Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 23

Discussion about image use and WP:NOR
Please come participate in the discussion. It involves image use policy issues far beyond the template itself. Thanks. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A proposal to condense “Exceptional claims require exceptional sources”
I don’t claim to be the best wordsmith, but I think I have all the elements included without making the wording unwieldy.
 * Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people. Exceptional claims include statements likely to surprise the reader; claims not supported or that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community; or, that if true would significantly alter mainstream assumptions. Such claims should only be included when there is a general consensus amongst editors that the sources cited are reliable for the claims made.

Thanks, Brimba (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Brimba, I think it is a good idea to condense, but I think that some of the original concepts in the forumlation have been lost. I have added the original formulation back, which you can wordsmith into a condensed version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have done some ordinary condensation without change in meaning. I would disagree with the version above because (after fixing grammar issues, changing "high quality" to "highly", and restoring the conspiracy theory warning) it still introduces a much wider berth with the nearly unverifiable tests "likely to surprise the reader" and "would significantly alter mainstream assumptions". "Not widely known" and "nonprevailing view" are relatively verifiable; "not widely assumed" and "surprising view" are not so. John J. Bulten 19:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Francis Schonken just replaced my condensation with a version of the same concept taken from WP:ATT. This edit generally strengthens and clarifies the section. However, it seems odd to copy from a dispute-locked nonpolicy page to an open core policy page, and to introduce slight changes made there under less review. I believe there should also be an attempt at consensus-building, so my comment is: I support the concepts changed as useful improvements, but after consensus is demonstrated here and dispute is resolved there, I would like my condensation remade in both articles. I will not revert or condense now due to my involvement already, but I believe the edit merits discussion whether or not reverted. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The version in ATT was taken from RS, and then imported here. It's also clearer. ATT is not in dispute, by the way; it's a summary of V and NOR. I think Francis's edit was a good one. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. It reads well as it represents long term understanding of the issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not too happy about:"Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources."It can be misconstrued to read like: if you can't find "multiple reliable sources" (the preferred solution), then we'll settle for "the best sources" you can find (...they don't even have to be reliable...) - Maybe far-fetched, but if we can reduce ambiguity, why not. So, proposing this replacement:"If you want to include an exceptional claim in Wikipedia try to find the best sources that would support such claim. If enough of these sources are also reliable there should not be a problem to include the material based on such sources, as far as also keeping to other policies like those on biographies of living persons and not giving undue weight to remote opinions."Or is that too wordy for a policy page? Anyway, for reference: I suggested this rewrite in part because I happened to be reading this thread yesterday: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard (exceptional claim removed for BLP and undue weight reasons, notwithstanding that the "best source" was also a "reliable source" - see also User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 122). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First off let me say that I am sorry for having missed all of the above discussion, especially as I was the one to have opened this thread. Right now I am not sure where I have been, but not here obviously.


 * This section function is mostly to act as a gatekeeper. Its job is to act as a defense against persons adding material into Wikipedia. Why the material should be kept out depends upon the particular circumstance of what is being said. Material can still be added in, if it meets a high enough threshold. More than anything, this sections job is to say what that threshold is. With this in mind, I think wording such as “If you want to include an exceptional claim in Wikipedia try to find the best sources that would support such claim.” sets the threshold too low for our purposes. Thus a simple statement such as “XXXXX is not "one marginal academic", he is nearly the only historian to have worked on this subject.” would defeat this sections function.


 * I think we need three things:


 * 1)	An acknowledgement that we are talking not simply about fringe science. If that is all we where talking about, this section would be redundant, as policy already functions quite well in such cases. I would say that our biggest problems come from the areas of historical events and politically charged issues, because in these areas it becomes hard to judge the validity of sources; everyone has some degree, everyone has some source that at first glance might be reliable.


 * The phrasing “especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and material about living people.” fills this function quite well.


 * 2)	We need a short, but not too short description of what we are talking about when w say “Exceptional claims”. We need this so that people trying to add material can not say that what they are trying to add is below the threshold.


 * 3)	We need a statement such as “Such claims may only be included when there is a consensus amongst editors that the sources cited are reliable for the claims made.” This is the part that has teeth, this is the gate.


 * Personally I would feel a lot more comfortable with :


 * Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and material about living people.


 * then what we have now. Brimba (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Re. "I think wording such as “If you want to include an exceptional claim in Wikipedia try to find the best sources that would support such claim.” sets the threshold too low for our purposes.": misquote and straw man argument. What I proposed includes a quite firm threshold:"If you want to include an exceptional claim in Wikipedia try to find the best sources that would support such claim. If enough of these sources are also reliable there should not be a problem to include the material based on such sources, as far as also keeping to other policies like those on biographies of living persons and not giving undue weight to remote opinions."Did you have problems to read more than a single sentence?
 * Also, I try to avoid reasonings in this vein: If something isn't in the sources that are usually accepted as reliable, then you need to prove your source is of more than usual reliability. Not only that, you need to have several sources, and for each of them you need to prove a more than average reliability. Sure, then one can keep a lot out of Wikipedia, but I'm afraid such reasonings can be used against WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE, a section of the NPOV policy, has the current balance on this). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You also suggested “Such claims may only be included when there is a consensus amongst editors that the sources cited are reliable for the claims made.” - too easy to circumvent NPOV with this too: a single editor declaring a source "unreliable for the claims made" (with or without giving a foundation for his/her declaration) leads to a no-consensus situation that would exclude the material from the encyclopedia. Of course consensus is the best way, but lack of consensus on the sources should not be used as an excuse to delete, nor, of course, as warranty for inclusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

My argument is that the best source does not always equal a reliable source.

“Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources” That is the standard for dealing with exceptional claims under the current wording. And yes I can read. It is preferable that we use multiple high quality reliable sources, but not mandatory. There in lies the problem.

If you are going to say “best sources”, then it is entirely possible, and very much probable that some people will insist on taking you at your word. Thus you get into situations such as this from the Talk:Operation Gladio:

My point:
 * WP:RS states in no uncertain terms:


 * Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.


