it is a BLP. The guidelines are only ambiguous if you want to see them as such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it might it be better to say "may"... or may we say "might"?... We may! (and, come to think of it, we just might)! :>) Arggh... I didn't think about that.  But back to my question... are we intending to warn or to grant permission?  In either case, is there a better phrasing that would make the intent clear? (And just to make things very difficult... I suppose the intent could be to do both... in which case the wording is probably fine as it is.) Blueboar 17:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Somebody could find when it was added, and look on the talk page for that date, and ask the user who made the contribution. But I think it has been there so long, finding that revision would be difficult. Until(1 == 2) 17:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think we need to fix what is no broken. If a new editor finds this unclear, we explain this as we have done so far. Let's move on, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think if we're to assume good faith, that any editor finding a policy ambiguous or misunderstanding such implies that there is an ambiguity or lack of clarity, even if it is minor. Furthermore, something happening once tends to imply that it may happen again. As such, I think that a clarification is going to save work in the long run. SamBC 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this should be discussed instead of just dismissed. But that is just one editor's opinion. Until(1 == 2) 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi... I consider myself an experienced editor, and I'm not clear. That's why I raised the question.  Are you so sure it ain't broke? Blueboar 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is quite simple, really... Material that is challenged, needs a reason for the challenge. That is what "challenged" means. If editor X sees material that is unsourced, he can do one of several things according to existing guidelines and policies: (1) try to find a source; (2) Ask for sources using fact or unreferenced; (3) Challenge the material by asking in talk page. Then, wait a reasonable time period and let other editors put effort in finding a source. The "or it may be removed" formulation is a last resort option, i.e. you could not find a source and no one else found a source within a reasonable period of time. At that time, deletion is an option to be considered. This applies to most content that is not contentious or controversial. In these cases, editors may decide that it would be better to delete and move to talk than to leave on mainspace material that is dubious. The problem is that we cannot inculcate "clueness", and there is no way that policy can depict each and every type of situation, hence the perceived ambiguity. If we keep in m ind the main purpose of this project, we should be reluctant to delete content contributed by another editor (remember WP:AGF), unless the material is unverifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * UI have no problem that that is what is meant, intended, or generally seen as what is done. It is not, however, what the guidance unambiguously says. If something along the lines of what you just said were in the guidance, then that'd be great, but it isn't, as far as I can tell. SamBC 19:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What I am trying to say that we should be weary of WP:CREEP. Nothing bets a good explanation for these users that need one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree that we should be weary of creep... in fact, I asked for clarification to avoid just that. If we only meant to imply a warning then we should use language that does not have a "permissive" side (which is where I was trying to go with the may->might idea) ... and if we imply permission, then a simple "see: WP:CITE" should do it for clarification.  Or are you saying that the sentence in question is intended to be both a warning to the writer, and a granting of permission to other editors? If this is the case, then I think the wording is fine as it is. Blueboar 19:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * @Blueboar and SamBC. Your basic points have merit, but there are some pretty fundamental complications here (both immediate-term-view and long-term-view) that call into question whether a clarification is appropriate:


 * 1) this entire discussion was/is (at least partially) influenced by a specific dispute, the fervor of which may be influencing our judgment here (perhaps a "time-out" is called for?);
 * 2) there are profoundly different perspectives on the precise "method of interpretation" contributors are expected to apply to the broad spectrum of WP policy (as a whole) ... if you are a lawyer or law student, this is analogous to the familiar problem of Statutory construction;
 * 3) as an experienced WP contributor, you are no doubt also familiar with the confrontations and arguments that have surrounded WP:IAR and to a lesser extent WP:BOLD, these also suggest there are different valid "interpretive" approaches;
 * 4) although WP:NPOV is expressly identified as "absolutely non-negotiable" (along with certain aspects of WP:LIVING [and a few others?]) ... it is an open question whether and to what extent all policy is intended to codify prescriptive rather than heuristic standards of contributor conduct; and
 * 5) because there are several fundamental issues of construction and interpretation at play here, and because a contributor expressly requested for "clarification of the rules" ... it is not entirely obvious that such a "rule-oriented" clarification would be appropriate here, absent wider feedback from the WP community.


 * In short, it is not entirely obvious that a 'rule-oriented' reformulation of policy is appropriate here to begin with ... perhaps it is, or perhaps this question demands clarification from a broader cross-section of the WP community. In any event this seems to be a bigger question than just clarifying the wording for the benefit of contributors who want to know "what are the rules". This is especially problematic considering that the underlying dispute that started this actually got "resolved" through discussion and cooperation. dr.ef.tymac 19:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Discussion and collaboration is the process, which worked here. As for Blueboar question, Yes. In one case it can be read as a warning ("hey! we need a source for that material" or it may be deleted), and further down the line it can be read as permission ("no source, dubious, asked for sources, waited for two weeks, deleting now"). Maybe all is needed is a clarification about that is a somewhat linear process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a very insightful way of looking at it, really - the problem is essentially (I think) that what is meant to be a series of possibilities that follow one another in time can be interpretted as a set of simultaneous choices. SamBC 20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but then how does that reconcile with process descriptions such as this? ->Image:Consensus new and old.svg.dr.ef.tymac 20:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That diagram refers to edits and not to sourcing, Dreftymac. And in any case, a diagram is just an ideal representation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that distinction, the point is: 1) it is reasonable to infer sourcing is subject to the same kind of iterative procedure (e.g., upgrading sources to more reliable publications, determining wh/ the cite is accurately represented etc.); and 2) someone who is familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines should be expected to understand the iterative process of collaboration in general. dr.ef.tymac 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewording this policy for unsourced content
I tried this which was promptly reverted. Does that wording helps or makes this more confusing? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the revert ≈ jossi ≈. I am still not yet convinced that the current wording suffers the deficiency that others apparently see here. If I am in the distinct minority on this I will gladly defer, but it seems pretty well-established that iterative review of all content (including discussions of sourcing) is a fundamental expectation of all WP contributors, except in those instances where the content is strictly and unambiguously prohibited.


 * Like I said, if I am the odd-man-out on this, ok then. dr.ef.tymac 20:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This change looks like a perfect minimal change that clarifies the issue and avoids the misunderstanding that we're talking about. SamBC 20:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's sensible, I don't have a problem with it. But Dreftymac raised two points in the thread just before this one about collaboration that I agree with, and I would just like to add that it's also a matter of courtesy to other editors as part of WP:EQ: "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible." — Zerida 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Some supporting rationale: In support and substantiation of my rationale, consider the recently rejected proposal to "clarify" WP:3RR (relating to unsourced content) Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule. Note the rationales of the opponents of the "clarification".


 * The in due course wording also seems like a "danger flag" to me. I'd hate to see this become a nod to cranks who will assert "not enough time" has been given, and then use the "sit and wait" strategy for including unsourced dubious material.


 * Nevertheless, keep the comments coming. I'm not going to oppose if stable support for this minor change becomes apparent. I just hope people are not reacting more to a transitory dispute rather than a critical flaw in this (and other closely-related) policy wording. dr.ef.tymac 21:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In the hope that this reassures you, I really have no idea what the original dispute was; the discussion led me to look at the issue in question, and I can see the confusion. I'm not sure how I'd interpret it, especially with the idea of being bold. SamBC 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I share dr.ef.tymac's concern about not driving policy out of an exception. I was just trying to see of we could make a small change that will clarify that time is a factor here. We do not delete content without giving a chance for sources to emerge. We challenge content, we wait, and then we act if there are no sources forthcoming (unless is an unsourced or poorly sourced claim in a BLP). I would argue that this the the spirit of this portion of the policy and the consensus understanding in the community, and that "in due course" addition may be one way to clarify it. But I would also say that it may not be needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly enthousiastic about changing longstanding policy langage. In this case, "may" is, indeed, ambiguous, but having sat there and instructed many editors as argued by Jossi, I think it is reasonable to assume it has the degree of ambiguity that works best for the Wikipedia project. Having said that, my own interpretattion of the ambiguity squares with Jossi's "in due course" edit and I strongly support it. To me it means that editors can and should take their time when time is not an issue, and be swift about deleting unsourced content when it is. Paradoxicallly, the proposed change emphasizes the ambiguity rather than resolving it -- for good reason. Avb 01:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "May" was used to mean "might be removed," and "is allowed to be removed." We used to have some sentences making clear that material shouldn't be moved too hastily, but I've just noticed someone removed it. Perhaps that should be restored. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, "in due course" may be sufficient to indicate that minimally, without the need for excess text. I'm not advocating one side or the other; I just think it's worth considering the concise version versus the verbose version. SamBC 01:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Until(1 == 2) 01:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly (about the meaning). I'm not sure about any removed text; perhaps you mean the following sentences some paragraphs down: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references"? Avb 01:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, then there was something about "This provision should never be used disruptively." But those sentences were with the "may be removed" thing, I think. I'll try to find time to look more carefully later. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 02:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be a good idea to add this: "Challenges should not be made frivolously or casually. Editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate." It's from When to cite, which is just an essay, but it's one Raul uses in the FA criteria page.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 07:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, WP:V should not be concerned with editor (mis)behaviour or motive. The above clause requires the challenger to have knowledge of the subject. Colin°Talk 12:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(<---)That's a wonderful suggestion SlimVirgin. To Colin: What kind of encyclopedia do you envision will be written by policies that do not require people making desicions about articles to have knowledge of the subject? WAS 4.250 13:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about the type of "decision making" that, of course, requires knowledge of the subject. This discussion concerns readers/editors making a challenge, requesting that information be cited. I should not have be a subject expert to make such a challenge, nor should I need to harbour suspicions that the fact is untrue or contentious. For example, on Coeliac disease, we state that the link with wheat was made in 1950 by Dr Willem Dicke. That statement isn't false, inappropriate or contentious. It is just the sort of statement you'd expect to read (and learn) in an encyclopaedia. On WP, you'd also expect to find a source to back it up. Are you saying that if the above statement wasn't explicitly sourced (which it is), I would be unable to request one? Colin°Talk 14:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am saying that it is harmful to the encyclopedia to clutter it up with tags by someone who neither understands the subject nor has read the cited sources nor has made an effort to reseach the issue. If you don't know an article's subject and you refuse to learn about it do not edit that article. We have science and math articles that driveby taggers clutter with tags asking for a cite for things that are known true by anyone with the prerequisites to understand the page and are often also in the sources that are referenced but are so well known that no one who understands the field would bother to specifically cite. WAS 4.250 15:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But the reader isn't going to necessarily know these facts that are obvious to anyone who had a grounding in a subject, remember an encyclopedia is often a layman's starting point for research. The citations that explain these things that are the prerequisites to understanding the subject are very important to the reader. Citations are not just about challenging things, they are also about informing the reader and aiding in their research. Until(1 == 2) 16:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * WAS 4.250, you've got a problem with editor behaviour (driveby taggers) and also with differing opinions on when/what to cite. The former cannot be resolved by WP:V, which is a "content policy". We have plenty guidelines on editor behaviour. The latter is still actively being debated, and given the state of When to cite, not going to get resolved any time soon.


 * I have no problem with the first sentence in SV's proposed text; whether it belongs here is another matter. The second sentence is flawed IMO for reasons I have given. Remember, a "challenge" isn't just tagging an article with annoying templates. It includes the kind of comments made at peer review and GAC/FAC/FLC. It not only prevents an ignorant reader/editor from requesting sources but it also prevents a knowledgeable reviewer from requesting sources for facts that he/she knows are valid but, in their opinion, require sourcing. Now, if the second sentence concerned the deletion of unsourced/challenged material, it might be more useful. Colin°Talk 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, "material shouldn't be removed too hastily", per the very definition of the word "too". But it is clear that in some cases, not limited to vandalism, copyright and BLP issues (as Jossi implies), the unsourced material should be removed hastily, and indeed immediately - this is a matter of editorial judgement. Thus, introducing a mandatory period of toleration, i.e. tagging, would be harmful. So immediate removal should be an option. Now, if people are allowed to re-introduce removed material without a source, that will lead to edit warring and make such conflicts much loner and more painful. That will also, as far as I can see, make the "burden of evidence" statement meaningless. Whenever I've moved things to the talk page, people have responded by sourcing them and not by reverting - but that was because they hadn't read the above discussion. --Anonymous44 15:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources
Are you intending to alter the meaning of this, or do you simply not notice what difference your editing would make? If the former, are you aware of the implications? SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know to whom you are addressing the above, but I would encourage you to check the history. I have not edited any of the disputed text, so I am surprised about your edit summary . I have been having a constructive discussion above on a different matter altogether. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know who initiated this change, but it's nonsensical, and I'd like to know if whoever did it or agreed to it understands the implications of it. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It was not me. As it has no consensus in any case, it should not stay. And if there is a need to protect, we shall. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It was started by here, in an attempt to check if there is consensus. Clearly there is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, take a look at WP:CON. — Zerida 23:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, he tried, and was reverted and discussion can continue. But editwarring will not solve this. I have re-protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) Then perhaps you did not read it as I had suggested, Jossi. By all counts, a consensus was established on this page; it does not require that every editor agree with all the changes, especially when there is only 2 or 3 dissenters whose idea of a consensus is to mercilessly edit-war over the page to maintain their preferred version. That is not what consensus entails. Now, the fact that actual consensus was disregarded is an entirely different matter. — Zerida 23:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That would apply to consensus in an article. When discussion changes to policy it is expected a much wider consensus, much, much wider than just a few editors commenting in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, if the history of this page or WP:RS, before it was made hopelessly ineffective, is any indication, it would seems to be what gets edit-warred over enough on the pages that becomes policy. The fact that several, perhaps idealistic, editors, after seeing the policies becoming almost irrevocably compromised over months of gutting, poor editing, and edit-warring, thought that this could be accomplished through give-and-take discussion instead were clearly under an illusion. The obstinate refusal to engage with other editors or to respect consensus when others have repeatedly asked for input during the protection period in order to agree to a compromise only adds insult to injury. And it's disappointing. — Zerida 00:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The page was protected by Quadell for good reason, as a very small number of editors, all or most of whom have never edited policy pages before, are trying to push through a change that would prioritize scholarly sources. There is no consensus for this change, and it's highly disingenuous to claim that there is, just because a tiny number of you decide there is on talk.


 * As for the change to the self-published sources section, that would have opened us up to all kinds of nonsense.


 * This is very poor behavior. These policies need to be stable. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Changing the policy so that it creates various classes of reliable sources would be a significant change to WP:V. We need to get a serious consensus for these kinds of changes to Wikipedia's fundamental policy, not just a couple of people with little experience in the policies coming to some new agreement on a Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The change to Self-published sources was made by user Omegatron while the page was still protected. diff Tim Vickers 23:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * [en conf] I fully agree. Policy pages need stability, but page protection is only temporary. Editors that insist in changing long-standing formulation of policy need to present strong arguments and convince the community that these changes are helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It was Y who re-protected, just for the record, as an uninvolved admin. The later reprotection was an edit conflict, I assume, which is perhaps what caused the sprotection to be inserted by mistake. Picaroon has sorted it out. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What a mess! mea culpa for unprotecting too early. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, Jossi. It's sorted out now. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: this page was requested for protection of RFPP very recently. If anyone wants to know, I have answered that request in case the protecting administrator was unaware of that request. Acalamari 00:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Current version as a compromise wording?
Although consensus was apparently reached here, now more editors are involved, we may get a broader range of opinion. The current "Wrong version" wording is:

I can live with omitting "with good reputations for accuracy" as this can be argued to be redundant with "reliable". The "attribution" statement is OK and although saying sources are "welcome" seems to the gilding the lily, this doesn't alter the main meaning of the paragraph for me. This version, if not ideal, therefore seems OK with me. Does this version deal with any NPOV concerns? Tim Vickers 00:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop arranging these mini straw polls. There is no consensus to change this policy to prioritize scholarly sources and to downgrade other reliable sources. You would need a very strong consensus to do that, not just agreement between a small number of previously uninvolved editors on this talk page. You don't have that very strong consensus, so please stop edit warring to include it in the policy. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that a strong majority consensus has been demonstrated 3 times now. Once on WP:RS and twice here. In fact the only real opposition that i've seen so far is yours. --Kim D. Petersen 14:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tim, read the header in this page. To make such a deep change in policy you will need more than just a few people discussing in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I do not see this proposed change making it through. And I say that with the conviction that comes from experience. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to work towards consensus on the talk page. If you think wider input would be a good idea, do people recommend listing this discussion at the village pump or RfC/policy? On the proposal, SlimVirgin, are you unhappy with any statement that one source is more reliable than another? Is your position that reliability is binary and something is either reliable or not, and that you can't state that something is more likely to be reliable than something else? Tim Vickers 00:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You know what my position is. We don't and can't define reliability, though we have offered some rules of thumb. All reliable sources are welcome in every article, per NPOV. That's it. We don't say "this kind of source is always better here," because it will depend on context.