 * Even if we all agreed that Ganser is a high quality reliable source, under WP:RS the claims presented here requires multiple high quality reliable sources to be included in Wikipedia. They cannot be included based on only one source. Claims made solely on Ganser's work need to be removed, regardless of any debate concerning Ganser’s reliability, or the outcome of that debate. Brimba 02:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply:
 * Ganser's work itself is quite thoroughly sourced: he is not a primary source, but a secondary source, used as such. Tazmaniacs 16:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning WP:UNDUE:


 * By allowing one marginal academic to dominate the sources of this article, we certainly are violating WEIGHT. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The reply:
 * Ganser is not "one marginal academic", he is nearly the only historian to have worked on this subject. Tazmaniacs 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ganser is only one of many such “best sources” that I could have pulled up to make my point, although he is probably the best known within the WP community, and therefore the best example to use. The point of including this is to show that people don’t always take things as written or as intended. They can put there own spin on things, so when we write, especially at the policy level, we need to say things clearly or risk people gaming the system to meet their own ends.

Ganser is someone who makes multiple exceptional claims, specifically that most every terrorist attack in Western Europe over the last several decades has been the work the CIA, designed as false-flag operations to discredit left wing political parties, specifically Western European communists’ parties, or achieve some other end as the White House desires. His claims include that the CIA tried to assassinate Pope John Paul II to make the Russians look bad; That the CIA controlled the Red Brigade, and ordered the assignation of Aldo Moro to make the Italian communist party look bad; that the US government allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur for geostrategic purposes. So forth and so on. He’s been savaged in peer reviews, left his university post for reasons that where never explained, and had good things to say about Lyndon Larouche and and had good things said about him by Lyndon Larouche. After all of that, he is still the Best Source for much of what he claims as he is often the only source besides Larouche and the Italian Communist party. Still, there are a number of articles within Wikipedia that use him as a source, and he has quite a dedicated following.

Here you have a source making claims that trigger probably every single redflag we list, and yet, despite his less than stellar reputation, one could argue that he is the “best source”. Ganser is not the point, the point is that the current wording defeats the intent of the “Exceptional claims require exceptional sources” section. “Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources” does not even live up to the section heading. Brimba (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: "Rv to the wording that has held for at least several months. There is nothing on the talk page to indicate that consensus has changed. This is a change in policy, and needs to be vented on talk." : incorrect and thus (again) a straw man argument.
 * The wording was introduced here less than a month ago, in a (still controversial) attempt to merge a guideline (WP:RS) into a policy page. 18 November to be precise.
 * The wording from WP:ATT (which I introduced here after lack of consensus over the section ), was an agreed upon formulation of the exceptional claims section.
 * Nonetheless, the formulation is problematic, as indicated above.
 * Making it worse again (as explained above) is not a part of the solution IMHO, nor is it consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In the case of Frank LaGrotta I am not sure why being a state representative makes one encyclopedic enough to be included on WP. He spent 10 terms in that position, but never did anything worthy of mention within his article until he was indicted? Thus he is only worthy of having a page because he was indicted? I think the solution is to AFD his page. Otherwise do some research and flesh out the guys life, but I would be skeptical that such would happen as he and his indictment are of limited interest outside of his community (using the word in a broad sense, not a literal sense). I think his page is problematic for reasons that go beyond what we are speaking of here.


 * The only argument you seem to have against any wording is this:


 * I'm still not too happy about:

Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources.
 * It can be misconstrued to read like: if you can't find "multiple reliable sources" (the preferred solution), then we'll settle for "the best sources" you can find (...they don't even have to be reliable...) - Maybe far-fetched, but if we can reduce ambiguity, why not.
 * Which is pretty much the same as my argument, against wording your not fond of in the first place.


 * Concerning your preferred wording, all anyone who wants to defeat it has to do is portend that they miss the point, and keep quoting your first sentence and the door is open.

“If you want to include an exceptional claim in Wikipedia try to find the best sources that would support such claim.”


 * I understand the lack of consensus over the proposed merger; however, I don’t see how that translates into making the wording itself an issue of debate. You said “Making it worse again (as explained above)” could I ask you to restate your concerns once more, or cut and paste them to here. I am sorry, but I have not found what you are refereeing too, not trying to be a dick, just don’t see what your refereeing too. Brimba (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Re. Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard: I'm fine with the current solution: it has consensus on the noticeboard, and Jimbo commented positively about the discussion there (see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 122). What made you suspect I wouldn't have been fine with the current solution regarding LaGrotta? Then I did what is normal: base policy on accepted current practice.


 * Re. "I don’t see how [the proposed merger] translates into making the wording itself an issue of debate.":
 * "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources" is acceptable on a guideline page, per Policies and guidelines: "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." - On a policy page the "occasional exception" would be almost totally excluded: "A policy article is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions."
 * WP:ATT was set up as a summary of policy on the matter, so reflects policy-level wording. That's why I copied the relevant WP:ATT text in an attempt to stop (at least temporarily) the disagreement of what should be on the policy page, as long as the discussions were going on here.
 * Re. "Which is pretty much the same as my argument, against wording your not fond of in the first place." - you must have understood in the mean while I was even less fond of the wording you proposed.


 * Re. "could I ask you to restate your concerns once more, or cut and paste them to here": "I try to avoid reasonings in this vein: If something isn't in the sources that are usually accepted as reliable, then you need to prove your source is of more than usual reliability. Not only that, you need to have several sources, and for each of them you need to prove a more than average reliability. Sure, then one can keep a lot out of Wikipedia, but I'm afraid such reasonings can be used against WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE, a section of the NPOV policy, has the current balance on this)."


 * Re. "all anyone who wants to defeat it has to do is portend that they miss the point, and keep quoting your first sentence and the door is open.": don't treat Wikipedians as if they're morons. But I'll make it even more fool-proof now. Anyway, I suppose I'd like WP:RS to have a section about not quoting out of context. I once wrote something about that in an essay (but with a very limited scope, see Argumentum ad Jimbonem). Seems you think this is an imminent danger. And true, I pointed you a few times to where you quoted out of context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've revised your change for clarity of emphasis and wording. Vassyana (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources (online and paper)
This section of the policy now says:


 * Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.


 * Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

I wonder if this statement is sufficiently nuanced. For a well-covered topic like George W. Bush or lung cancer, I seriously doubt if any fact or opinion worth noting would have appeared in a blog or self-published book, that has not also appeared in a mainstream source. For topics like these, I think it's safe to say that self-published sources are practically never acceptable.

But because Wikipedia is not paper, the encyclopedia now covers many below-the-radar subjects for which the best sources may indeed be self-published. I occasionally find editors aggressively removing citations from self-published sources, because they believed (per this policy) that such sources are considered categorically unreliable in almost all circumstances. The focus of the section should be on indicia of reliability, rather than blanket (or near-blanket) statements that put a patina of grave doubt on an entire category of sources.

The section has a footnote that is similarly flat-footed:


 * Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be phrasally attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

Newspapers' interactive columns aren't just called blogs; generally, they are blogs. This well founded exception ought to be integrated into the text, instead of being relegated to a footnote. (I do agree that "reader comments" are practically never reliable.) Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely with your thrust Marc! Go ahead and propose a change more directly. N.b.: The (only?) exception on reader comments is when the blogger writes one directly, clearly distinguishable as an admin comment. John J. Bulten 16:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

MikeBlas and I have been having a similar discussion. In our case it's a forum in question, but it's the same principle: can a source self-published, but self-published by someone with verifiable authority, be cited? --Tom Edwards (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to prevent overdeletion
Reference User:Kazvorpal. WP:V as stated permits wholesale reversion of good-faith edits, by the process of an editor simply calling them unreliable (i.e., questionable) and refusing to discuss reliability, which is an unintentionally one-sided application of the policy. And since reliability is a spectrum ("the greater the degree of scrutiny involved"), there is not a clear line between reliability and questionability, which should also be emphasized. This would be remedied by insertions in the policy. (I am also making the minor change of correcting "living people" to "living persons" twice, and linking WP:BLP on first reference.) Please indicate consensus on this proposal below. Thank you for your consideration. John J. Bulten 19:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) At WP:V, after "to find the text that supports the article content in question.", add the sentence: " When an editor provides a source and reasonably claims indicates good faith in its reliability, the burden of evidence shifts to the editor who challenges the insertion; to discuss the reliability of specific sources, continue at the talk page or consult the reliable sources noticeboard."
 * 2) At WP:V,
 * 3) Combine the paragraphs beginning "In general" and "Academic and peer-reviewed";
 * 4) Move the sentence beginning "As a rule of thumb" from that combined paragraph to a new paragraph immediately following;
 * 5) After the sentence beginning "As a rule of thumb", add the sentences: " If there is reasonable disagreement about whether Wikipedia should or should not use a certain source to support a certain fact due to reliability, deletion should be accompanied by invocation of a consensus-building method such as the bold, revert, discuss cycle or the reliable sources noticeboard. In the case of living persons, special care must be taken to weigh the reliability of the source against the exceptional or contentious nature of the insertion."; and
 * 6) Delete the last sentence, " To discuss the reliability of specific sources, consult the Reliable sources/Noticeboard.", as subsumed twice above.

Not needed now. Marskell 14:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support as the proposer. John J. Bulten 19:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. I agree that some editors take the "delete-on-sight" principle too far, even where sources are cited that have not been demonstrated to be unreliable. We can work on the exact wording later. Marc Shepherd 19:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Comment
 * Full disclosure: As you can guess, I am involved in what I believe to be an edit war, details of which are readily available in my history. This change in policy may affect the results of that discussion. I would request review of the proposal on its merits, irregardless of any existing controversy. John J. Bulten 19:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "reasonably claims reliability" is a little vague. It invites edit warring over whether or not the the source is reasonably reliable, before the actual subject of reliability is even addressed.  Burzmali 19:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Deliberately vague in deference to the disagreement described. Unsourced edits are clear-cut. But the current policy invites edit warring more, for this reason. When User 1 cites a believed RS, and User 2 deletes it as a believed QS (questionable source), there is insufficient direct guidance on how to prevent repeating the cycle. Since User 1 provided a cite, User 2 should at least know to reply in kind by citing a reason for it being questionable, or invoking a consensus method of resolution. A first deletion would be proper in most cases; but without a rationale, User 1 would feel justified in reinserting and restoring the exact same position in the cycle, and User 2 would feel justified in deleting again without further explanation. (Official rules of chess call this situation a draw upon third cycle.) A rationale or direct invocation would divert the cycle into BRD or other consensus, and redirect repeated reverts into the RS discussion, reducing edit wars. I've been on both sides; when I'm considering reversion I hardly revert even the first time if there is a source and a possibility of good faith because of the risk of this cycle. When it's unsourced and apparently against BLP, I can grit my teeth and cycle indefinitely. Anyway, since so far I have only one other "support in principle" vote, I'll convert your suggestion into a quick friendly strikthrough amendment to the amendment. John J. Bulten 14:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This may not be the best way to achieve consensus
Wikipedia policies are reflections of consensus, and usually not reflections of the results of polling. I strongly recommend that instead of asking people simply support or oppose this proposal, you instead simply encourage an open discussion that does not have the appearance of a vote. On another note, your suggestion would be a lot easier to understand if you make a userfied version of WP:V, edit it how you see fit, and then point to the diff of your edit! - Chardish 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. Polling can be user after a discussion on the subject and not as a substitute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Polling is not a substitute for discussion is a relevant guideline. -- Donald Albury 01:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why I asked to "indicate consensus". Pardon me if my attempt to suggest comment groupings might have been misunderstood by those not familiar with the nonvote rule. I consider this approach to be a form of BRD in talkspace. Also, I have a personal preference for describing the amendment rather than creating and later destroying a temporary page, but anyone can userfy this page as easily as they can read a userfied page, if they like temps. John J. Bulten 14:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You straight out asked users to 'support' or 'oppose' your proposal. That is a poll, and such polls are strongly discouraged unless sufficient discussion has occurred to give some hope that a consensus is forming. Polls should only be used to clarify a consensus after thorough discussion of a proposal. -- Donald Albury 18:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue raised can be easily resolved by WP:CONSENSUS and if that is not achievable, the users involved in the dispute about the reliability of a source can engage in dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I'm not sure if by "the issue raised" you mean my proposal or the reliability issues it describes. But either way I agree. I think guidance about burden of proof is essential. See above. John J. Bulten 14:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being imperious, I have shut down the poll. It's unhealthy to move to polling so rapidly on a policy. Also John, you're rolling a lot of suggested changes into one; it's a little hard to follow. Marskell 14:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I care about passing it, I have created a diff here which conforms to the strikethrough version above. So can we return to the merits now? John J. Bulten 15:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We can talk about the merits when the agenda's fully on the table. This appears to be a bad faith attempt at wikilawyering to change WP:V in favour of including material posted by User:John J. Bulten at Moneybomb - material that there was consensus to delete because of unreliable sources. See also WP:COI/N. Gordonofcartoon 16:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know the details of the particular case. While John did disclose the COI, expecting to change policy in order to win an argument is, by long-established practice on Wikipedia, not allowed. Marskell 19:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Marskell, that makes sense, so please point me to evidence of the long-established practice for my edification. There was not "consensus" to delete, as WP:CON describes it, but a severe disagreement which a third opinion is attempting to resolve. There was no "expecting" to change policy on my part, but a good-faith request to see if there is consensus to address this policy deficiency; so far no one has spoken against its merits. That aside, even if the change passed, it would not favor my material or "win an argument", it would only create an explicit burden of proving that a source is unreliable, rather than permitting an editor to claim unreliability baldly and unsupportedly, as has happened for several days. I would be happy, without pressure, just to collect comments on the merits and demerits of my suggestion while we are awaiting resolution on my case, which I am doing everything I can imagine to resolve by consensus. Tips are appreciated. John J. Bulten 23:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

“When an editor provides a source and indicates good faith in its reliability, the burden of evidence shifts to the editor who challenges the insertion.”

This would turn WP:V on its head, as few people add sources that they personal regard as unreliable. So ANY source that is added is de-facto reliable by the standards of the editor adding the material. Fallowing your logic, ALL material added to Wikipedia must be proven unreliable before it could be removed, unless the editor adding that material openly states that he himself/herself regards the source as unreliable. The burden must, and is, upon the person wishing to add or retain the material, and not to those removing the material.

“There was not consensus to delete.” I might point out that you have inverted consensus here, there is no such thing as consensus to remove questionable material, simply a lack of consensus to retain it. Anyone restoring questionable material on the claim that there is “a lack of consensus to remove” is being disingenuous. Brimba 01:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Aye. Well argued. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Brimba and Jossi. It looks like John Bulten is trying to insert original research in violation of No original research, and then attempted an improper modification to Verifiability to support his position.  As one of Wikipedia's oldest policies, NOR is a core policy of the project and is untouchable; people who persist long enough in violating NOR eventually are kicked off by Jimbo Wales himself, if ArbCom or the admins don't do it first.  See User:Ericsaindon2 for what happened to the last user I ran into who consistently refused to stop violating WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT (I took Eric to ArbCom with the support of WillBeback). --Coolcaesar 06:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me for not replying, I was sick. Brimba, I will accept your statement of "inverted consensus" as applying to Gordonofcartoon, who spoke of it first; in fact your statement agrees with mine, in that the repeated deletions should not have been justified as "consensus to delete".
 * Further, you are misreading my proposal, which may indicate it needs more editing. I did not say "unless the editor ... openly states ... unreliable"; I said "when an editor ... indicates good faith in its reliability". That is, I am requiring a good-faith statement of reliability, not the absence of a statement of unreliability. I agree the burden must begin with the inserter: but at some point that burden is met and it shifts to the deleter. The scope of this amendment is not for unsourced text, nor for obvious misuse of self-published and questionable sources; it is for clarifying dispute resolution when there is disagreement about reliability of sources. As it stands the policy, considered alone, permits the reverter to feel justified re-reverting multiple sources indefinitely without responding to inserter's good-faith proof of reliability; as amended it fosters consensus by indicating how to bring the parties together.
 * Also, I did not forbid removal of any sourced material: I continue to leave it up to the disputants. The deleter may invite talk via edit summary, or initiate talk. Or the inserter may decline to reinsert under WP:BRD. Or if unaware of BRD, the inserter may try again and the deleter may find the change to be good-faith enough to stand during discussion. Just as before, in fact. The key here is not that removal is forbidden, but that a pretty-well necessary duty of the deleter (discussion) has been underweighted.
 * One could argue that the dispute resolution procedures already solve this, because the deleter would already be expected to be open to discussion and to direct discussion of reliability to talk or other pages. Well, if so, all the more reason for that to be repeated here! In short, my "agenda" (if you will) is simply to request the community's consensus about cases (including the self-disclosed) of apparent unwillingness on the part of the deleter to discuss toward consensus. In addition to seeking specific mediation, I have also properly requested this consensus at the talk page of an appropriate policy where there seemed undue weight and which appears (see Kaz's essay) to have permitted misuse repeatedly. The responses first turned on my neophyte presentation and then relied on (apparently) misrepresenting the proposal, but no response has yet admitted the problem I cited in my first sentence, nor dealt with the merits as requested in my last original sentence-- except Marc Shepherd, who agrees with the problem and the line of solution. (I suppose I could game the system by claiming consensus of 2-0 on the merits; but in good faith I think you should have another chance to argue the merits of the proposal, as proposed, not as reinterpreted.)
 * Coolcaesar, I would appreciate knowing which edit of mine constituted OR and why. So far after numerous requests for this info I have been presented with two trivial clauses which happened to be sourced to the wrong footnote. I hope you're relying on your own eyewitnessing of OR rather than the allegations of others on this topic currently still in informal mediation. John J. Bulten 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for not replying, I was sick.
 * You forgot blocked. Gordonofcartoon 17:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would a more policy-savvy user mind removing Gordon's comment and this response, under WP:BLP (which trumps WP:TALK, as I've confirmed at WP:BLPN)? Attributing me with forgetting is an unsourced contentious (i.e., false) comment about a living person. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * John, some friendly advice: Do not attempt to "fix" policy because it does not do what you want. It does not work, it is a waste of time, and it is unlikely that the motives for the fixes would be taken into consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that policy not doing what we want was the exact reason we make bold, good-faith fix attempts. My proposal remains open. John J. Bulten (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * John, I'd seriously recommend taking a breath and some time to better review wikipolicy. Vassyana (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves
Proposed change
 * {| border="1"


 * Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
 * it is relevant to their notability;
 * it is not contentious;
 * it is not unduly self-serving;
 * if contentious or unduly self-serving, it is indicated to be a self-published statement;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * }

Rationale 1. Missions statements are technically disallowed by the current policy, but they are obviously relevant and important. Here is an example from Wikipedia: 2. Self-published statements should not only be allowable, they are essential, especially for controversial topics. Here are two valid statements from Wikipedia that under the current policy are disallowed: 3. By insisting that the material be indicated to be a self-published statement, we avoid sentences such as "Kevin Trudeau's books offer cures for a myriad of illnesses." — DavidMack 21:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Amnesty International "defines its mission as 'to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.'"
 * "According to Campus Watch, the organization 'reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America with an aim to improving them.' The organization further states, 'it fully respects the freedom of speech of those it debates while insisting on its own freedom to comment on their words and deeds.' " Note that later in the article it is stated that "Opponents of Campus Watch describe it as an attempt to stifle any criticism of Israel in American academia."
 * "According to Kevin Trudeau, [his] book contains the names of actual brand name products that will cure a myriad of illnesses." ... "In some cases Trudeau has told his supporters, via his newsletters, that he has been “attacked” on a particular program or by a particular interviewer." Note that Kevin Trudeau is an oft-criticised man.
 * This makes sense to me. I don't think it will open the door to abuse and misuse (and if it does, we can always go back to the current wording)... so with a modicum of hesitation, I agree with the proposal. Blueboar 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me, too. Leadwind 00:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all for that; though the section includes also questionable sources, the clause excludes them. Just happened to notice this because I proposed a change to this page also, which (without being too subtle) you might want to review above. John J. Bulten 16:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Missions statements are technically disallowed by the current policy. That is an incorrect assessment. Mission statements are indeed allowed and featured in many articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm confused. Would you please clarify for me how mission statements are allowable? As shown in the examples above, they are self-published statements that opponents may see as unduly self-serving, which violates current Wiki policy. — DavidMack 20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the change. It loosens what is already an exception to the general rule. If a self-published source is contentious, it should simply not be used (as under current policy). Allowing contentious self-published sources would seem to be almost asking for a new crop of edit wars. I also don't understand the need for a loosening of the restrictions on self-serving sources. I've never seen anyone assert that reasonable self-serving material (like a mission statement) is unduly self-serving. So, in essence, I believe changing one would be to the detriment of the wiki and that the other shows no need for change. Remember, SELFPUB is an exception to the normal rule. Some significant proof and a strong consensus is going to be needed for an expansion of an allowance that is contradictory to the general consensus. Vassyana (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the trouble to explain. — DavidMack (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Language clarification
I think we need to add a minor clarification in the first paragraph: change "any reader" to "any reader conversant in the language of the source" If an article's sources are all in Russian, I obviously am not able to check that the article's material has been previously published in reliable sources, nor is any other reader who is not conversant in Russian. Thoughts/reactions? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That strikes me as a pedantic clarification. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My issue is that editors are using the current wording to argue that articles without any English sources are not verifiable. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And to a large degree this is true. If the only source is in Russian and this has not been published in an English translation, then we are reliant on wp editors a) having the requisite skills to translate from Russian, b) applying their skills accurately, and c) not abusing their inside track by allowing pov to intrude (not that any wp editor would ever do that). This smacks too muck of OR for my liking. IMHO citing foreign language texts that have not been published in English is valueless except to back up English citations and even then they are only of secondary importance. This is not to be xenophobic but it is in the cause of verifiability. Abtract (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While I agree with your reasoning, the guidance on linking to non-English-language web sites, even as cited sources, is less restrictive. See External links and Manual of Style (links). -- Donald Albury 16:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all. If the WP article says the same thing as the non-English-language source, but in different words, it's not OR. Furthermore, it may be much easier to find an editor to verify a source written in Spanish than to verify a statement sourced to a rare, out-of-print book - but we allow the latter as a source, so why shouldn't we allow the former?—greenrd (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course we accept and have always accept non-english language references--how else can we write a w that covers the entire world in a non-discriminatory fashion. Since this is enWP, the articles are in English. The references are in English if possible, but if the best or the only references are in other languages we have always used them, accompanied if necessary by a translation of the key points. There are dozens or hundreds or thousands of active people at enWP who known any given language, and any questioned translation can be quickly verified. for the example given, w have no shortage of editors who can read and translate Russian. All the more reason we should cover topics for which the sources are in Russian, since we provide the opportunity for English speakers who do not know that language to find information on them. Anything notable anywhere in the world for which we have editors willing to write an article belongs in WP. To the extent we have greater coverage of English-speaking places, it is merely the greater knowledge and interests of the available editors. I hope those who know Russian will greatly expand the number of articles on notable people for which there are only or predominantly Russian language sources. DGG (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But then aren't we still left with the problem of the wording of this policy, which says "ANY reader" (emphasis mine). How about this as an alternative to the pedantic addition I first proposed: I change "any reader" to "readers"?  UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, any doubting reader can ask any active contributor fluent in that language to go and verify. The idea that non-English sources are not verifiable seems quite strange, and their being excluded for that reason, quite ridiculous. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 07:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC) ( Now, the alternative method is of course to learn the language, just like Jerome learning Hebrew to translate the Bible... ;o)

Seems like you're trying to re-invent WP:V.

No, not all sections (nor their summaries) of the WP:V policy are crammed in the first paragraph (I can assure you, it has been tried before).