 * We don't decide policy by straw poll, or according to who can post most often about it. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but discussion can move us forwards. This paragraph does not define reliability, instead it offers guidance on where reliable sources are most likely to be found. Neither does it say that academic sources are "always better" in any subject area, indeed it specifically notes that appropriateness depends on context. Since this compromise version therefore deals with all your concerns, do you find it acceptable? Tim Vickers 00:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Straw polls are not the best instrument to move discussion along. They are generally used to measure opinions/consensus after discussion. Avb 01:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Observation and comment: Although I am reluctant to interject here, there are a few points that seem very disconcerting regarding the history and development of this proposal:
 * 1) a contributor appears to be forwarding good-faith, reasonably-informed and logically consistent suggestions for rewording this policy;
 * 2) these suggestions have been met with both:
 * a) justifiable and well-informed rebuttal by experienced contributors and admins; BUT ALSO
 * b) a degree of perceptible "contributor evaluation" that seems to be detracting from the credibility of the rebuttal.

Examples of 2b include:
 * implications that edit count on policy pages necessarily reflects the level of familiarity or "involvement" with WP policy;
 * disparagement of the validity of points made in discussion based on the contribution history of the "previously uninvolved" users making the points;
 * disparagement of "previously involved" users as an insufficiently "deep" discussion or straw poll; and
 * an apparent inconsistency in labeling contributors as both "uninvolved" (by virtue of WP policy edit count) and yet "involved" (by virtue of "shallow straw-pollery").

Since there are plenty of substantive, logical, and internally consistent reasons to take issue with this proposal, the apparently gratuitous and somewhat contradictory "contributor evaluation" that has been repeatedly offered here seems beyond the point and outside the scope of this discussion page. Either "deep community-wide feedback" is welcome and necessary, or it isn't. Let's be blunt: the more participation we get, the easier it is get side-tracked by how "previously uninvolved" the participants are. Classic catch-22.

There may indeed be some users who are unfamiliar with the issues, the primary "stakeholders" and relevant historical development of WP policy. There may indeed be "policy dabbler" contributors who need to do their homework before their efforts can be taken seriously. I respectfully suggest to you that, at least for the purposes of this proposal, the contributor who forwarded it is not one of them. I base this solely on what I believe to be an impartial and informed evaluation of relevant contributions made on WP policy pages, policy talk pages, and user talk pages. I don't know any of you personally.

I assure you, there are some quite well-informed people out here who are not WP admins, who do not have stratospheric edit counts, and who (nevertheless) do not meet the definition of "uninformed policy dabblers" ... you don't have to edit a page in order to review its history and the contributions of its core participants. Yes, some of us have in fact done some homework. Even if that number is relatively small, WP policy is not well-served by incorrectly painting all "non-entrenched" participants with the same broad stroke.

If we truly believe in evaluating contributions independently of the contributors, then let's do that. More "2a", and less "2b" seems called for. dr.ef.tymac 01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The current version as a compromise wording is a value judgment that does not belong in the verifiability policy. Above I posted ''Value judgments as to which of two or more sources meeting WP:RS is better for the article should be based on Good article criteria and Featured article criteria. Using WP:V to as a basis for deciding such value judgments is instruction creep.''. The response was that it was a circular reference. Let me see if I can make my point clearer. Item 2 of What is a good article? addresses this verifiable policy. A newspaper and a scholarly work can be a WP:RS for an article so that both comply with What is a good article? Item 2. The issues regarding adding newspaper content to an article arises under What is a good article? Item 3. What is a good article? Item 3 states:"It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details." What is a good article? Item 3 has nothing to do with this verifiability policy. If you think your WP:RS newspaper content is going to get into an article that address scholarly material by modifying this verifiability policy, you are wrong. If you think modifying this verifiability policy is going to keep WP:RS newspaper content out of articles that address scholarly material, you are wrong. What is a good article? Item 3 addresses what content should go into an article. -- Jreferee  (Talk) 05:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what "deep change" people are talking about. For a long time, WP:ATTR had said that "In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses." This is defining reliability, which SlimVirgin says we shouldn't do, and while it is not explicitly priotitizing academia, it certainly tends to point in that direction. As for consensus - I wonder just how many users should be involved, and just who determines the quota. --Anonymous44 14:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This currently-protected wording from Crum375 is fine with me. I don't think it is as good as the draft 1, but the minor stylistic differences between this and the version agreed on above seem too small to waste much time on. It is also worth noting that the version from last October that SlimVirgin described as the "consensus version" stated specifically that "For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." link This consensus version seems to fit with the current version quite well. Tim Vickers 16:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I notice that this "consensus version" was radically-changed and the statement that "For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." removed by SlimVirgin with the edit summary of - "tightened" on 23 October 2006 diff. The only discussion of this major rewrite on the talk page was the statement "I've also tightened the writing a bit more." diff. Compare the extensive discussions and broad consensus for the addition we have proposed, which returns the policy to a wording close in meaning to the old consensus version, with how this stealthy and unilateral change in the policy was carried out. Tim Vickers 19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That was before the days of POV pushers misusing this policy to try to keep out reliable non-academic sources they didn't like; unfortunately, because of them, we need something that explicitly welcomes all reliable sources. And please quit the personal attacks ("stealthy and unilateral change"). There were plenty of eyes on this page. Your attacks on me are tiresome and pointless. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Slim, we're all quite capable of spotting personal attacks without your help. Yes, the word "stealthy" is inflammatory and unhelpful. It is also wrong. There was no need for stealth when the only editors active that day were Rakesh the great and Potatobob (joke :-) Surely you can see Tim's frustration (jealousy, even) that if such an edit was made today (with that edit summary), the editor would be torn to pieces.


 * There are reasons why, for example, newspapers make a poor source for science and medical facts in an encyclopaedia that are nothing to do with POV. Therefore labelling editors as "POV pushers" just because they prefer their sources to have been checked by more people than a libel lawyer and the sales department is unfair. The danger is that in trying to defend NPOV, we knee jerk too far and end up with a policy that prevents common-sense. Colin°Talk 23:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly, we should assume good faith, but I hope we can all agree that SV's edit summaries have sometimes been a little, well, confusing? This whole discussion started with the reaction to this edit, which, among other things, replaces twice the word "scholarly" with "scholarly and non-scholarly", and is summarized as "tidied writing, removed bits that made little sense or stated the obvious" (which IMO is also true, BTW). But I don't think this summary reflects the edit adequately, either. Quite apart from the actual subject of this discussion, I think one clear conclusion is that SV should try to make her edit summaries a little clearer in the future. --Anonymous44 00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC).


 * I'm simply pointing out that SlimVirgin completely re-wrote the policy and removed the idea central to the consensus wording that is now being blocked from being added back into the policy. SlimVirgin described the "For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." wording as "consensus" on the 5th of October, but removed this statement 14 days later. This major alteration was done with no prior consultation I can find. When did she discuss these changes? Did she advertise this at the Village Pump or RfC/policy? Was there any talk page discussion before she re-wrote the policy? "Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus." Where was the consensus for these changes?
 * SlimVirgin has repeatedly stated that trying to "add" this provision to the policy would be a major alteration. I now realise that what it would actually do is replace a vital piece of the policy that was removed out of process with no consensus. Tim Vickers 22:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you know it was without consensus? You know nothing about this policy or its maintenance, or indeed any other policy. Stop the manipulations, the forest fires, the barbs, the personal attacks, and the off-wiki attempts to stir things up. And stop the stalking. This is hopefully my last comment to you. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide diffs, or some other evidence, regarding the accusation of stalking? MastCell Talk 17:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Striking - TimVickers has explained whence this accusation arose. MastCell Talk 18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You managed to avoid the question. Was there a consensus? Can you tell us where we can see that such a consensus was in fact negotiated? Its a rather interesting question - especially since i, at least, am very confused as to where and how such a consensus is gathered. From the 3 attempts that have so far been made, at trying to come to a consensus, we can conclude that WP:RS is apparently not the place - this is apparently also not the place. So where are these made? --Kim D. Petersen 14:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That was before the days of POV pushers misusing this policy.. Let me understand this correctly; "POV pushers" have been a problem on Wikipedia only since October of last year?! Please, I've been here longer than that and I know POV-pushing has been a problem even longer, policy or no policy. Besides, POV problems are handled by another policy, so unfortunately this seems to be little more than another straw argument which answers neither your out-of-process attempt to block several rounds of successful consensus here and on other policy/guideline pages, nor what turns out to be your out-of-process deletion of what has always been policy. — Zerida 01:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tim: A (really) friendly suggestion: May you consider leaving policy page editing for a while? I think it will do you good. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What Tim says is absolutely legitimate, and your response is about as inadequate as SV's edit summaries. How obvious must things get for people to face them? Anyway, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to leave this discussion, and maybe have a wikibreak in general; it's simply threatening to consume all my time (I write slowly, and there's a lot of reading to be done), and while addictive, it is not particularly pleasant either. For the record, I support Tim's proposal at the top of this section (except that the last sentence might seem to imply that "reliable non-academic sources" could be non-"respected" and non-"mainstream" publications, but I hope this can be fixed). Introducing the now-discovered original wording about "preferably peer-reviewed" sources for academic subjects might be a good idea as well. I've done what I could. Best wishes, folks. --Anonymous44 16:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The version of the article that is there right now includes the sentence: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." I like that sentence and hope that it stays.  I am having some problems following the details of who did what to whom.  Can someone please post a new summary of what language is currently being proposed?  I would like to see it discussed fully on the talk page, with less individual editing on the article itself. Buddhipriya 01:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The page is currently protected, so no direct changes are being made. As far as the presently protected version, for my part, I continue to object to the claim that Wikipedia "welcomes" non-academic sources in academic topics, which I believe is neither accurate from a policy standpoint nor helpful. — Zerida 02:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The current version seems decent. However, I feel we need to integrate the undue weight clause of NPOV for dealing with specious references. In articles I have worked on related to conspiracy theories about 9/11, we sure aren't going to be adding misinformation referenced from books that been printed and sold but are obviously based on a fringe minority viewpoint and not supported by the known evidence. Having something in print is not sufficient rationale for referencing in even non scientific articles.--MONGO 04:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current version looks OK (though I can't tell who wants to do what when it's unprotected). It does point to the undue weight clause of NPOV, and I think that, in reality, material from "reliable non-academic sources" is welcome, and always has been. The sources that MONGO, and I, am concerned about are unreliable non-academic sources, so that seems to be covered by the present version of the policy. Yes, I'd prefer stronger wording with regard to scientific articles, but I can live with what's out there now.
 * I'm much more bothered by the meta-issue - the defensiveness and gamesmanship with which this particular fiefdom is being defended. Telling TimVickers he should take a break from policy pages "for his health" is ludicrous. He's being attacked on one hand for lacking the experience to edit here, and on the other end he's being told to go elsewhere (which makes it hard to acquire experience). Here's a suggestion: How about we stop treating Tim like a troll? How about we try to set an example and live up to the standards and policies that we use to bludgeon others? MastCell Talk 17:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ...I think that, in reality, material from 'reliable non-academic sources' is welcome, and always has been. In academic topics? Interesting, could you point to me where in the policy you would derive that such material has always been "welcome" in these articles? Or do you mean to say that non-academic sources are de facto "welcome" in academic articles even if this was never part of our policy? — Zerida 21:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Policy isn't designed to be utterly prescriptive; it's designed to be interpreted by a consensus of reasonable editors on the relevant article talk pages. Reliable non-academic sources are generally welcome; I've never seen anyone object to citing the New York Times in a scientific/medical article. The problems come up when the citations are to, say, mercola.com or the Life Extension Foundation newsletter. Example: dichloroacetic acid. This is a molecule which has attracted a ton of publicity as a cancer treatment, based on a single in vitro study. The academic, peer-reviewed journal articles are referenced, but they tell only part of the story. References from reliable but "non-scholarly" (popular) sources (The New Scientist, ABC News, the Globe and Mail, etc) fill out the story (not that the article is in great shape at the moment, but you asked for an example). I'd certainly never dream of saying, "No, we can't cite ABC News or the Globe and Mail because they're non-scholarly or not peer-reviewed." No, those sources are welcome, and I would imagine will continue to be. My concern was that language explicitly putting "scholarly" and "non-scholarly" sources on an equal footing would undermine WP:WEIGHT. I think the current (albeit protected) version of the policy does not suffer from this problem. MastCell Talk 16:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is quite problematic, and context is a real issue: you can WikiLawyer a high quality source out of the equation by claiming that from a particular viewpoint it is primary source. was an attempt to make a neutral example to demonstrate an incorrect approach based on a real experience where one of the problems was elevating a summary news report to a higher status than a many man-years, well-respected Government Inquiry. Informal comments from scientists outside publications can acquire those nasty words "Scientists claim" when this can be a high level throw away comment and is not a reliable scientific source. So we have a publication on the summary view on global warming from the UN, but as that is referred to in a newspaper article, the UN review is a primary source from the perspective of a newspaper article on the UN review therefore worthless to Wikipedia and the screaming headlines that pick out a couple of phrases out of context are accorded immunity from criticism by the sanctity of the Secondary Source. You can string together some real nonsense like that, and unfortunately using the justifications of the badly worded policy here, it has been done. It is probably better to have no wording on the merits on any source than allow the door to be opened to WikiLawyers defeating common sense perspectives on quality. Spenny 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have really not been following everything going on lately with these policy talk pages, so forgive me for not saying anything sooner. However you really misunderstand the way primary/secondary is meant to be applied.  Any summary report is going to be a good to use as secondary source.  There is no reason to avoid using the UN report you describe above.  If there has been real confusion over this (i.e. this isn't just an illustrative example) please give me a link.-- Birgitte  SB  17:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand how it should work, but notable editors seem to have a different point of view. This diff. for example makes exactly that call: that the work of many man years of legal and scientific brains analysing the exact cause of a national disaster is dismissed as inadmissible due to being a primary source and vague summary documents are used to trump it using some very dubious synthesis, as clearly journalists will understand and check it much better having received a briefing. At the same time, we see the same team working to ensure that the wording in policy stay firmly put: the wording on perspective of primary and secondary sources, the wording on when journalistic articles can be used in place of those of the highest quality.  Spenny 21:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Reliable non-academic sources are generally welcome; I've never seen anyone object to citing the New York Times in a scientific/medical article. Neither have I, but that is not the question, MastCell, which is whether both kinds of sources are equally reliable in such articles. This was never the case since the policy for a long time did explicitly state that "the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed" for academic articles. But either way, the protected version is not the one on which consensus had been established--consensus was that non-academic sources "may also be used in these areas" depending on context. Also, I agree with Spenny in that at least the said newspaper article quoting of the said UN report, while appropriate, would be properly contextualized by the consensus version, not the current wording. — Zerida 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with you 100% about your concerns - my worries over putting non-scholarly and scholarly sources explicitly on an equal footing were what drew me into this steel-cage match in the first place. I'm fine with either version, though, as I think the current version avoids explicitly equating the two and states that "academic and peer-reviewed sources are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources." That allays my concerns. As to editors claiming a UN report on global warming is a "primary source", no amount of policy-fiddling will prevent such POV-pushers from Wikilawyering. I just don't want to make it too easy for them... MastCell Talk 20:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to add, which may have already been pointed out, that the current protected version is essentially Draft 2, which was unanimously rejected by every editor who took part in the discussion. It's, however, fairly close to Draft 3 which I had reluctantly accepted as a 2nd choice after Draft 1 (which in turn received almost unanimous support), and would have accepted Draft 3 if most other editors had. It was the appalling way that the situation was handled immediately after the agreed-upon draft was added that caused me the most concern. Therefore, I still support the restoration of Draft 1 as agreed, unless this changes through further discussions. — Zerida 22:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Age of unreferenced
This discusion is continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification

In the recent discussion involving User:Until(1 == 2)‎ and the deletion of unreferenced content I noticed a trend. Many mature editors mentioned that historically Wikipedia did not require references. So it is appropriate to to provide warning and allow time for older articles and additions to be referenced. That is all well, good and reasonable. In the current time we have Verifiability and No original research and messages like "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted." when you open an edit screen to make a NEW ARTICLE. So I propose that is also reasonable to argue that any content or articles added since January 1, 2007 that are unreferenced are posted directly in violation of Wikipedia policy. In Wikitionary new unrefrenced articles are tagged with which reads

As was brought to my attention about Unreferenced articles it is clear that project will never get out of backlog. There are less people adding references then there are people adding unreferenced content. So as what is the desire of the community an every increasing count of unreferenced articles or beginning to enforce the policy? Jeepday (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Although the number of articles tagged as unreferenced is increasing, this doesn't mean the number of unreferenced articles is increasing at the same rate. In any case, the community has repeatedly rejected deleting articles only for lack of sources; there is no need to bring it up again. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the community is more active is notice and marking these articles, a sign of rising standards. The next step is to get those who have been marking these article and those who have been advocating deleting them, to begin to focus their efforts on finding sources for them. WP will not be improved by attempts at disciplining editors, but by engaging them in working to proper standards. I sometimes use a note like the following--and I would never want to making a box out of it, for it is best if varied a little: "your article on X would be less likely to be nominated for deletion by people not familiar with the subject of Y if you added some references from works discussing it. You might want to look for ____. "
 * If each of us who understands the importance of referencing were to teach one new-comer a day, and if even half of them responded, we could reach thousands of active editors--and recruit them to do them same. DGG (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Editors need to focus on increasing article quality, with WP:GA and WP:FA as the targets. These standards include thorough referencing, so this will naturally tend to solve the problem.  We must avoid becoming overly bureaucratic.  We must resist Adminitis.  Go edit an article.  Jehochman  Talk 03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point, Jeepday, but I am not sure this is useful at this stage. Abundant content is added to Wikipedia by anons that do not know about our policies and that should be encouraged rather than discouraged, as these additions forms the basis of many articles in the long run. A work in progress project such as Wikipedia will not benefit at this point from discouraging the occasional contributor, but I am open to discuss ways to encourage sourcing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * User warnings to the contrary notwithstanding, it is not currently wikipedia policy that unreferenced articles should be deleted at once, or even after a fixed short time. Nor, IMO, should it be. I see no need for a change that declares such articles in violation of policy, which I could only see as a means to accelerate deleting them. also think that the proportion of articles that are well referenced and of those that are referenced, but insufficiently, has been increasing of late. Note that many article never go through  Unreferenced articles. I agree that people who tag articels should often spend more time adding references -- which activity improves the project more? I am open to any productive suggestion on how to encourag more and better references in articles. DES (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's painful to admit, but it seems like many people out there simply do not have the slightest interest in substantiating their contributions with references.
 * On the other hand, there are probably a few contributors who I think merit the "benefit of the doubt" at least for some subjects ... there are also some claims that may seem extraordinary, but only to people unfamiliar with the subject matter. For example, I wouldn't furiously demand a citation to support "Noam Chomsky is one of the most frequently-cited scholars of all time." ... even though that is (on its face) a pretty remarkable-sounding and "unverifiable" claim (at least to some). Sure, a cite would be useful, but the lack would not be outrageous. I'd be more offended if someone were to challenge this on the grounds of "I've never even heard of this Chomsky dude." This kind of thing happens all the time.
 * The WP "open door" approach seems to preclude extremely well-referenced content as the norm instead of the exception. On one extreme you get contributors that never respond to direct requests for badly-needed cites; and and on the other extreme you get "vigilantes" toting WP:V and WP:OR as little more than a pretext for overturning the work of even very well-informed contributions. In between these extremes you have the close-calls and hard work that require maturity, judgment and effective collaboration. Amazingly, sometimes that alone works quite well.
 * Wiktionary at least has the luxury of a restricted knowledge-domain: basic definitions. Wikipedia, in contrast, is all over the map. Are more "rules" going to help? How about just encouraging more people to get involved with WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check? dr.ef.tymac 04:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When it comes down to it, the most essential point here is that wikipedia is never going to be finished. There are some things that have to be gotten rid of, for legal reasons, or similar. There are some things we remove because they just make wikipedia look really bad. Other things we just want to fix, try to fix, eventually. There is no deadline. SamBC 04:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The talk page is a good place to keep something you want to save, but are unsure about the veracity of. Until(1 == 2) 12:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you see an unreferenced article that makes controversial claims, nominate it for deletion. Often, these are either deleted or it inspires people to add sources. It may seem as almost a blackmail method, but if it's the only thing that works, so be it. And don't forget that:Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.....WP:V"
 * --Svetovid 11:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Any nomination of that sort can be immediately closed per WP:POINT. Deletion process is not a content dispute mechanism, and should not be used as such. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ya, but what does "may" mean? Until(1 == 2) 12:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you challenge unreferenced info? Is adding a fact tag considered a challenge? --Kaypoh 12:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes (it's a non-confrontational challenge) ... it helps to add a comment on the talk page as well. Blueboar 13:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The idea is quite simple: discuss the article on the article talk page. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * is a mild challenge; is a stronger one.  Raymond Arritt 13:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, very simple, mark as uncited, make a note on the talk page. Wait. If nobody responds, source what you can, move the rest to the talk page as the policy suggests. Once there other editors can find, cite, and return the data. Until(1 == 2) 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that the number one problem with the backlog of articles tagged unreferenced is not a lack of sources but the fact that no one is bold enough to remove the tag. Most still need referencing work but even this article was left tagged. The unreferenced problem is not as big as the backlog-- Birgitte SB  13:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Birgitte. I would say that a lot of satisfaction can be derived from sourcing articles that have been unreferenced. If each one of us take ownership and source one article each day, instead of spending so much time in "fixing" policy, Wikipedia will certainly improve in this regard, and we will have more fun.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Birgitte, I agree. That tag is overused, and people are then reluctant to remove them. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing other people's edits is good, but it is not always easy, and sometimes it's hardly possible without rewriting the text as well. But to the point - I don't understand if Jeepday's idea is to prevent the addition of new unreferenced articles, or to prevent the addition of any unsourced info in general. The second problem is inevitable. As for the first one, I didn't think it was tolerated in the first place. Or is it? --Anonymous44 18:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it is tolerated. It is encouraged. An article such as Tukaram, was unreferenced and badly written since August 2006, I fixed it to day, by adding references and re-writing it (diff). If the article was not there in the first place, I would never had the chance to fix it, would I? So, thousands of people come to WP, find that they can add material and create articles from scratch ... without their contributions we would not have a project. So, committed editors such you, I, and many others, as we want a verifiable encyclopedia, we go ahead and find sources, copyedit, and improve upon their contributions. That is Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That said... we certainly encourage our editors to research their subject and provide reference as they write. After all, an article that is written based on what the sources say will usually be better than one where the sources are searched for after the fact. Blueboar 19:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Define editor, Blueboar. Millions of words are added each day to Wilkipedia by contributors that no one will call "editors". That is encouraged. We do not ask them to read our policies before they do. We welcome them with welcome and welcomeip (I do that a lot) and hopefully they will join and get bitten by the same bug that bit you and I. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I define "editor" as anyone who contributes... new editors and experienced editors, editors who just make the occasional "fly by" edit or those who spend years perfecting just one article. Note that I did not say that we require (or even expect) our editors to provide sources as they write (As you point out, we obviously don't require them to do so)... but we do encourage our editors to do so. We this when talk about the need for sourcing in our various policies.  It is the ideal that we hope to achieve, while recognizing the reality that we won't actually achieve it. Blueboar 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that new editors should be encouraged. Fortunately, the welcome template includes the five pillars of wikipedia, and the five pillars include the core policies. The editing window also contains references to the policies. I must admit the references could have been more noticeable, and then maybe less reverts would have been needed.

Now, about Tukaram: it was originally started as a stub by an anon in 2004, and it was developed long before "the current push for sources", as someone put it. Nowadays, only registered users can create articles. The meaning of my question about "tolerating" was - if a registered user (as such, he should be acquainted with the core policies) writes a whole new article without indicating his sources, won't someone contact him on his talk page and kindly remind him to provide them? I think such a routine would be helpful. --Anonymous44 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See uw-unsor1, uw-unsor2, uw-unsor3. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. So there are templates for reminding. So if there are people with the strange hobby of checking each newly created article and using this template automatically on a regular basis, then Jeepday's fears might be exaggerated. If not - well... too bad. --Anonymous44 01:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strange hobby? No... We call ourselves RC patrolers... Come join us :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't know the RC patrol checked new articles on a regular basis. I'm glad you do, especially as I don't have the moral strength to do such a monotonous and hard work. --Anonymous44 14:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Read: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When you put it all together, the story become clear: an outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of information, then insiders make several edits tweaking and reformatting it. In addition, insiders rack up thousands of edits doing things like changing the name of a category across the entire site -- the kind of thing only insiders deeply care about. As a result, insiders account for the vast majority of the edits. But it's the outsiders who provide nearly all of the content.
 * bingo! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)


 * I don't think this description is realistic as of 2007 (as opposed to 2004). Insiders look for sources and make large and meaningful contributions, create articles etc. Outsiders often don't know they need to source things, so they add OR or "things they heard from someone"; alternatively, they often make small wiki-gnome style changes. Sometimes, they do make both large and good contributions - but this generally happens when they are no real "outsiders" any more. --Anonymous44 14:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This discusion is continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification



Jimbo on Unreferenced
Kim van der Linde wrote:
 * That would amount to deleting around 90% of the article as unsourced........

Jimbo Wales wrote:

Go for it!

--Jimbo

Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
 * If you want to go the bad-ass evil & sneaky route, simply tag all of the unsourced items with (an edit which, granted, would take some time), let them be for a week and then summarily remove them. If it is as bad as you say (which I don't doubt, after a quick look at it), raze and rebuild from the ground up is a very sensible option.

Jimbo Wales wrote:

In general, I find the tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone.

I very often see completely preposterous claims tagged with, usually because an editor is being excessively cautious. Be bold. :)

--Jimbo

We have a policy WP:V that says the burden of providing reference is on the editor who adds material. We have policy WP:OR that says anything that has not been published before should not be on Wikipedia. We have the founder of Wikipedia telling us to remove unreferenced material. We have a bold statement in the directions for adding new articles that all "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted.". And we have a some editors (who also happen to be administrators) arguing not to delete unreferenced content but not offering any policy to support this position. So I ask you again should we at Wikipedia use a template based on the Wikitionary (see above) on unrefrenced articles started after January 1, 2007? It would appear to be completley in keeping with Wikipedia policy and expectations. It would give articles 30 days instead of 5 to get it together (DGG) and it would provide a category so we could all go reference an article a day (jossi). I would ask that if you have objections to using a Wikipedia version of that you cite a policy or guideline supporting your position. Jeepday (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Completely preposterous claims as per Jimbo, can and should be nuked. But It see that as a straw man argument in this discussion. Most unsourced edits, do not fall in the category of "preposterous". See the example I gave yesterday about the article List of Awards presented by the Governor General of Canada, that someone following the letter (and not its siprit) of the policy, marked as prod. Context, Jeepday, context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the context List of banned books and the mess that article ended up due to lack of sources. . An excellent example of when to be merciless with unsourced material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi you can find an example in Wikipedia for what ever argument you want to make. I am asking for policy.  You suggested the use of , , . and I agree those look like great tools that should be part of the process.  every  should have a uw-unsor1 posted with it.    There has been no argument offered on why the suggestion of  is counter to policy or harmfull to wikipedia.  To create an article you have to be a registered user.  If you are are going to be a registered user we expect you to follow policy.  Policy requires references.  So if a registered user adds an article without references and 30 days after getting tagged   the article is still unreferenced, why should it stay on Wikipedia?  It is posted in violation of policy and explicit direction, I have not referenced it, You have not referenced it, DGG has not referenced it, no one monitoring category:Requests for verification has referenced it.  Why should it stay? Jeepday (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed to death, so I will only make one post in this thread. There is no policy that requires references; WP:V requires material to be verifiable. While sourced articles are better, and anything believed to be false should be removed, an article that is generally believed to be correct and verifiable but isn't referenced doesn't need deleted, it needs to be improved.  &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually No original research which is a core content policy does require references Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. Additionally the NEW ARTICLE Directions warn Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted.. Jeepday (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what I think about this; maybe there should be the effort to source before deletion is resorted to should be institutionalized. It's clear that many policy and near-policy texts imply that such a practice is expected. As in the previous discussion, here doesn't seem to be consensus for any form of consistency.
 * In any case, I would like to point out that the very templates Jossi suggested say any addition without sources is forbidden ("adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. "; "Please do not add content without citing reliable sources." "Please do not add unsourced or original content."). If this is to be taken seriously, it means reverting nearly 70% of the edits made.
 * I think Carl is wrong in his definition of verifiability. Being "verifiable" does not mean that it is theoretically, hypothetically possible and within human power to check whether it's true (in that sense, only some philosophical statements such as "there is no God" would be unverifiable); being verifiable means that it is reasonably easy for other editors can check it. Apart from alphabetical textbook-level truths, the only way to make it easy for other editors to check it is if the source is cited and it can be consulted. If you haven't cited your source for your claim, and I must do it for you, then I will have to search for such a claim through all the books on the topic in my local library. It is plainly absurd to expect such a thing; and if I do it, I am likely to find a fairly different treatment of the topic, leading to a rewrite.--Anonymous44 14:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just heard about this discussion via the mailing list and figured I should mention that if a policy is ever implemented putting some kind of deadline on deleting fact-marked statements the first impact that will have on me is that I will never again mark anything with the fact template. I use that template to request citations, not to mark statements for deletion. If I want to delete a statement I just do it. Bryan Derksen 04:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This discusion is continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification

Wikipedia:Requests for verification
We have a proposal that is supported by some and not by others and is keeping with Wikipedia policy and expectations. It has been pointed out that topic "has been discussed to death,". We can continue to talk about it or we can do something about it. The process that this suggestion is based on is at Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Requests for verification. I would like to suggest that we consider how this could be implemented in Wikipedia to best advantage.

A couple of thoughts on process and approach
 * Wikipedia Requests for verification would probably work best as a category using similar tools dating and categorizing as Prod
 * should not be used on articles with history before January 1, 2007
 * uw-unsor1, uw-unsor2, uw-unsor3 should be on the talk page of the original editor
 * There should be at least 30 days between the tag and deletion
 * There should be fairly reasonable requirements for references (i.e. a link to a myspace blog is not suffcient reference to remove the RFV tag}

Signed Jeepday (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you intend to promote this as a guideline or policy, I would suggest you start a proposal page at Requests for verification, bring this idea to the attention of the community, post a notice at the Village Pump, in other main policy talk pages, and bring it up also on the mailing list.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the way that Jimbo guy thinks. Until(1 == 2) 23:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi I posted it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Age of unreferenced about a day and half ago and at Template talk:Unreferenced about a day ago. I don't see this as a policy or a guideline (truly so if you believe it is, explain it to me) I see it as a template tool for challenging unreferenced articles.  I beleive it is supported by existing policy and contradicted by none.  I see it as one among many tools like db-spam or prod.  I beleive I have proposed above, usage instructions that are reasonable and meet the concerns of of key people like yourself and DGG both of whom I have interacted with on referencing concerns. As I mentioned in my recent rant  User talk:Jeepday (take the example with a grain of salt, everything in it real, but I don't recall seeing it all happen in the same article) I think some editors feel that Wikipedia needs this tool.