If you're looking for an article built on non-English sources, here's an example: Wikifonia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I must say this does makes a lot of sense; pity I didn't read it a while ago. Abtract (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

self-publication exceptions
"self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

On talk:Purgatory, some editors read this sentence to mean that these sources are usually not acceptable, but that we can make special exceptions as we see fit. Since the exceptions listed are not explicitly said to be the only and exclusive exceptions, these editors say that there are other exceptions to be determined at the editors' discretion. Is that right? Does this policy mean "no self-published sources unless most editors on the talk page agree that it's OK"? If you want to see the actual discussion, it's at Talk:Purgatory. Thanks. Leadwind (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've long been concerned with the statement that "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." It leads a lot of editors to make blanket statements that these sources is categorically unacceptable. A case-by-case analysis would be more appropriate.


 * Having said that, a topic like Purgatory is an excellent example where we should be looking for better sources. I strongly suspect that anything worth saying on the subject is available in conventional reputable sources, allowing us to bypass entirely the question of whether Dr. Dragani is reliable. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As one of the "some editors" of whom Leadwind writes, I must protest against his presentation of the question. Leadwind (alone, against the views of all the other editors involved) holds that a statement by a certain theologian about the theology of his Church may in no way be quoted in Wikipedia, on the grounds that the statement is found on the theologian's own website.  Leadwind holds that this policy statement is an absolute prohibition of any such quotation.  The other editors do not hold that "we can make special exceptions as we see fit": they think that the policy "personal websites ... are largely not acceptable as sources" certainly does not exclude quoting, as his view, a statement by Anthony Dragani, someone who is widely considered to be an expert on the field in question: see EWTN's Catholic Experts, Dr. Anthony T. Dragani, Clément's Reply to Rome,A Center for Learning.  Dragani is the author of the book Adrian Fortescue and the Eastern Christian Churches  Lima (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the private website of an assistant professor at a small college. To me, that's hardly the kind of exception that is intended in policy. Additionally, it is a subject which has no lack whatsoever of highly reliable references. Anything less than clearly reliable and noteworthy sources should (at the least) be subjected to intense scrutiny. Vassyana (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * About the theology of present-day Eastern Catholic Churches on the topic of purgatory, what more highly reliable references are there? An (as of now) assistant professor at a small college, author of a book (no pamphlet, by any means) on Eastern Catholic Churches, the EWTN expert on the field - I do not think someone like that should be simply ignored, as if he didn't exist.  And replaced by whom?  Lima (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, let's talk about usage here. If the article states,
 * Some theologians think this. Mr. XYZ claims, "PQR was ABC."[1] However, others say DEF. Mr. GHI states, "If PQR were ABC, then JKLMN."[2] I see no problem. You are showing something that is verifiably true and can easily be verified (uh, if it is from his website, didn't he say it?). Each person said that, provided their websites state as such. It is a statement of fact and allows readers to draw their own conclusions.
 * That said, they should not be presented as facts in this case: "PQR was ABC."[1] In the case stated above since a lack of further information violates WP:UNDUE. If you consider him to be unreliable, then that is a different subject altogether.
 * Both of you have made your points clear. Why not take a step back, refrain from discussing the matter for 24 hours, and just see what others say? — BQZip01 —  talk 00:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree fully with BQZip01. The statement was simply in the form "This theologian says the following".  The person who is insisting on removing it should instead look for a contrary statement by someone (if such exists, which I strongly doubt) to put beside it.  Lima (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Signs as sources
I do some work with small historical sites, mostly those listed on the NRHP. I am curious about how I should go about using information I glean from signage at the site. It seems to me that this is usually (but not always) a version of self-published information, so I limit my use of it to small factual matters. I use other sources to establish notability, etc. An example of my aproach can be seen at Barnsdall Main Street Well Site. Is this an acceptable approach? Should I upload images of the signs in question? Should the title of section 2.3 be changed to Self-published source (Online and on paper, wood, metal, stone, or any other substance) :)? Dsmdgold (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Quoting lectures at university
How do I quote a lecture? For example, if I'm studying at medical school, and I'm adding an article about a cell using information from a lecture, is that an acceptable source? I'd like to imagine it is (if medical professors are telling us incorrect stuff about medicine, you guys are in for a load of hurt in 10 years when we all start hitting practice), but how do I quote it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenrodman (talk • contribs) 07:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lectures aren't published (although the lecturer's write-up might be), so aren't a reliable source. Most of what is normally in a course lecture will be available from published sources (you just have to find them). If it isn't then you will have to wait until the lecturer publishes his material in a reliable source. -- Donald Albury 12:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. I couldn't disagree more. The template exists for a reason. That said, most people will publish what they said in a lecture and it might be more prudent to cite those sources. Another example would be a newscast of a football game. It certainly is published as is a lecture, just not in written form. As long as you are stating content of the lecture and not commenting on their appearance/demeanor in such a way that would be construed as Original Research ("Mr. Smith looked dapper in his snappy tweed suit..."), I see no problem with it. Again, simply be careful in what you say and how you say it.  — BQZip01 —  talk 01:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And just how is a reader supposed to be able to verify a citation to a lecture? Unless a recording or a written version of the lecture has been published, the contents of the lecture are unverifiable. Oh, and the template requires little details like publisher, date of publication and ISBN or other identifier; in other words, it is for citing the published proceedings of a conference. -- Donald Albury 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because the template has a place for that information doesn't mean it has to be used (what if the publisher wasn't stated?). Furthermore, how would you verify a news broadcast? A TV show? You would have to get a recording from the originator of the broadcast. The same goes here (you would contact the lecturer or host of the lecture). Verification isn't always easy and Wikipedia doesn't require it to be so. On top of that, I would say the actual content of the claim would need to be taken into account. If someone claims Dr. Watts (a meteorology professor at Stanford) says, "The sky is blue because nitrogen diffuses blue light at 10 times the rate of oxygen," then there is little need to worry about it. If he said, "The Unites States Navy is shooting UFOs out of the sky in order to begin an intergalactic war," that is quite another and should be backed up with an additional reference if the fact is in question (exceptional claims require exceptional sources and this isn't one of them). — BQZip01 —  talk 05:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with DA on this one: lectures are not "published" and so are not reliable sources. News broadcasts certainly are.  I can't imagine that anything that was put into WP based on a lecture, and not available in any other source, would be informaton we would want in WP.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They may not be published, but they certainly have a verifiable source. Additionally, people's comments in public are certainly their own and cannot be used carte blanche as original ideas by others...that would be plagiarism.


 * Lenrodman, what exactly is it that you want to say? I think that would have direct impact on what exactly you want to put in Wikipedia. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So how would I verify a lecture after the person who gave it was dead? Difficult verification is ok, but impossible is not ok.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You can talk to those in attendance, those who knew him, etc. Again, let's hear the specifics before we judge anything. Lenrodman? — BQZip01 —  talk 06:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been watching this discussion for quite a while - I suppose that given what everyone's said here, I'd probably agree that it's best to quote a published, written source if possible; for a conference perhaps I'd say differently as new material might be presented, but anything in a university lecture should be in a book somewhere already.Lenrodman (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with DA on this. If the info comes from a lecture in medical school, I would expect it to be possible to find a textbook or medical reference book which supports the information and which can be cited as a verifiable supporting source. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree that it should probably be published somewhere (unless it is really cutting edge (no pun intended) stuff. That specific source would also be useful. Perhaps you could ask the professor/doctor where he/she got that information. — BQZip01 —  talk 14:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

cite conference certainly exists for a reason. Academic conferences can be important sources of information. Conference proceedings are published in standard practice. Everyday university class lectures are certainly well-outside the bounds of the intended use of that template. I'd also dare say they are clearly outside of the accepted range of verifiability and reliable sourcing. Vassyana (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I would normally only accept conference proceedings as RSs if a/ there was a clear indication of substantial peer review. b/ and b they were actually published, not merely posted on the web. The quality varies very widely. Not all of them are like the main conferences series in computer science and related fields of engineering, where they are probably more important  than journal articles.DGG (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tell me about it! I spent one term transcribing the recorded comments to papers read at a conference. Due to the poor quality of the recordings, another assistant and I could go whole paragraphs without agreeing on a single word that had been said. The comments were left out when the proceedings of the conference were published. And the papers read at the conference were never peer-reviewed. -- Donald Albury 15:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just butting in here to mention this related discussion. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been on committees for a range of conferences. sometimes full manuscripts are required half a year in in advance--and some presented talks may bear no relation to the text that was sent and printed. More and more talks are recorded and podcast--what gets said can be very different from what was proposed. conferences do not  stop speakers when they deviate from their texts. Speakers say things without due thought, sometimes to be outrageous--sometimes with the declared intent of enlivening a debate. Every such conference must be considered in light of its own practices. Conferences where the published texts are accepted as authoritative can be told from their inclusion in the customary indexes in full--not just as abstracts, and from heir being cited in papers in first rate journals.  The conference series in Web of science are almost always acceptable. There are other guidelines, but these are the ones I use. DGG (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that we should even consider citing a source that has not been published and is therefor not verifiable. A lecture or conference paper must be available in printed or video form for it to be verifiable ... and available means more than just in the hands of one wp editor. To cite from notes (or worse still from memory) taken by someone attending a lecture or conference is so open to error and abuse as to be unthinkable surely? Abtract (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, but there seems to an argument being made here that one can verify what was said in a lecture by speaking to the lecturer, or even worse, by speaking to someone who heard the lecture. So I would say that is not unthinkable, but it is certainly unacceptable in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 12:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think there is a confusion around what exactly is the source: the lecture or the person giving the lecture. The lecturer may be a prominent, Nobel winning physiologist, but the lecture itself can't be used as a reliable source in WP without being published (and preferably peer-reviewed also) UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Before I would consider citing a lecture, my first question would be whether the information exists in a reliable published source. Ordinarily, it would be the reliable published source, not the lecture, that should be cited. Of course, if the lecture itself is published at some point (as sometimes happens with lectures), then it becomes citable. It may also be that the lecture is so noteworthy that it becomes news in itself, in which case published sources will surely report on it.


 * In a case where an unpublished lecture is the sole source, then the information probably does not belong in Wikipedia. Now, it may be that the lecture is the first place that you personally encountered the information — after all, the purpose of a lecture is to inform the audience. But if the material belongs in an encyclopedia, then there will inevitably be a published source for it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to nitpick about the language here. By the standards of copyright law, any public performance witnessed by a sufficiently large number of people is legally considered to have been published, regardless of whether it was recorded or otherwise transmitted on fixed media.  So by the standards of law, most university lectures are "published".  See also, publish: To bring to the public attention; announce.  I realize that you mean the more restricted sense of "publish", i.e. refering to a fixed work that others might look up and verify, but since that is not the legal standard I would encourage you to be explicit about the meaning you intend.


 * That said, a lecture is somewhat difficult to verify, but personally I already think some Wikipedians take too strict a position on verification. For example, it's probably a great deal easier to verify that Professor X believes Y (i.e. ask him) than to determine what is said in obscure foreign books or in a 4 year old news program.  A university lecture is a poor source (limited basis for reliability and difficult to verify), but in my personal opinion, it is not an unacceptable source.  In other words, if you use it in writing an article, I wouldn't object to citing it, but I would encourage you and others to replace it with something better for the same reasons others describe above.  Incidentally, if you read WP:V, there is not a single reference to "print" or anything to say that the concept of "publication", as used by WP:V, excludes the more expansive, traditional, and legal sense of publication, i.e. any forum by which information is presented to the public.  Dragons flight (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And I see using what a professor says in a private communication (such as by asking him) as unacceptable. We can't operate on hearsay. The whole point of WP:V is that readers (or at least a reasonable sub-set of them) must be able to verify the information from the source. Last year an attempt was made to allow archives at schools be used as reliable sources, and that was knocked down. By-and-large, books and journals from established mainstream publishers remain the most consistently reliable sources. -- Donald Albury 18:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You can verify it, you ask the source. Simple.  In my opinion, sending an email is just as valid a means of achiving "verification" as checking a book out of a library.  The use of "private communication" is well-established in academic publishing, and that's even less verifiable than public presentations (which is the topic at hand).  Dragons flight (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The question is, why would this ever be necessary? If the lecture includes facts or opinions that are important within the field, there will usually be other sources. By citing those sources, we short-circuit all of the difficulties with an editor inserting, "My professor said...," and then someone calling the professor to ask, "Did you really say that?"