 * Here we have a small group of interested editors on both sides of what is an ongoing discussion. We have publicly invited interaction, lets sit down here figure out what it should look like addressing all reasonable concerns then set it up.  My thought is that a relatively low profile entry into Wikipedia for the tag rfv will allow the number of contributers adding reference to these articles to grow at the same rate as the articles in the category does.  I can see where fears of misuse could frighten some away from embracing this template.  We have a lot of different perspectives here, lets put them together and come out with a good tool and then get back to work referencing articles. Jeepday (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will post a comment on the wiki-en mailing list to attract attention about this proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with your proposed template, is that it sets policy, by stating a 30 days period. IMO, there is nothing that this template does, no already accomplished by unreferenced, besides setting up a process about which there is no consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes the time period, that could be a policy and prod is adopted as a policy so... I picked the 30 days as that is what they are using at Wiktionary. I guess I better go set up the Requests for verification, please take please give me a couple minutes then come correct any techinical errors I make in setting it up as proposal? Jeepday (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Requests for verification is now posted, Jossi could you post a link to the wiki-en mailing on Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification for those who do not participate in the mailing.
 * I continue to disagree with setting a time. The proposal for 10 days was rightly rejected, and so will be one for 30. Wikitionary has much easier problems--they merely have to find a quote illustrating usage. We have to document the theories, facts, accomplishments, and importance. Sometimes I can do this in 5 minutes, if someone was sloppy enough to not check google before tagging. Sometimes it can take 1 or more days in a physical library. Sometimes it can take days in a library by one of the WPedans who can deal with the language and has an adequate physical library and who understands the subject, and we may have very few in some cases who will be interested and willing and capable. Suggested replacement text:

''It has been suggested that this entry might not meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. If evidence is not provided, the disputed information may be considered for possible removal. " Gentle. no ultimatums. But the necessary stimulus to activity is still there. DGG (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This discusion is continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification

Clarification of "third-party"
It seems on one of the pages I'm working on that there is a misunderstanding of what "third-party" means in the context of WP:V. Does it mean "third as in not Wikipedia and not the editor" or "third as in not wikipedia, not the editor, and not the person/place/thing being talked about" or does it mean something different?

In the article in question, there is a claim that using a direct quote from a courts published opinion on an official government court website would violate both WP:V and WP:NOR. Many thanks for any clarification. Arthurrh 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Third party means, a source other than the subject of the article. Quotes from the subject of the article are welcome, with some caveats, as per WP:SPS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For example, a biography of politician Mr. XYZ can include material from Mr. XYZ's website, but that is not enough. You will also need material from other published secondary sources. Note that when you cite material from Mr. XYZ's website you need to attribute that material to the site or to Mr. XYZ, and avoid asserting claims made, as if these were facts. "According to YXZ.com, this and that") ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I see. So if the article is ABOUT the person, then it needs to be third-party to them, insofar as possible. So then for example, in an article about a civil right, would a court opinion discussing a case relating to that right be considered a reliable source, as in "The xx circuit court said in 2005 "comments directly quoted from court published opinion". Thanks again. Arthurrh 00:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmmm.... A quote directly from a court document is not the best of sources, as it is a primary source. See if you can find a secondary source where that court document is described. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's somewhat confusing because when you're quoting a court case, it seems to be less reliable to say that "Bobs says that the court says" instead of just writing "the court says" so I'm not sure that the usual reluctance for primary source readily fits. Arthurrh 07:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Drop me a line on my talk page with a link to the article in question, if you want me to take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.. Thanks. Arthurrh 07:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would absolutely consider a published opinion by the court to be a reliable source... and I am not so sure that I would call it a Primary Source. Other Wikipedia policies seem to concur... WP:NOR calls trial transcripts primary sources, but not opinions.  In most opinions, the judge writing the opinion goes into great detail as to the background of the case, the legal precedents, the interpretation of those precedents, etc.  A judge writing an opinion can be equated to a scientific scholar who is writing a paper for a science journal... the difference being that instead of his work undergoing an editorial peer review, a judge's peer review is called the appelate process and the reviewers are the higher courts.  Blueboar 12:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, an opinion from a high court is a good source. But we do not know the context of Arthur's request. Also note that different countries have different methods. Would you call a court opinion from a totalitarian state a reliable source? Not sure I would. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For context... the court referred to in this case is the US Fifth Circuit. On the article in question we seem to have the option of using someone's editorializing to say what they think the 5th circuit meant, or we could simply have a direct quote of what the 5th circuit said. For me I'd prefer to have it straight without the editorial, but others feel differently. Thanks to all for throwing in their opinions, it was helpful. Arthurrh 17:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A judge writing an opinion can be equated to a scientific scholar who is writing a paper for a science journal
 * Hmmm ... respectfully, Blueboar, this analogy may be a bit of an oversimplification. Many times trial judges, circuit court judges and even appellate court judges issue decisions and rulings that are subject to considerable disrepute. Moreover, lower court decisions do not always get appealed, and if they do get appealed, they are not always granted review in a higher court.
 * If you've had the benefit of taking a course in Critical Legal Scholarship, you know that many specialists do nothing but pore over case law in search of glaring deficiencies; in order to demonstrate why some new theory or jurisprudence is needed to clarify, modify or extend existing law. In many cases judges rely on these specialists more than they rely on the attorney arguments and established precedent.
 * Anyway, back to the basic point. WP:OR states in relevant part:

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources (for example, legal cases).


 * A counter-balance to this principle, however, is the fact that many legal cases cover complicated matters, and the interpretation thereof is sometimes best avoided, except by an expert, which is obviously going to require what WP calls a "secondary source". dr.ef.tymac 16:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First... I would contend that a Judge is an expert on the law. That's their JOB.
 * Second... "Many times trial judges, circuit court judges and even appellate court judges issue decisions and rulings that are subject to considerable disrepute." ... and this never happens in accedimia? There is a difference between "reliable" and "agreed with".  I seem to remember that one of the reasons why Robert Bork was rejected as a Supreme Court nominee was that his scholarly views were subject to considerable disrepute... yet because he published his views in legal journals, we can quote him.  If nothing else, a judge's published opinion in a case should be treated no differently than if he wrote the same opinion in a book.
 * I could see requiring proper attribution (ie "According to Justice Joseph Blow, in his opinion in Smith v. Jones, 'The Constitution states clearly that "Congress shall pass no law..."' )") to make it clear that this was Judge Blow's opinion and that it might not be the last word on the matter... but to say that a legal ruling is not reliable as a source (especially when what you are talking about in the article directly relates to that ruling) is rediculous. It would be like saying you could not quote and cite a Papal encyclial in an article about Christianity. Blueboar 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a basic disconnect here. Certainly, to a layperson, a Judge is an "expert on the law" ... and certainly, your analogy to scientific research and peer-review is fine as a very broad generalization, but there are certain considerations that render your overview problematic under the close scrutiny that is required in the context of an encyclopedia, which is why I clarified.
 * 1) A judge is an "expert" because that's their job
 * It is also the "job" of attorneys, law professors, amici curiae and other judges to explain (sometimes in excruciating detail) when and why the specific decisions of judges are *wrong*. The expertise of an individual judge and the precedential value of his or her individual decisions are entirely separate considerations.
 * 2) this never happens in accedimia? There is a difference between "reliable" and "agreed with"
 * I'm not sure which academic disciplines you are referring to here, but in the context of case law in most (if not all) common law jurisdictions, there is indeed no difference between "reliable" and "agreed with". Henry Billings Brown may indeed be regarded as a "legal expert" ... but if a WP contributor were to cite his decision in Plessy v. Ferguson as binding authority in the United States in the year 2007, that viewpoint would be thoroughly discredited and ridiculed by legal "experts".
 * 3) a judge's published opinion in a case should be treated no differently than if he wrote the same opinion in a book
 * Again, I'm not sure what kinds of books you are referring to here, but generally speaking, each subject area has its own methodology for validation, fact checking, substantiation and accreditation. The methodology for case law is entirely different than that of, for example, a mathematical textbook. The basic concepts of plane geometry have been around since before Euclid's Elements, and are not likely to get 'overruled' any time soon. Case law, in contrast, gets overruled all the time, sometimes indirectly, sometimes only in part, and sometimes in ways that even dedicated legal "experts" do not readily realize. This is why we have appellate review.
 * 4) to say that a legal ruling is not reliable as a source
 * I never said that. I simply said your analogy was simplistic. A "legal ruling" must be discerned by the proper application of legal analysis and professional training. Even then, those professionals sometimes derive conclusions that are later repudiated by other professionals who are doing their "job". Sometimes, those repudiations are collateral and not direct (in other words, a judge's decision may no longer represent binding precedent, even though his *specific* decision never underwent direct appellate review). This is precisely where your "peer-review" analogy falls flat, and why it was important to clarify. dr.ef.tymac 19:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Clarification understood... I was trying to tie your comments into the greater discussion (which is about whether a legal opinion is a reliable source, and if it was a primary or secondary source)... My comments were in light of the fact that from the stand point of Wikipedia, a judge has to be considered an legal expert... on a par with historians or scientists who epress an opinion on some topic in their field of study in an accademic journal. Some accademics have very good reputations, others are known as cranks... Same with Judges.  Some accademic "experts" hold quite controvercial opinions... same with Judges.  What I am getting at is that, to the extent that a legal opinion contains interpreation and analysis of the law, we (as Wikipedia editors) should treat a published legal opinions as being on a par with accademic writing in other fields. That means we use the most up to date opinions, we give attribution, we note if there are significant conflicting views (such as the decenting opinions in Supreme Court cases), and all of the other caviats that go along with quoting any expert's opinion. That's all I am getting at. Blueboar 22:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability should concern the availability of sources also
Verifiability seems to concern not only whether information has been published by reliable, third-party sources but also whether the sources are readily available to Wikipedia editors. But I think the latter aspect of verifiability isn't sufficiently covered in the current policy document.

Verification is simple and easy if the source is an article that appeared in some major journal or a book that is readily available in your local library. You just need to go to the library, get a hold of a copy of it, and read it to see if it's consistent with what's written on the Wikipedia article. If the source is available online, verification is still easier. There is no question about the validity of this standard kind of verification.

But what about other kinds of information source, especially non-print ones, that aren't readily available? TV news reports, for example, should be as much reliable as reports on newspaper. But obtaining video tape recording of daily TV news programs isn't so easy. How do you verify this kind of information source? It's possible that someone might have happened to record the program on his VCR at home. But it's verifiable only for himself. Or you may call, email, or write a letter to the TV station to inquire about the news program, but in this way you cannot watch the program for yourself. Does this still constitute valid verification?

Webpages are probably the most easily verifiable source of information. But not all of them last forever on the internet, and once they are gone, there is no way to verify them unless some other websites like archive.org have archived them. Also validity becomes questionable if the archiving was done by some minor no-name site.

Either way, I think there should be a section or a subpage on methods of verification, i.e., how exactly you verify the source of information (go to library, purchase, telephon inquiry, etc), what exactly constitutes valid verification (do you have to read/watch a copy of the source yourself, or can you confirm reference by inquiring the author directly), and how easily avairable a source should be. Hermeneus (user/talk) 04:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The principle is "verifiability", meaning that it can be verified and that are notable enough to have been reported in reputable sources. TV and radio reports, about events that are notable, will be also available in print media. If not, one can easily assume that the report is not notable enough to warrant a mention in a Wikipedia article. That is why we refer to material that "has already been published by a reliable source." Same applies to web pages: if a subject is notable enough, we should have a multiplicity of sources in print as well, in books, journals, magazines, etc. Fortunately, more and more of printed material is now being indexed and made available  by the publisher itself, or by archive aggregators, so it is becoming easier to point readers to online versions of these published materials. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So are you suggesting that you can reject information on the ground of notability if it's not available in print media also? An event as a whole may be covered by multiple news media outlets in various forms if it's significant and notable enough, but it's not necessarily the case for every single detail of the event as well. Many statements made by a politician in an interview report, for example, aren't covered by other news media than the one that conducted the interview, although such statements could be good pimary sources for many subjects. Hermeneus (user/talk) 05:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We do indeed reject material based on notability. In particular in the example you mention, a politician. (See WP:BLP.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not report "every single detail" of events. Only those that are significant. And to be significant, there shall be multiple reliable sources that report on them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See also WP:NPOV ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about the interview itself as an event or statements that the politician made about himself. Within the context of the interview as an event, a statement that the politician made during the interview is just a detail of the interview event. But if the politician made a statement that expresses the view of the government that he represents on a certain important political issue, it's no longer just a detail of the interview event. Nobody is going to create an independent article on some CNN interview with President Bush, but if Bush made some important statements on the war in Iraq during the interview, they are notable and merit reference on the Wikipedia article on Iraq War. Hermeneus (user/talk) 06:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * if Bush made some important statements on the war in Iraq during the interview he will have made the same important statements elsewhere. If that is not the case, raise the issue in talk, and ensure that the CNN interview is verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In this regard, please note the Verifiability is only one of several core content policies, and as per the lead of these, it must be applied in the context of the others, in this case WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. These, when taking into account as one principle, will eliminate these sources about which we only have transient sources such as radio program or a TV news report. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Like everything to do with verifiability (both in real life and in wiki-policy!), it all depends on context. Yes, in a highly contentious matter where one-side doubts fact x about issue y, a reference to a television interview that did not result in a transcript to be consulted would probably not cut it.  Sorry.  Why?  Basically because often we cannot count on one another to hear what is said rather than what we want to be said.  That aside, look at something like Bart Sells His Soul.  That whole article, I'm sure, is based on one or more editors who watched the episode (perhaps more than once) and wrote the article on that basis.  So in the one case, we trust people to describe what they saw on TV, and in the other we don't.  One way or the other, I'd be pessimistic about the possibility of crafting a rule that covered enough of the possibilities to make it worth anything.   semper fictilis 19:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In some fields, some of the academic or other sources can be quite difficult to obtain, and that is part of the fun of the academic hunting process. Generally I edit articles related to the history of India and topics in Indian philosophy and religion, and some of the books involved can be difficult to obtain because they are out of print or otherwise rare.  That is what interlibrary loans are for.  A problem I see on Wikipedia is the overdependence on web sources.  Now and then some editor contests a fact that is supported by academic literature, but which is not on the web anywhere.  I then am told that I must be deluded since their Google search does not confirm the issue.  So the point is that one must fit the availability criterion to the subject matter of the article at hand, and make allowances for rarity. Buddhipriya 19:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A problem I see on Wikipedia is the overdependence on web sources.


 * Buddhipriya, you hit that nail "right on the head". It seems there is a substantial plurality, if not a majority, of WP contributors who consider "research" to consist of a few Google searches for any of various no-fee, generally-available resource that happens to turn up. If nothing conclusive is found through this channel, the discussion invariably erupts into tiresome squabbles over "policy" when it comes time to fill in the gaps. Combine this with the tendency for people to be lax in citing references, and the fact that *many* topic areas require research materials that are either rare, expensive, abstruse, or subject to dispute even among recognized experts, and one begins to question whether the whole "encyclopedia" moniker is appropriate to begin with.


 * Can people take WP seriously as an "encyclopedia" when so much of its substantiation consists of little more than web links to "stuff" people have found through Google? Will WP inspire research institutions and repositories to allow more open access? Is WP a threat to the hegemony and prestige enjoyed by organizations that charge beaucoup bucks for on-line access to a wealth of information that is currently unavailable electronically through any other means? Does "open source" necessarily equate with "bargain basement" or "easily accessible" or "widely covered on the web"? Will abstruse, esoteric and unusual topics continue to suffer relegation to second-class WP citizenship, and outright deletion, simply because they cannot be readily substantiated with a few handy web links? Is WP simply a haven for "wanna-be" scholars who consider this their only alternative, and the Web their only library?


 * These are important questions -- if WP is indeed to be taken seriously as a knowledge resource; and not just another web-based discussion forum that happens to encourage footnotes. dr.ef.tymac 21:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hear-hear Dreftymac. I see that WP:RS refers to 'reliable, published sources'.  Most commonly, reading published writing involves a trip to the library.  In my observation, many Wikipedia editors tend to avoid reading actual paper, regardless that the most reliable information is commonly found only on paper.  SaltyBoatr 23:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The exception to this--but it only 'proves the rule'--is that there is an awful lot of high-quality digital sources behind various subscribers wall. I seem to recall an arbcom decision that was relevant to this.  I'll see if I can find it.  semper fictilis 23:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here it is: Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo/Proposed_decision. Good advice, I think.   semper fictilis 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

While a free complete web version of a source is always nice, the standard for what constitutes a proper citation is the same today as it was in 1950. If it gives enough detail for a reader to go to a major metropolitan or university library (or a special collection or museum, for the truly rare) and verify the source, it's valid. As far as trust goes, I think that any editor who is discovered to be committing fraud regarding such sourcing should be dealt with harshly, and with extreme prejudice. - Crockspot 23:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That is why we have ISBN numbers that mediawiki automatically links to a page with multiple sites that can help you find a copy of that book in your country, even if out of print. A trip to the library us still one of the best ways to source material. Of course, Google books helps here and there, and other on-line resources such as JSTOR and Questia are quote useful as well. I would disagree with the statement above that web source are preferable. That has never been the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT
I was tightening up the wording in the section on self-published sources in articles about themselves in WP:ATT so that it matched what was here in WP:V, and I noticed an extra criteria, which was along the lines of "that the article is not primarily based on such sources". (See last criteria in left pane of this diff). This sounds like a reasonable restriction, and I would have added it here but for the prot. Can we get some consensus to add this into WP:V, and have an admin add it? - Crockspot 17:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected
Okay, I've unprotected once again. Everyone involved in the last edit war is an established user, so I shouldn't have to do the be bold, then revert, and then stop editing and talk speech, but I'm not sure anyone listened last time, so that was a brief recap. Briefly, don't edit war. No-one likes the fact that something may be in a policy that shouldn't be there, so that's why we ask that people discuss changes here on the talk page first. Anyway, best of luck with it, and remember, don't edit war. It's disruptive, and can lead to blocks. Hiding Talk 13:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to sightly change the sentence Material from reliable non-academic sources... to Material from reliable non-academic sources can be used in these areas if they are respected mainstream publications, using "can" instead of "may" as a compromise, and deleting "particularly" per consensus, as it suggests that non-respected publications are appropriate. Please do not make reverts to the consensus version without discussing it. — Zerida 21:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleting "particularly" is essential. It's at worst misleading and at best redundant. Taken literally it's equal to saying "it's nice if sources are respected mainstream publications, but non-respected non-mainstream sources are 'welcome' also." Raymond Arritt 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you lot don't stop reverting each other, I am going to protect it again. Viridae Talk 00:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't. Just hand out blocks, because otherwise, we'll see the same tomorrow morning, as soon as it is unprotected. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 00:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly looks like WP:BRD failed to happen, again. We need to find some sort of way forward that people are happy enough with not to react like this, or at least to sit down and play nice.


 * Am I right in my reading of WP:BRD that a third user reverting the revert is still a deviation from BRD? [[User:Sambc|S
 * I know I'm write in my reading of that big notice on the policy page which says you discuss first on the talk page, and really, that is all that matters. Build the consensus and then make the change.  Hiding Talk 10:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Objected addition
I have a strong objection to this being added to the article. I reverted, was reverted, and the reverter was reverted. I saw no discussion of this above, and I would guess that consensus would be against this addition. There are statements that contradict the source that is cited, and conflict with the previous paragraph. There was a similar change attempted to WP:BLP yesterday, which was de-fanged and watered down in a compromise that caused no actual shift of burden, or weakening of the policy. The same arguments apply here. - Crockspot 00:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have a strong objection to removing it. Without it, it lets any troll or zealot start asking for sources that Washington was the first President. (I exaggerate only slightly.) We need to concentrate on finding sources for the immense amount of unsourced controversial or partisan material in WP. diverting attention to challenging parts of articles or articles over trivial matters is not constructive, and does not contribute to building the encyclopedia. when getting rid of junk, the best strategy is to start with the worst & most damaging junk. Questioning the dob in every BLP is not productive--looking for biased assumptions and wording is what is really needed. DGG (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Trolls are dealt with in other ways, and should not be the ones that drive policy. That statement is superfluous. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I added that piece because some editors are citing this guideline when not only removing sections of articles that are currently unsourced without first requesting citations (which, btw is a very large number of articles), they are also removing sourced content which they do not feel is adequately sourced without first giving reasonable time for additional citations to be given. My personal experience involves a diagram (which currently sources five different published sources) which has not only been in the psychoactive drug article for the past two years, but has also received numerous accolades including one from the Florida Office of Drug Policy requesting a more printer-friendly version. I have become seriously dissuaded from contributing, and I know that others are as well. After a few years of contributing to many drug related articles, (as well as financially to the Wikimedia foundation), and also encouraging others to contribute, I am starting to feel like I have been wasting time better spent elsewhere. --Thoric 20:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability of IMDB info
Can anyone point to a consensus or guideline regarding the accuracy/verifiability of IMDB biographical information cited as a source? Having a WP:BLP problem with actress' date of birth on Minka (porn star) (the article subject is complaining). Videmus Omnia Talk  15:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that the IMDB is a resource to which readers can contribute data. Whether these additions are subject to oversight or verification before or after their publication is a question whose answer really determines whether it is a sufficiently viable source or just a repository for the readers' imaginings. In this case, since there has been some form of complaint raised by the subject of a BLP, I believe that there is some provision for the removal of the doubtful material, if you can reasonably describe the source as insufficiently reliable. I would not recommend changing the D.O.B. to whatever the subject herself may provide, since that could be considered to be original research using a primary source. Outline the removal on the talk page, with a rationale, just to keep onlooking editors happy and in the picture, and make a request for a more reliable source.  Adrian   M. H.  21:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's essentially what we did. I was just curious if there a previous consensus on this, as this is not the only time I've run into this situation. In this particular case, the subject declined to give the real date, they just asserted that the date we had was wrong. I think this person's issue is now resolved. Videmus Omnia Talk  21:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Two cents: I've always considered IMDB refs interesting to have right up to, or until, the info from there is contested by someone. Once that happens, a reliable source needs to be found.  R. Baley 22:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not seen anything written anywhere, although that is not to say that it may not reside in an archive of VP or RS discussions.  Adrian   M. H.  22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not reliable. "While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the database IMDb gives no warranty as to the accuracy of the information contained in the database." You will find similar disclaimers on individual pages. Marskell 05:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Must citations appear in the lead?
Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section raises the question: must an article's lead contain citations, or is it OK to have the lead summarize the body, with all citations in the body? This topic comes up over and over again, and one can easily find high quality examples either way; for example Johannes Kepler has inline citations in the header but Climate of India defers all inline citations to the body. (Both of these examples are recent Featured Articles.)

My feeling is that WP:V allows the lead to summarize the body, deferring detailed citations to the body. But SlimVirgin feels strongly that articles like Climate of India do not conform to WP:V, and SlimVirgin has removed all my attempts to modify WP:LEAD to address the question. What's the consensus here? Does this issue require any changes to WP:V for clarification? Eubulides 06:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:V doesn't require inline citations at all, certainly not in the lead. Inline citations are recommended but not mandated by policy. JulesH 08:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (They should be, but that is another debate). With regard to citing statements in leads, I see no problem with leaving them out as long as those statements are mirrored (in meaning) elsewhere and cited accordingly. Statements that are not repeated should, of course, be cited as required.  Adrian  M. H.  22:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:V indicates that statements should be sourced; it doesn't indicate how that sourcing must be implemented. If inline sources are applied to the main body of an article, and the lede is just the summary of a properly-sourced section, it is proper referencing. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 22:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing here that says leads are special, and they're not. All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious BLP edits, and all quotations, needs a source; and as a matter of practice nowadays that means an inline citation. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A unique thing about leads is that they usually contain general statements, and it can be difficult to cite any single source to support a general statement. For example "XXX's career was characterized by YYY." When the whole rest of the article supports that general statement, with scrupulous citations at every step, it doesn't necessarily make sense for someone to say that the general statement in the lead should be supported with a citation. A usable citation no doubt exists out there somewhere, in the introduction chapter to a biography, for example. But the fact is that the person asking for a citation in the lead may be asking for something that already exists, spread out over the body of the article. RedSpruce 21:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is becoming a problem in itself
With regard to the point raised above, I have noticed an increasing tendency in the last year for people to scrap or delete material on their own, often subjective, judgement that it is "unsourced". It is fine to put the onus on contributors to cite their sources, but I'm afraid that Verifiability is starting to take on the characteristics of a stick that you can use to beat anyone you want.

Someone recently deleted a section that I wrote a long time ago at the article on Li Bai. The section read:


 * His name was traditionally pronounced Li Bo or Li Po (depending on the romanisation), hence the familiar name Li Po by which he has long been known in the West. However, the use of the pronunciation 'bó' (pinyin romanisation), originally associated with the reading of Classical Chinese, has largely disappeared in modern China, partly as a result of language planning and standardisation.

I am the first one to admit that it was not a well-written paragraph and could confuse readers. I originally added the detailed note because there appeared to be a misconception among some contributors that Li Po was somehow "incorrect" and should be as far as possible expunged from Wikipedia.

What troubles me is that the person deleting this information gave the following edit summary as a reason for removing it: "The name section was probably unncessary; most importantly it was unreferenced, probably gave more confusion to readers. Remove it as of now."

The information in question came from Chinese dictionaries of various descriptions. It's true that I gave no references, but anyone with some familiarity with the Chinese language could find that information if they wanted to. I find the use of the "unreferenced" argument to delete or question anything the editor himself has never heard of a troubling phenomenon. In fact, if this criterion were to be scrupulously adhered to, a large percentage of Wikipedia would disappear overnight. How can contributors be expected to source every single statement that appears in Wikipedia? Even referencing is no guarantee that a statement is correct. Contributors could easily distort referenced sources or use them to advance highly POV arguments. It seems to me (this is my own subjective judgement) that a lot of people are simply using the "unsourced" argument to delete material that they don't like.

In the case I cite above, the explanation of Li Po's traditional name could have been moved elsewhere, away from the head of the article, or it could have been rewritten to make it less obtrusive. But someone decided that it was "unreferenced", and therefore deletable without the need for further debate.

Verifiability, like the POV and OR criteria, needs to be used judiciously. Taking Verifiability and OR to their logical extremes, Wikipedia would be best served by wholesale plagiarism from other sources, preferably on the Internet -- totally verifiable and definitely not original research!

Bathrobe 06:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the passage you quote above should cite sources, and is a good example of why this policy exists. No one else is in a better position than you to find the appropriate sources, and if it takes removal to get your attention and get you providing a source, then that's a good thing. Fact tags that sit for months waiting for a source are unacceptable. Not everything MUST cite a source, for (hypothetical) example, "the Earth is a sphere" in Earth would be so easily verified through hundreds of thousands of sources, and is so generally known, that citing a source wouldn't be necessary. But the passage above certainly does not fall into that category. - Crockspot 12:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There was no fact tag. Just a sudden deletion of information.
 * Besides which, Li Po is the name by which he used to be better known, which can be confirmed by a Google search. At the time I inserted that note, people were merrily changing Li Po to Li Bai, even in the references, based on nothing more than their own (inadequate) knowledge of Chinese. Surely changes and deletions should be just as subject to the need to cite sources or justifications as the insertion of material. It is, after all, a lot easier to destroy than it is to create.
 * Bathrobe 12:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is, after all, a lot easier to destroy than it is to create. I agree with you, and I am most definitively against summarily deleting content without first asking for references. But WP:V exists for a reason: we want content, but we want the content to be not easily challenged. The way to have stable content is to provide sound references for it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be cited, I cannot think of a reason why it should not be cited. Until(1 == 2) 17:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes to "This page in a nutshell"
Yes, we all know there are some concerns about the procedures and specifics for whether and when contributors may remove unreferenced content. Here is a request. If you are going to attempt to modify this policy to clarify these concerns, DO NOT just add your clarification to the "This page in a nutshell" section. Recently, a contributor added a clause to the "nutshell" summary that was not even touched upon in the terms of the policy itself. If a reader wanted to make a good-faith effort to reconcile the "summary" with specific language in the policy, they would have come up empty-handed.

The "nutshell" summary is just that, a summary; not a separate document and not a place to patch perceived "holes" in the terms of the policy itself. If it's not already clearly indicated in the terms of the policy, then please don't add it to the summary. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 14:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I added "at an appropriate time" to the summary. The policy clearly indicates steps that may be taken other than an immediate removal of a claim. That these steps take time is obvious and need not be spelled out in so many words. Do you think we need the actual phrase "at an appropriate time" in the body if it is to be in the summary. We can do that. I'll do that. People what do you think? Note that I am not changing policy, merely clarifying a point that some new people are misunderstanding.WAS 4.250 15:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Appropriate time" begs the question of what that is. Maybe better, and to emphasize that it is a process, we could use "in due course" instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto. When is it appropriate to remove un-sourced material, and why wouldn't it be removed immediately? -- Mikeblas 15:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually like dreftymac's wording in the nutshell; 'subject to' doesn't seem quite so much like giving permission, which I think is the problem with the older wording. SamBC 15:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In this edit (now moved here to talk to establish consensus) the summary reads:

and the Burden of evidence section reads:


 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.


 * Any edit lacking a source may be removed at an appropriate time. Stable older material added before citing was common on Wikipedia should be provided with references rather than removed, but eventually all sigmificant claims must either be sourced or removed. For material recently added, the contributor may object if you remove their contribution without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the fact template, or tag the article by adding Not verified or Unreferenced. Leave an invisible HTML comment, a note on the talk page, or an edit summary explaining what you have done.


 * The question of when to delete a claim is a matter of editorial judgement, so use the opinions of editors that are repected for their editorial judgement. For example, be careful not to go too far on the side of leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

Is this what we wish the policy to say? WAS 4.250 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We could use ""in due course" instead of "at an appropriate time" and other changes to the exact words would also be ok. The point is that this talk pages proves there are new people who read the currebt wording and conclude policy says they can immediate remove unsourced content and this talk page also proves there is a consensus that my edit to this policy does accurately reflect current policy. Using the talk page to discuss every minor rewording is not how policy pages are edited, so I guess some people see this as not minor and not consensus. I can buy it not being minor. But it does seem to me to be consensus. We don't vote on consensus you know. Or do we? WAS 4.250 16:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion days of editing this talk page by many people have demonstrated the consensus needed for the substance of what I added and revising the exact wording can be done wiki stye without elaborate talk; so unless an established editor of this policy like slimvirgin or jossi say there is a lack of consensus for the substance of my edit I will add back the edit tomorrow. WAS 4.250 17:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Multiple users reverting the edits would tend to indicate that there's no consensus for, and the edits in the first place would tend to indicate that there's no consensus against. On a policy page, two or three people talking about it isn't consensus, even if they all agree, unless there's a good long chance for someone else to weigh in, IMO. SamBC 17:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you trolling or what? The only revert to my edit was you. That content was never placed on the page before so it could not have been reverted before. Did you even read it before you reverted it? WAS 4.250 18:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any chance that we can all carry on assuming good faith? You made the edit twice, in fact, once to the summary only, which was reverted by dreftymac, and then changing the policy as well as the summary. I would hesitantly assume that "don't change the summary to not match the policy" doesn't necessarily mean "just change the policy as well". SamBC 18:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The objection to my first edit does not apply to my second different edit. And your only given reason for rreverting my second edit was "a bit of vague agreement in talk over a few hours does not equal consensus." which demonstates a lack of knowledge of the days of discussion and is not an objection the the content of the edit. Stop trolling me. WAS 4.250 18:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Back in terms of the specific matter, part of the problem is that most indications of delay are imprecise. The wording should at the very least not seem to be inviting such removal of material, but instead saying that it can happen; the difference may seem purely semantic, but it has a definite psychological effect. Wording implying a delay would be great, if someone can come up with a wording that doesn't set rigid guidelines and also doesn't invite the question of 'how long?' SamBC 17:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The substance has consensus. The exact wording can be worked out with normal wiki editing. Since you obviously have no clue, please read the talk page contents you asked for and I provided on your talk page. Consensus meaning this is what we do and this talk page shows that experienced respected editors agree. WAS 4.250 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree entirely with SamBC ... if you add a "temporal" qualification to the nutshell summary, please substantiate it with a specific "temporal" qualification in the terms of the policy itself. This is not to be nit-picky or pedantic. Unfamiliar readers of this policy might assume that WP:BLP violations are within the scope of the "appropriate time" or "in due course" qualification, even though the policy itself unequivocally indicates that such violations are targeted for immediate removal.


 * Also, let's face it, different WP contributors have different philosophies regarding the "timing" of removal for unreferenced content. If the policy itself is silent on the issue of "timing" then it makes no sense to abrogate that express silence by shoehorning it into the summary.


 * Others can decide how specifically to handle "timing" in the policy. The different "sides" of this issue can all weigh in with their opinions. All I would assert is: at least clarify the policy text itself, before you change the summary. Regardless of the underlying issue, this should be an obvious and fundamental requirement for any change to the "nutshell" of *any* WP policy page.


 * First climb the mountain, then plant your flag when you get to the top. dr.ef.tymac 18:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are suffering from two misconceptions. First I agreed that the summary change was better with ta change to the body so that is not a factor. Second you are unfamiliar with the various sections starting with "Blanking unsourced articles and tagging them for speedy deletion as empty?" starting 7 July 2007 (and pay attention to newbie editor named Until(1 == 2) and the consensus against him by established editors). There is in fact consensus for the substance of the edit and there does not to be a consensus for the exact wording. Editing wiki style is normal for tweaking the words to make it more clear without changing the substance.  WAS 4.250 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are suffering from two misconceptions.
 * Nope, but it's nice to know you are concerned with the suffering of others :).


 * I agreed that the summary change was better with ta change to the body so that is not a factor
 * Sure it is a factor, one of the very "established editors" (whom you justifiably regard so highly) already told you: "Appropriate time" begs the question of what that is. Unless you are prepared to spell out the meaning of "appropriate time" you are just duplicating the unsubstantiated terminology that was already disputed. Sure, it's nice that it at least is not jammed into the summary from thin air, but that still leaves out the (not so minor) detail of defining *what it actually means to begin with*.


 * Second you are unfamiliar with the various sections starting with
 * I am? That's news to me, especially since I was one of the participants in that very topic. Go back and look for yourself. Even so, many people read discussions without participating. You might want to try to get substantiation before claiming knowledge of what other people are unfamiliar with.


 * there does not to be a consensus for the exact wording
 * Nope, and unsubstantiated wording can easily be reverted by well-informed contributors who have a good-faith and well-reasoned justification for why it is inconsistent with the current terms of WP policy. I've already offered several such justifications, both here and on your personal talk page. It'd be nice if you could do the same, instead of just insisting that there is "consensus" ... or insisting you will only listen to "established editors" (one of whom has happened to have already disagreed with you, by the way, in this very discussion thread).


 * tweaking the words to make it more clear without changing the substance
 * What you are proposing is more than a "tweak" ... I'm trying to help you. Make your case in discussion, get support for your moves then make them. It will enhance your credibility dramatically. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 18:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please quote the exact words that I added that you think do not reflect consensus behavior at wikipedia. The substance has consensus and the exact wording can be worked out by normal wiki editing. We don't hold votes to determine policy. The discussion establishing the need and the consensus for the substance of my edit was already held. It is nonsense to ask that it be reheld one week later. Improve the wording if you like. But adding details like "one month" does not have consensus. And the desire to add things like that is no reason to not clarify the policy in ways that do have consensus WAS 4.250 19:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please remember you are responding to a human being and not a parrot. As much as I like the word "consensus", including it in every sentence simply sounds robotic, perfunctory, and is truly quite tiresome. Consensus is a concept founded in deliberation and mutual discussion, not a magical incantation to be invoked against those with whom you disagree.


 * I already conveyed the problem to you, quite plainly, and using the exact words of an "experienced editor" "Appropriate time" begs the question of what that is. Consequently, adding it does not constitute a "clarification" to begin with.


 * Sometimes "appropriate time" means days of discussion and review, sometimes it means instantaneously. Both reflect established WP practice under the wide variety of applicable circumstances. Therefore, unless you care to distinguish the difference expressly, the "clarification" adds nothing but redundancy. Please consider this simple point, so we can all be spared from tediously repeating ourselves. dr.ef.tymac 00:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(<--)You say "appropriate time" adds nothing. That is not true. It makes clear that "immediate" is not to be assumed. You say that this phrase needs to be further specified to give help to people to know when the appropriate time is. My edit did that. It adds "Any edit lacking a source may be removed at an appropriate time. Stable older material added before citing was common on Wikipedia should be provided with references rather than removed, but eventually all significant claims must either be sourced or removed. For material recently added, the contributor may object if you remove their contribution without giving them a chance to provide references." and "The question of when to delete a claim is a matter of editorial judgement, so use the opinions of editors that are repected for their editorial judgement. For example, be careful not to go too far on the side of leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Did you not read it? Are you trolling me?? Or is your position that one musyt provide a nonsubjective specific algorithm or nothing? You are not making sense. Either you are trolling or you haven't even read whar you are objecting to. WAS 4.250 12:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not comfortable with "The question of when to delete a claim is a matter of editorial judgement, so use the opinions of editors that are repected for their editorial judgement. For example, be careful not to go too far on the side of leaving..." Is there consensus against the idea of "do no tleave unsourced information in articles for too long" (emphasis added)? It already implies that it's not expected that all material be immediately removed, further evinced by the Jimmy Wales quote. Further, I feel that "use the opinions of editors that as respected for their editorial judgement" is somewhat dangerous language: how does one determine who that is? Do we need some sort of ranking system? Perhaps it would be better to say "The question of when to delete a claim is a matetr of editorial judgement, so take care and be prepared for disagreement. Remember to be bold, revert (or allow reversion) and discuss. While delays and discussion are often the norm, remember not leave..." SamBC 15:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I addressed similar issues below in this discussion page apparently, SamBC already got to some of it. These were put under a separate thread, since this is no longer specifically about the "nutshell summary" edit. dr.ef.tymac 15:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply to WAS 4.250 on "appropriate time"
Either you are trolling or you haven't even read whar [sic] you are objecting to
 * Please refrain from unfounded statements and unsubstantiated accusations. Everything I responded to I have either:


 * 1) already read (quite closely in fact);
 * 2) requested it be re-written; or
 * 3) explained why it is beyond the scope of the discussion and therefore irrelevant.


 * Note: This is your second blatantly incorrect statement about my involvement and familiarity with the relevant issues here. You will do a lot to enhance your declining credibility by refraining from easily-disproved accusations, and sticking to the issues.

It makes clear that "immediate" is not to be assumed.
 * I repeat: immediate removal is sometimes appropriate. You yourself just cut-and-paste the language from Jimmy Wales relating to WP:BLP violations. That policy states in relevant part:

poorly sourced contentious material ... about living persons ...   should be removed immediately and without discussion (emphasis in original)


 * As I said previously, I am attempting to help you. If this policy is to maintain the highest standards of credibility, clarity, and authoritativeness, it will be necessary to *at least* ensure the policy language is self-consistent. That has been my point from square one. How can this be any more sensible? How can I make this any more obvious?

You say that (appropriate time) needs to be further specified
 * I think you misunderstood my (and others) points, I said it "begs the question". I also said I would defer to ≈ jossi ≈'s proposal: "in due course " here (after it had a chance for discussion per my remark). Nowhere did I ask that you reduce "appropriate time" to an exact number of seconds, hours or days; I was giving you a chance to prove you realize that there is no fixed exact number of seconds, hours or days. This is precisely why "appropriate time" begs the question.

Are you trolling me?
 * Nope. I don't even know you. All I know about you is the substance of your contributions. Improve them, or at least do a cogent job of advocating them, and I will applaud your efforts; even if I disagree with you. I will respect any good-faith demonstration of intellect, integrity and credibility. I am not here to pick on you personally, I am here to help ensure in whatever small way that this policy is well-constructed and makes sense. Period. dr.ef.tymac 14:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Support for clarification by ≈ jossi ≈ to allow time for adding references
≈ jossi ≈ had already added a proposed clarification, which I reverted, but agreed was worth supporting, though it seemed it just needed more input. I still stand by this, and support ≈ jossi ≈'s original proposal ... this horse has been beat to death, and other (less helpful) "clarifications" seem to be just muddying up the issue. dr.ef.tymac 00:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any chance of a reminder of what this proposal was? The edit history is quite... full, now, so it's hard to find which edit you're referring to. SamBC 11:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ≈ jossi ≈'s proposal: "in due course " diff here. dr.ef.tymac 14:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Relationship between WP:V and WP:NOT
Can the editors watching this talk page tell me whether I'm correctly interpreting the relationship between Verifiability and What Wikipedia is not? The former says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", while the latter says "merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia". My interpretation of this is:"'Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not saying that anything with reliable sources should be in Wikipedia. It is saying that anything in Wikipedia must have reliable sources. In addition to this, our 'What Wikipedia is not' policy is one of the policies that keeps unencyclopedic material out. Verifiability alone is not enough to keep unencyclopedic material out of Wikipedia.'" Is this interpretation correct? I ask because I fear that it is too easy for people to misinterpret "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability" as "the only threshold for inclusion is verifiability", and from that to conclude that anything verifiable can be included, which is obviously wrong. Is there any possibility that the text here could be edited to make it clearer that this is not what is meant? Carcharoth 21:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The correct use would be "one of the thresholds for inclusion is verifiability". In the context of the longer sentence, this should read: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (For other exclusionary criteria see What Wikipedia is not)" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * C: you're right. WP:V talks mostly about the content of an article, and WP:NOT is more about the overall types of articles that we do or do not have. If there is no way to write a verifiable article, then we can't have one. But even verifiable material may not make an article that fits into our mission. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think Carcharoth is right, I hope that bringing this issue up will be productive. Until(1 == 2) 17:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for verification
Please see: Requests for verification

A proposal designed as a process similar to prod to delete articles without sources if no sources are provided in 30 days.

It reads:

Some editors see this as necessary to improve Wikipedia as a whole and assert that this idea is supported by policy, and others see this as a negative thing for the project with the potential of loss of articles that could be easily sourced.

I would encourage your comments in that page's talk or Mailing list thread on this proposal WikiEN-l: Proposed "prod" for articles with no sources

Signed Jeepday (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A few more issues: ("timing of removal" and "editorial judgment") changes
The following is a quick outline of issues related to recent changes to this policy:


 * in due course
 * (support)
 * this is the least-problematic of all the recent proposals on "timing" of removing unreferenced
 * I'd prefer "subject to removal", but this is good enough


 * use the opinions of editors that are repected (sic) for their editorial judgement.
 * (oppose: this should be deleted)
 * inconsistent with the spirit of "contributions not contributors" (See e.g., WP:NPA,WP:CIV)
 * inconsistent with "respond solely to the factual points brought forward" (See e.g., WP:BATTLE, User:Geogre/People People)
 * fails to acknowledge the credibility of many "non-insider" and anonymous contributors to WP (See e.g., who writes WP)
 * this kind of language just begs to be gamed by the "Essjay"s of the world


 * Stable older material added before citing was common on Wikipedia
 * (support: but needs major re-wording)
 * this needs to be substantially reworded to accommodate new readers who are unfamiliar with WP history
 * this implicitly gives credence to content based solely on its "stability" (which does not always equate with "reliability")
 * this is obviously not correct for serious and obvious flaws that simply have not yet been "discovered" (See e.g., Seigenthaler controversy).

I intend to modify the policy text associated with the items listed here, unless someone else addresses these problems with either a satisfactory counter-proposal or direct corrections. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 15:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the previous wording of the article was clear, concise, and appropriate. Unsourced material should be subject to immediate removal on sight.  We are weaking this policy and encouraging the addition of unsourced material to Wikipedia.  Buddhipriya 15:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the previous wording didn't say 'shoot on sight'. It said it shouldn't be left in place too long, or at all in the case of BLP. There appears to be fairly wide agreement that 'not too long' doesn't mean 'immediately'. While I've seen (in related discussions) a certain amount of support for a 'shoot on sight' policy, it's generally been contested by a large number of other editors with well-reasoned arguments that haven't actually been responded to. SamBC 16:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, how about what's now (at the time of writing, following yet another reversion): "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long," becoming:
 * "'The question of when to delete a claim is a matter of editorial judgement, so please consider other opinions and common conduct. Be prepared for disagreement. Remember to be bold, revert (or allow reversion) and discuss. While delays and discussion are sometimes appropriate, remember not to leave...'"
 * I think that covers both points of view in a way that isn't likely to be widely acceptable. SamBC 16:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The core problem here is, most seem to agree (perhaps even Buddhipriya?) that some kind of "due process" should be afforded before (potentially usable) unreferenced content is removed. The problem is, no one seems to know what "potentially usable" or "due process" actually means, and all the attempts to specify it have been pretty deficient.


 * For those reasons alone, I think WP:V should be left "un-tinkered with" until someone does this "heavy lifting". dr.ef.tymac 16:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You hit the nail on the head with that first paragraph Dr. Until(1 == 2) 16:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think 'due process' is a bit strong; AFD is due process, deletion review is due process. The only sensical process for this that would count as due process, as I understand it, would be to say that it has to have been tagged ( or similar) for a certain length of time. The problem is, the appropriate length of time varies from nothing to goodness-knows-what depending on various factors, and those factors are inherently subjective. Thus, it's a judgement call. If it's a judgement call, why not admit it is?
 * Some basic timing guidelines could be produced, but IMO they don't belong in a core policy. Instead, they should be in a separate guidelines document referenced from the policy. SamBC 16:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very sensible comments from SamBC. Yes, it would be useful to have some kind of guidance – perhaps a suggested minimum time, for example – but it is very difficult to put a figure on it and would not really be well placed in a policy as opposed to a help page or guideline. Variables can include, but not be limited to: the presence on WP of the editor/s who are most likely to have a vested interest (having added the contended material or otherwise be watching the article); the nature of the material and subject matter; the likely source; and so on. Perhaps, in due course, some of these variables can be assessed and an estimated suggestion created, which would be best placed in a sub-page or some other source of guidance.  Adrian  M. H.  16:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Will someone please add in due course once to the summary and once to the body? WAS 4.250 17:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Without defining "in due course", it would not be very informative. Until(1 == 2) 17:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to move forward
Alternate proposal: M. H. and SamBC have suggested what seems like the only rational course for resolving this perpetual-motion round-robin of abortive clarifications on "appropriate timing", "due course", "due process" or whatever else you want to call it.

I propose these issues be addressed in an Essay that gets linked from the policy text with a footnote, indicating there are differing views on how this should be handled. This kind of resolution has been done before on core policy pages (See e.g., Neutral_point_of_view). If a pre-existing essay is not already out there, whoever wants to can take leadership on putting it together. If the essay takes sufficient shape, it can be proposed as a guideline.

Thoughts? dr.ef.tymac 17:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Great idea, I have started gathering information already, User:Until(1 == 2)/Removal of uncited content. Feel free to edit that one, or just use the content, or even just replace it with a redirect to whatever you folks come up with. The essay is a wonderful idea that is truly needed. Until(1 == 2) 17:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's wise to say we're documenting the difference between policy and practice; that sounds like we're documenting what people do wrong. In this case, it's more to do with documenting details of common practice as guidance on the interpretation of policy, where policy does not, cannot, and will not give more specific guidance. SamBC 17:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I only gathered the differences between practice and policy because policy should be descriptive, no prescriptive. It is not the case that practice is a valid subset of policy, it actually seems contrary. I am not saying which is right or wrong, but they are clearly not saying the same thing. Until(1 == 2) 17:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put together a skeleton of what I see as a good shape/tone for the essay, at User:Sambc/wip/Removal of Uncited Material. This is largely for illustration/comparison purposes, but I'm happy for development to carry on there if people think this is the right tone/direction, and I'm happy to take a lead in developing it, as long as there's reasonably wide support and participation. SamBC 17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I absolutely think this draft is in the right direction. With all respect to Until(1 == 2), it seems unlikely that momentum and consensus for a permanent link to this policy will materialize if the overall structure and tone is any more complicated than what SamBC has put forward here. dr.ef.tymac 18:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth including the language regarding the decision being a judgement call in the policy. This clarifies that the policy is neither immediate removal nor always waiting, clarifies that it's a matter of judgement. I think there's a measure of consensus for this, but wanted to ask the question directly and without adornment to make sure. SamBC 17:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That looks like a very good starting point and it is the right direction for us to take, I think. I broadly agree that we should associate the procedure with an editor's judgment, following this up with whatever guidance we can give – per your proposed layout, I think – to assist in the decision making.  Adrian  M. H.  18:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My main concern as you move forward with drafting something is that it not weaken the ability of editors to remove unsourced material immediately if they feel it is appropriate to do so. In actual practice, I generally do use a "shoot on sight" policy for obvious nonsense.  If something is just dubious, as opposed to patent nonsense, I usually fact tag it and wait a day or so before removing it.  In effect, I would say something like: "Unsourced statements may be removed or challenged at any time.  The burden of proof is on the editor putting material into an article, not on the editor taking out unsourced material."  And then emphasize that the place to work out content disputes is on the talk page for the article, not via edit wars on the article itself.  Buddhipriya 19:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The intent here, I believe, is that the policy say largely what it does right now, but with the addition of some material suggested before (the whole 'judgement call, people may disagree' thing, without the 'ask respected people' thing), and eventually point to guidelines elsewhere (once we have consensus guidelines) as to what sort of time is appropriate for what. The article already says basically what you say in terms of burden of proof, I believe. SamBC 19:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is also a discussion on timing as it relates to the deletion of unreferenced articles at Requests for verification stop by and comment. Jeepday (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've fleshed out User:Sambc/wip/Removal of Uncited Material a lot more now; there's still a lot of gaps, and I'm sure it needs a lot of polish. Please, guys, tuck in. SamBC 03:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This entire part of the guideline makes sense only, if it is used sensibly. Most WP articles are sourced very generally by their references. From today's featured article Canon T90 " The form of previous cameras was largely dictated by the required locations of mechanical controls on the body, such as the film advance lever, rewind crank, shutter speed dial, shutter release, etc." Suppose I ask for documentation for each element of the list? DGG (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then it's worth considering ways to re-word things that make that clear. SamBC 03:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Are leaked versions of soon to be published books considered "verifiable sources"?
There is a huge discussion on Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows about whether or not to insert a plot summary of the book based upon leaked copies readily available on the Internet. Although some people make arguments about respecting the wishes of the author and the publisher, many understand that Wikipedia is not censored and those wishes should not dominate the decision.

However, the grounds on which we are currently opposing inclusion of any material based on leaks is verifiability. There are reportedly 1200 copies of the book which have been leaked. One editor claims that this is sufficient to establish verifiability i.e. if someone says X, someone else who has a copy of the book can say "Nay, not true". Several editors have opposed this view saying "Verifiability means that, at least in theory, anyone can eventually get a copy of the book and verify the truth of an assertion themselves. Might take time, might be difficult but, at the end of the day, it has to be possible.

The project page does not explicitly support this interpretation although I believe it is the logical conclusion based upon the spirit of verifiability.

I propose that we expand this page to make it more clear how verifiability applies to leaked information and other information which is available on a limited basis.

--Richard 17:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the policy's very clear. The second sentence reads, '"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 mine).  As the book in question has yet to be published, and as far as I'm aware no other reliable source has published a summary of the leaked copies, this is not verifiable information. JulesH 17:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with JulesH - this book is not yet available to the public, and until it is, we don't accept it as a reliable source. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Concurring with CBM and JulesH, is it not also the case that these "leaked copies" consist entirely of digitized images distributed over the internet? If so, this casts considerable doubt on authenticity; some or all of them may be elaborate forgeries. Considering that there is an entire industry of fakes, it would not be surprising if this "leak" were declared an elaborate hoax, or even a deliberate publicity stunt. For that reason alone, WP:RS is sufficient to discredit this kind of "publication". dr.ef.tymac 20:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We say "verifiable" but a more precise wording is "attribute-able". SlimVirgin got that right. Likewise, this incident points out that when we say "published" we are really talking about "distributed" or "accessable". WAS 4.250 17:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'll start saying Claims must be attributable to reliable accessable sources ? WAS 4.250 17:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know about expanding the policy page, and I don't know about this specific case, but I would say that leaked information may or may not be verifiable, depending on the availability and credibility of the information.


 * If the leak itself isn't something that will just have transient media coverage, then it could have a page of its own, but that should only contain material verifiable from reliable sources. Really, that's a core point for all of the verifiability; not only should the source be at least vaguely available (say, inter-library loan, university library, online) but it should also be reliable. I would not expect a leak to necessarily be a reliable source about the subject of the leak, but there may be reliable sources about the leak itself. If, however, a the content of a leak has been confirmed in the media by people who are in a position to do the confirming, then it might be considered reliable. There's a bit of a spectrum of reliability, of course, so ultimately it's a judgement call. SamBC 18:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-published sources
If an article from a reliable source (newspaper or magazine) has been re-printed online in its entirety on someone's personal web page, is it better to simply refer to the print article (with date and volume) or to provide a link to the republished article on the personal website? Thanks - TheMightyQuill 17:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is common to provide both. WAS 4.250 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If a newspaper or magazine publishes its own material on-line (with the same publisher info as it does in print), then use the on-line source because the material will be more accessible to readers. If you are choosing between a secondary newspaper or magazine and a tertiary personal website (which derives info from the newspaper or magazine itself) it's certainly better to source things to the newspaper or magazine itself. But be careful of sourcing to a source within a source without actually looking at the initial source in question! That is, do not source info to a newspaper because you have decided a personal website gleans its info from it, unless you have actually looked at the newspaper material itself. Marskell 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also note that magazines and newspaper own the copyright of their printed stories. Adding a link to a page that contains a copyright violations is not a good idea. Also, note that many personal webpages contain material that is not related to the copied story, such as commentary and critique, so in these cases it is better not to link to what we call a "convenience link" online. WP:V does not ask us for online sources, and the name, date, and publisher are more than enough to assert compliance with policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking to give an opinion and get guidance here:
 * I may disagree about the "convenience link" argument. Yes, material may be copyvio, but if it's not hosted by WP, it's not WP's problem to distinguish copyvio from fair use, etc.  My second concern on this issue is that double-citing (to the print source, and to the webpage which reproduces or transcribes it) may help control fabrication of non-existent sources.  Seeing "AP story, March 11, 1998" is one thing; having a link to an online copy of the story, no matter where hosted, makes the print cite somewhat more verifiable (though a dedicated forger could both fake the print cite and then create a faked website) even if it is embedded in POV commentary at the website.
 * What about a situation in which a primary document has been reproduced by jpg, pdf, or transcription in whole on someone's website? By "primary document," I mean such things as copies of, say, church publications which are no longer in print, or were never published in book form; or official correspondence (say, an answer on company letterhead from a firm to the EPA); or arrest reports which may have dropped off the police website but are reproduced by other sites.  They aren't original research, but neither are they from a mainstream news source if they're being hosted on a personal site.  They may, or may not, be framed by editorial comment at the personal website.  Use? Don't use? How? — Lisasmall 18:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Revisting most reliable sources.
Currently the policy says:
 * Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available

But this is not necessarily true, for example paragraph 45 of the ECHR "Jorgic v. Germany" (Application no. 74613/01) presents a summary of the ICJ position on ethnic cleansing in the "Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro" case that is at least as reliable as academic and peer-reviewed publications. So other court cases can be as good (or better) than peer-reviewed publications in the area of international law, because as is pointed out in the next sentence "the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues" and a ruling by the ECHR or similar has far greater fact checking (and balanced POV) than any "academic or peer-reviewed publication". --Philip Baird Shearer 18:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why it says "usually", and notes that other reliable sources may also be used. Like any policy, it needs to be interpreted with some degree of common sense. Is this a real problem - that is, did someone object to your citing the ECHR summary because it wasn't "peer-reviewed" - or is this a purely hypothetical concern? MastCell Talk 18:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The language Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available seems very good to me. The word "usually" permits editorial consensus to have a role, but does not shoot academic sources in the foot as have some previous versions of this material.  I continue to think that the qualifying phrase "such as history, medicine and science" should be struck from the text, as it will only lead to Wikilawyering.  Why is accounting not on the list?  If history is not on the list, is it best to use oral tradition?  Since French Literature is not listed, can we object to inclusion of academic studies of the works of Balzac? Etc. Buddhipriya 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I kind of like including "history, medicine, science". Perhaps we could clarify this by adding "(to choose only a few examples)".  semper fictilis</b> 12:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, as long as policies exist at all, wikilawyering will be a potential issue. I too think that the "history, medicine and science" clause should remain, but since there seems to be room for misinterpretation, I would support for my part an attempt to clarify it, whether using the above example, saying "the sciences" instead of science, or actually adding a statement to the effect that "history, medicine and science" is meant as an inclusive statement for academic subjects. — Zerida 20:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The next paragraph says:
 * Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications.

Given that judicial reviews (such as the ECHR case mentioned above) are at least as good or better than "peer-reviewed publications" and there are other types of publications by public bodies that are at least as good or better than "peer-reviewed publications" (e.g. The Blue Book or the OECD Factbook) that can be covered by the word usually,  the next sentence can be open to misinterpretation because court transcripts, and other government publications (including those by international bodies such as the UN and the EU), are not in "mainstream publications". --Philip Baird Shearer 07:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Philip, first, publications don't have to be mainstream, just reliable; we could use a trusted, minority publisher, for example. Secondly, I would say that publications by the EU and UN count as mainstream.


 * However, you're right that we shouldn't place peer-reviewed papers above government inquiries and judicial reviews. But as things stand, they could clearly be used, so I'm not sure it matters in practice. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 09:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Philip, how about changing those two sections to include judicial review etc?




 * SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 09:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Judicial reviews and government inquiries are not really inherently reliable. It really depends on whose judicial review or government inquiry it is.  Case in point HIV trial in Libya and I can't believe that government inquiries are more than hit and miss.  I certainly think most countries get reliable reports from from the various government agencies, but there are also the sort of inquiries driven by things like House Un-American Activities Committee.  The thing with peer-reviewed literature is the entire process is developed solely to ensure reliability, to look for mistakes.  Governments sometimes have that goal, but it is not an inherent part of the system.  I don't think the proposed change is a good one.-- Birgitte  SB  13:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, those are good points. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree there are governments and courts that are less than trustworthy. I think that the only change that is needed is to alter the phrase "particularly if they are respected mainstream publications." to perhaps "particularly if they are from reliable publishers."/" or "...respected publishers" or something similar. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to removal of unsourced material essay
A link was added as a seealso to Verifiability/Removal of Uncited Material. I've removed it due to several concerns.


 * The essay is in a very unfinished state
 * The essay appears to be (based on) an unnoted copy-paste from User:Sambc/wip/Removal of Uncited Material, the talk page for which does not note this copy/paste either.
 * Relating to the first concern, I am worried that people will give the essay undue wait, despite the essay tag.

I'm all for getting more discussion and contribution to the essay (which I've not been able to work on for a few days, at least, but was about to return to), but this is not served by a spurious link from a policy page, nor by forking the page. SamBC 16:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is an opinion piece and give a message with a spirit which is confusingly contrary to policy. I don't think it reflects the existing policy well enough to be linked here. Nor has there been a demonstration that there is a consensus for these opinions. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  16:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, which version are you referring to, and what are those points arguments for/against? SamBC 16:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I see now that the current essay is significantly different than the version I was thinking of. I will read the new version more carefully before I make comment. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks a lot better than its previous incarnation. Not sure I agree with the part about CSDs, but there seems to be two camps on that one in general. I think it has the germs of a good essay and will be very helpful to new users. I agree it may be better to wait until it is in a more finished state and then perhaps propose linking it to the policy here and see what people think. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  17:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to see some discussion on the copy-paste; it sounds like I'm being precious and claiming ownership, I know, but that's not what I'm trying to say. I don't care where the essay is in terms of namespaces. I just don't see why it benefits wikipedia for it to be forked, and losing edit histories is generally considered a no-no, I thought. I would suggest moving the one in the project namespace aside, moving the one from my userspace to WP, and then posting to its talk page each of the changes made to each version for discussion. We'll need WAS 4.250's input to find out if there were any changes from the version in my userspace made during the initial copy-paste, as they can't readily be traced (unless someone wants to copy out the sources onto their machine and diff them, of course). SamBC 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * SamBC, please delete the page I created and replace it using move. My edits were just to clean up the in-progress notes and blank sections and such. WAS 4.250 17:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say that the points covered in this essay need to be integrated into Wikipedia policy as soon as possible. The current policy is being used by people as justification for removal of (cited, by supposedly inadequately) content they disagree with. --Thoric 17:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The points brought up in the "What Counts as a Reference?" section are interesting, a reference in a form other than footnotes is still a referenced, it just needs stylistic improvements. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  17:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What also might need clarification is the process of verifying references. It seems that things have been shifted such that the current reference system is inadequate when a reference is called into question.  If someone adds a citation, are they obligated to provide the original relevant text, or is the duty of the person questioning the references to obtain access to the publication in question?  Articles are not generally filled with cited quotations, but instead paraphrased information followed with a bibliography of supporting references.  If that paraphrased information becomes contested, an opposing editor may decide to remove it outright saying that it is "unsourced", even though it may have several appointed citations.  --Thoric 18:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I felt it was pretty clear; WP:AGF would imply that, if a source is provided that you have no access to check, you assume it has been used appropriately. This can go into the essay if someone works out how to word it, and it'll stay in if consensus is that it should. SamBC 18:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * While I (personally) agree with Thoric, the essay needs finishing (the how long to wait section from the original is something I believe should be there, it just needs someone with insight/inspiration to work on it), and then going through a reasonable process of consensus. It should never, IMO, be part of the core WP:V policy, but be sanctioned as an official guideline. SamBC 17:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Humble request: Even though the terms of the essay are still under development, can someone at least resolve the "fork" and then come back here and post the link to the "authoritative version"? ... or else blank one copy and make it a redirect to the other? I personally don't care what namespace it's in, just let there be only one copy. dr.ef.tymac 18:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to sort that out - I'm putting back some removed bits from the WP namespace version, then I'll redirect the one in my talkspace. Hopefully no-one else is trying to do the same or the opposite at the same time, but that's why we have edit historis. SamBC 18:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case I will tag both as "in use" and request that everyone except SamBC refrain from editing them till this is resolved (just to make it painfully obvious if it isn't already). dr.ef.tymac 18:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, on balance, it seems that the alternate version should be deleted and the Userspace one moved. I moved the alternate version, but forgot that that didn't delete it, so it's tagged for speedy G6, could an admit delete it and I'll move the version from my userspace. This gives a clean, simple, unconfusing (relatively) edit history. SamBC 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that's done, everything is reasonably settled in terms of the fork, and we can get on with collaboratively writing the essay and turning it into an official guideline. The only version to be edited and worked on now is at Verifiability/Removal of Uncited Material, with the last version that was there before the juggle being at Verifiability/Removal of Uncited Material/old - or it was until it was deleted by SlimVirgin. SamBC 20:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

antagonizing other editors
I, and others, based on the edit history, think Jimbo's quote needs to be followed up with

This is not a unqualified license to remove all unsourced information one encounters, however, since it remains less antagonizing to other editors to add a "citation required" tag to their unsourced edits as opposed to simply reverting their edits, and the ideal practice is to try and locate supporting citations for the unsourced edits of others.

or something like that. Slimvirgin says that this is already covered off. No it isn't. Recognizing that other editors "may object" is not a recognition of how antagonizing it is to an editor to have almost every sentence or even every phrase written reverted on the grounds that it is unsourced (which is what happens is someone out there decides Wikipedia needs protection from the likes of you). In my experience the people who are hesitant to revert are the "good guys"; by which I mean people who are trying to accomodate the opinions of others, value their contributions, and build Wikipedia. The people that revert claiming "no source", and then revert again claiming "unreliable source", and then revert again claiming "undue weight", are the "bad guys"; people who can't tolerate the idea of a Wiki article reflecting anyone's opinion but their own. And leaving Jimbo Wales' comment to be the last word here is giving a big green light to those "bad guys". They are egged on enough by the quote as it is. Bdell555 06:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Bdell, the policy has to be kept tightly written, for one thing, and the material you added was a lot of words not saying much. In addition, we do already say some editors will object if you don't first look for a source. Bear in mind that the policy says the burden of evidence lies with the editor wanting to add or keep the material. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 06:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't take many words to alternatively put a little more meat into the "some editors will object" bit, and words could even be removed if the removal was of the enthusiasm with which the reversion squads are egged on. Putting some small effort into trying to integrate or somehow work with another's contribution as opposed to rejecting it wholesale is central to making Wikipedia more civil.  If someone has done half the work necessary, then it should be made clear that more work is needed.  But removing the first half because the second half wasn't done suggests a summary judgment about another's time and effort.  It is sometimes necessary or appropriate but the question is whether it should routinely be the first resort.  It is an instigation of hostility that could be avoided if the first impulse was to complete the needed work as opposed to unwinding what has been done to date.Bdell555 09:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of unsourced material being removed in a way you feel isn't legitimate? It'd be useful to see exactly what kind of thing you're concerned about. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 06:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking here of material for which reliable sources could easily be found. There are editors out there who will remove material primarily because it doesn't support their POV and the fact not every particular claim associated with the material is sourced becomes their convenient excuse for removal.  I'm speaking here of the problem reverters who don't seriously doubt that the material is accurate but delete anyway as opposed to adding or modifying.  I agree concerning the placement of the burden of proof but the presumption there is that proof is demanded because the claim is truly doubtful.  Bdell555 09:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Bdell, the following used to be in the policy, but was removed for some reason. Would it help to restore it?




 * SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 06:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be very helpful to re-include that wording. I think there is a growing feeling of unease that the ability to grow articles by collaboration is being undermined by an over-enthusiasm to cite, especially in formative or less formal articles. I also think the concept of the mature article vs. formative could helpfully be introduced - uncited comments in a fully formed article are potentially undermining the quality of others work, whereas in formative articles uncited writing is a useful tool in forming the structure of an article. Spenny 07:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with that distinction. Material either needs a source or it doesn't. The length or quality of the article makes no difference to that. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 08:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is that it is not a suitably pragmatic position to take, (and I don't see the issue as length or quality but as maturity). Ultimately we expect a quality article to be correctly cited. What appears to be happening is that a different mechanism for authoring articles than many would understand as being a legitimate process is being enforced. In the earlier days of Wiki, people slapped some stuff together, hacked it about and eventually all was well - or not - the assumption was that the many eyes of the Wiki authors was the peer review process that we now seek from elsewhere.


 * As we move into verification being the priority, we are in danger of moving to a position that says the only way to write articles is to gather citations first, then write, regardless of the personal expertise of the author. Simply put, it is just not how people work. I would suggest that even an academic author writes, reviews, challenges his own work, has private peer reviews, finds unjustified statements, re-drafts. To do this collaboratively means that for some period of time we need to recognise that there is a work in progress and that to remove uncited statements is potentially disruptive to evolving a well-written, neutral article. We recognise that there are many types of authors, and this policy potentially will exclude one type of author who are the bedrock of many a Wikipedia article, the generally knowledgeable person who can write a reasonable summary on a topic that they know about, but have no interest in the tedious detail of citing sources. They would see that there are other Wiki who like doing that so it should not be an issue. Spenny 10:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Spenny, how does this new distinction: "mature vs. formative" add any value to the standards of evaluation under WP:GOOD, WP:FA, and the variously applied article rating and assessment schemes already in place? It would seem any tangible "unease" could be addressed simply by encouraging contributions that are commensurate with the current "quality rating" of the article itself. If you are really worried that the quality of an article is being "undermined", why not address those concerns directly by requesting a review? dr.ef.tymac 09:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * dr.ef.tymacI am not sure we are talking about the same point (though what you say is perfectly sound). I am concerned that the collaborative editing process is being undermined by an over-zealous adherence to policy. Spenny 10:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC) (On re-reading, I understand exactly why you said that. My point was to say that I wanted it understood that whilst I would seek loosening for evolving articles, I was not intending to undermine mature articles) Spenny 10:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My basic point is this. Numerous times, I've seen zealous "citation guardians" actually back down and leave people alone once they realized the contributor(s) in question actually knew what they were talking about. True, there are some "policy cops" out there who seem not to regard competence or relative experience (neither their own nor that of others) as a consideration before issuing dire pronouncements and warnings, but sometimes the "zealotry" simply represents the eagerness of contributors who are making a sincere (even if misguided) effort to help out.


 * For those few "citation zealots" who are not swayed by considerations such as contributor experience, incremental improvement and flexibility of writing styles, an express review of article quality can serve as a guidepost to let them know they may need to tone down their "enforcement" ... and also provide them with other suggestions on what (if anything) needs to be improved in the article. dr.ef.tymac 10:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * HEY! I resemble that remark! See this  recent edit of mine. -- Boracay Bill 11:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This may have been dealt with before... but is there no provision for placing some sort of a "DRAFT" tag on aritcles that are still in the formative stages? This would both warn readers that the article should not be relied on, and tell other editors that the article is being worked on and could use their help.  I am one of those who are "deletionists" in attitude when it comes to unsourced articles and statements (I actually think we should be doing our research and lining up sources before we write articles) ... but I know that I would be far more forgiving and patient if I saw a great big tag that said "This article is a DRAFT" on the article. Such a tag would tell me that someone is acutally working on it, and that sources may be forthcoming.  Instead of deleting, I would be more inclined to simply point out where I think a citation is needed, and leave it to the editors of the article to add one later.Blueboar 13:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a good suggestion, although one would still have to check the history of the article and the contributions of those involved in case they have not edited for some while and may have abandoned the article. The only significant shortcoming of such a tag is that the very editors who are least likely to cite their sources are those who would not be aware of that or any tag – namely, novices. I also agree with your comment about the order of work; I always start by finding the reference material that will provide the information that I seek, plus the references to support it, and then I start constructing the article from that base. I don't know of any other way, to be honest. People who can pluck accurate facts from memory are clever and quite rare, in my experience.  Adrian   M. H.  14:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A good writer always researchs his or her subject first... then writes based on that research. However, when DRAFTING one does not always include citations.  I actually think that people should create drafts in their user space, and only upload when the draft has reached a solid "start" level of completion... but I do realize that many people don't do this.  A "DRAFT" tag would achieve the same result. Blueboar 14:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with that point, too. I have always compiled articles offline until they are essentially complete. I would support the creation of a Draft tag, with the slight caveat that quite a lot editors are unlikely to use it. We actually have something that is not completely unrelated: Underconstruction, which I very rarely see in use.  Adrian  M. H.  15:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I was talking about. If I saw that on an article, I would definitely hesitate to remove uncited material (going on the assumption that one of the things the editors were working on was finding sources)... we should advertize the existance of that tag more. Blueboar 16:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * However "advertise the existence" begs the question of who needs to see the "advertising" to begin with. A subject-matter expert who is nevertheless unfamiliar with "WP culture" is certainly less likely to know about the "under construction" template than one who routinely contributes to WP policy. dr.ef.tymac 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This was discussed and resolved with some rewording two weeks ago, no? Jimbo's position is that there IS a license to remove unsourced material. The burden is on the editor wishing to include to source. We shouldn't weaken the wording of this policy any more. If someone is doing RC or BLP patrolling, we do not have time to stop and look for sources. - Crockspot 16:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, there is a license to remove unsourced material, even lots of it. People may not like it, but the burden is on them, and the history keeps a nice copy of it all for them when they decide to source it. We do not need to weaken a policy that is supposed to be strong. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  16:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember the policy used to suggest something like: "If it's unsourced but relatively harmless, tag it. If it's unsourced and potentially harmful, remove it." (Not just in relation to the current BLP fetish, but in relation to all information). I thought that was good advice, but I can't find it in the policy anymore. MastCell Talk 16:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably because that statement is too subjective. What is "relatively harmless" to one editor is per se libel to another. We need simple, unequivocal wording, especially with this particular policy, otherwise we will have hair splitting and edit warring. - Crockspot 16:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the idea of leaving "harmless information". I think Jimbo said it best: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong.  It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."  Until  ( 1 == 2 )  16:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. It's not like Wikipedia lacks information due to "problem reverters". In fact, the problem is in the opposite direction: there's far too much unsourced or poorly sourced material as it is. Wikilawyering about verifiability seems to correlate with the desire to include such undersourced material, though it appears no concrete examples were discussed in this case. As to the "harmless" thing, it's just a suggestion and did not have the force of law, but I agree that erring on the side of removing unsourced information is clearly in line with policy and with Jimbo's statement. MastCell Talk 16:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If so called "pseudo information" is common enough to make repeat appearances, then perhaps that information should be kept, but properly debunked within the article. While there may be a lot of unsourced and poorly referenced material, it should be noted that this is how Wikipedia started in the first place.  Over-policing in this area detracts from the original spirit of Wikipedia, even if Jimbo has changed his mind.  --Thoric 18:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

An example: (starts at)Talk:Marcel Lefebvre
I think this discussion would be more productive with an example (note this example is not an active dispute). I was directed to this example some time ago from someone who came to this talk page complaining about this policy being used disruptively. I tried to help out, I did save some of the material, but I eventually found the task to difficult and moved on to other things. In this case the material had reference provided for it, but had not been done with citation style. There was no reason to believe the reference was given in bad faith or that the original contributor used it in a sloppy manner, however the dispute related to what qualified as "unsourced". The reference was not a common book, I was able to find a copy at a local Jesuit university. However it was an original edition, which means it was not the published English translation used by the original contributer, but the French version. I was able to verify much of the information to the limits of my French skills and time (I do not have check-out or computer privileges at this library), I am certain the rest could have been verified by someone with greater skill (or the copy of the book in English). This is the most solid example of disruption I have ever seen from this issue. However I do not know how much fault lays with this policy, or that the issue should be clarified here. However I think Talk:Marcel Lefebvre shows that it is an issue that need some clarification somewhere.-- Birgitte SB  16:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A troubling theme of "citation absolutism"
''A good writer always researchs his or her subject first... then writes based on that research.''

Whenever I see the word "always" or "never" in reference to editorial practice (within WP or anywhere else) ... red flags automatically go up and sirens start blaring and lights on the danger-meter start blinking.

This is especially troubling considering WP is a wide-open project that does not keep "score" of how many times a contributor wrongly challenges correct information. This means there is zero opportunity cost for attacking legitimate content. There is no "downside" if a contributor decides he is going to challenge every single sentence in an article that isn't substantiated with one or more inline citations, even when such insistence is bordering on pedantic or even downright disruptive.

Would it be alright for someone to challenge an edit to Vitamin C or Ascorbic Acid if the contributor happened to be someone like Linus Pauling? Should someone like that be required to have a stack of citations before adding a paragraph to an article? Even if you answer "yes, *always*" ... the problem is 'always' can easily be taken to ridiculous extremes.

I dislike unreferenced "crap" just as much as the next person, but if we consider Who actually writes Wikipedia, experienced and knowledgeable contributors should be hassled as little as possible, or they simply will not have any incentive to waste time "collaborating" here. dr.ef.tymac 17:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree in principle. However, I rarely see experienced and knowledgable contributors being hassled for not adequately sourcing their edits. I often see experienced and knowledgable contributors being hassled for insisting that others, typically advocates of poorly sourced or fringe positions, adequately source their edits. The disincentive for experts to collaborate here comes more from the fact that any contrarian with a single axe to grind and free time on their hands can stall an article, often indefinitely. That's why I tend to push for a stricter, rather than laxer, interpretation of verifiability. Perhaps that's a function of the pages I frequent. MastCell Talk 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed as well. In fact more people have probably left WP for good over the latter instance than the former, so you make a very good point. It just seems to me more discretion should be given on a project-by-project, topic-by-topic, and article-by-article basis than is currently possible through monolithic edicts handed down from core policy. Greater rigidity in core policy seems to simply motivate more express reliance on WP:IAR: welcome to LoopHolePedia.


 * Also, one might question whether there is a counter-cyclical trend toward more "citation cops" ... making the former instance much more common than it used to be, especially since it's far easier to be banned and blocked as a "Crank" than as a "Footnote nazi". Admittedly, it is a tough balancing act. dr.ef.tymac 18:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think more experts are uninclined to edit Wiki because THEIR work is resisted as opposed to the work of OTHERS facing too little resistance. People leave Wiki, from my anecdotal observations, primarily because their edits don't stick (i.e. they are reverted and challenged every step of the way) and/or because there is too much fighting.  A discussion page "fight" almost always has its origins in someone getting reverted and not liking it.  No one does.  If the majority of the material is baseless, then how does it enter the mind of the original editor in the first place?  A more plausible explanation is that the editor came across a source somewhere where he or she picked it up.  It could be a marginal and/or questionable source but that's an issue of source adequacy, not whether there is any source at all.  The alternative explanation is that most people just make things up.  Why would people do that?  Obviously, sometimes people do but one can usually recognize those situations.Bdell555 23:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen some issues with editors adding fact tags for content that is referenced, but not cited inline. There is no requirement that all material must be cited inline, and some editors don't like excessive inline citation. If someone thinks a citation is needed, they should try to add it first, and only apply the tag if they cannot find the cite in the references, or from their own research. Dhaluza 09:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Folks, all of our policies and guidelines can be abused and taken to extremes... if someone is being a "citation Nazi" they can usually be dismissed under WP:POINT. As for adding fact tags in aritcles that are referenced...  I generally see the addition of a fact tag in such situations as being a perfectly valid request for better citation information. It means that the editor adding the tag is questioning the statement, and wants to know exactly where in the source he can find the information to back it.  I have seen articles that simply list entire books in the references section, with no indication of what statements are backed by which books, or where in a given book the supporting information can be found.  If the article contains a statement that I find questionable, and I want to check that this statement is indeed backed up by the source ... I don't want to have to search through entire books to find a single paragraph that may or may not back the statement.  It is perfectly valid to ask the editor who included the statement in the article to give a complete inline citation with page numbers etc. Blueboar 12:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)