 * If, on the other hand, the lecture includes facts or opinions that have never been stated before, then they probably haven't yet made it through the crucible of peer review and refereed publication. Do those facts or opinions belong in Wikipedia? Probably not.


 * Remember, the original question referred to a lecture at Medical School. In that context, the lecture is likely to be grounded in established medical science. It's not often that a lecturer says, "Here is a brand new discovery I've made, and it's never been published anywhere else." If these statements are not allowed in Wikipedia, how much are we losing? Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The question I would pose is: What do you do if someone wants to expand an article based on what their professor said but after a good faith effort haven't been able to locate better sources.  Do you:


 * Not include your professors' information
 * Include the information, but not cite any source
 * Include the information while citing your professors' presentation


 * In my opinion, option 3 is easily the superior one. It likely improves Wikipedia by expanding our coverage.  Since professors are usually reliable (in the accuracy sense) there is a low risk of false information.  Since the source is clearly identified, and shown to be weak, it encourages opportunities to improve the citation and/or take the information with a justifiable grain of salt.  And lastly it allows a method of verification (i.e. contacting the professor) if truly necessary.  If the information is challenged, we know where it came from and can back it up (or disprove it) based of searching for further sources.  Basically, I prefer expanding our coverage, and am opposed to blocking the inclusion of credible information simply because the source at hand is weak.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[Arbitrary undent.] I think it would be truly rare that a fact or viewpoint satisfies all of our other requirements for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and the editor (after a "good faith effort") can find no better source than a school lecture. This isn't exactly scientific, but my guess is that in 99% of cases, either the editor is being lazy, or the professor's statement isn't reliable. I certainly wouldn't update this policy to reflect this possibility, as the potential for abuse is far greater than the potential for improving the product. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with MarcShepherd and would choose option 1. above. Abtract (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also agreed. If it's accurate and worth saying, it has almost certainly been said in a venue that can more easily be referenced. Contact the lecturer and ask them to give you a cite to a paper. It's partly a philosophical question; DF prefers expansion of coverage even if the reference is weak, while I prefer that only the most solid information be included in WP. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, many people just aren't very good researchers. So when it comes to specialized topics, I am prepared to accept that some good faith efforts don't actually get very far.  For example, I could tell you interesting things about microbial autofluoresnce that you'd have a darn hard time referencing if you weren't already familiar with the specialist literature.  Secondly, I don't think it needs updating, I consider WP:V to already be consistent with citing public presentations.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Most teachers lecture on a general subject. Some of what I teach is on subjects where i consider myself an authority; some of it is on a general topic where i am competent perhaps to give an lecture to beginers. The accuracy required when preparing class lectures is not quite that of peer-reviewed papers or edited reviews or a well-edited textbook.  One tries to be as accurate as feasible for the situation, knowing that one is often necessarily oversimplifying. The test of reliable sources is publishing them. Now, a lecture presented to experts at a major conference--that's close to a peer-review, if not more so. so there are exceptions. But the classroom lectures of professors mounted on the web are not acceptable sources. We're just not that good at everything we need to talk about. Thats why we have no special authority here, either. V is not compatible with citing school lectures, and should not be changed to indicate otherwise.DGG (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources disappearing?
Wikipedia seems to have a fundamental problem with sources. If you cite online sources (articles and such), well... what happens when that article is no longer around? In theory, an entire article's sources could disappear from the Internet. What if there were plenty of sources when the event occurred, but absolutely none ten years later? Does that make the event any less significant? I do not believe so. I think this is a fundamental long-term problem with Wikipedia that will eventually have to be resolved for its articles to have verifiability for many decades. --Ihmhi (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Two solutions. 1. Cite to Web sites that are already regularly archived by the Internet Archive.  Even if the IA falls apart for some reason, its collections are so valuable that someone will certainly step up to give them a new home (just as Google did for the old Deja.com archive).  2. Cite to sources that are preserved in other formats besides the Web---that's what scholars have always done and still do in most intellectual work product.  For example, even though I find most of my sources for Wikipedia through Google Books or ProQuest or InfoTrac, I am always careful to cite to such books and articles based on the hard copy pagination as reflected in those databases. Keep in mind that libraries will continue to preserve books and periodicals in paper format for several decades more until e-book technology matures. Judging by the very slow progress of e-book readers (which engineers have been playing around with for over 20 years), it will take at least another decade before e-book readers are good enough to replace regular books, and then another decade after that for paper books to be phased out. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a big problem. The majority of reliable sources (at least for contemporary articles like BLPs) are news stories. Most of these are preserved in news databases that can be accessed from libraries, even the ones that are not also in print. In theory, such links are for convenience only, and the articles can still be cited even when the online content disappears. Cool Hand Luke 10:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a service specifically for that problem, called WebCite. It's like the Internet Archive, but archives on request, rather than crawling in general. I keep meaning to use it for important articles... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Google's new knol project
It would be good to think about how to handle knol references before we start getting links to them. I've started a discussion to get editors' opinions: Your inputs there are welcome. -- A. B. (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Village pump (policy)

Government agencies cited as sources about countries
I notice in country articles that government agencies are cited as sources (often via the US Central Intelligence Agency "Factbook"). We do not like individuals or corporations to cite themselves - shouldn't governments be subject to the same rule? But there seems to be an unwritten rule in WP that "we've always used the CIA Factbook, so don't question anything it says". Fourtildas (talk) 07:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The CIA Factbook is a book available online CIA Factbook in Libraries and in bookstore- googlebooks-(pick any bookstore you like). It is in  my opinion a Reliable sources--Looktothis (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is mostly why I have left
Congratulations Wikipedia, you are on your way to becoming a collection of uninspired senior-undergraduate essays before they are proofread by a native speaker. Verifiability? Nuts, I say. Need a reason why? I give you Ralph Furley. C'mon already. As though the NPOV b.s. were not bad enough... 129.128.67.23 (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

How can I challenge Unverifiable Material ?
Wikipedia:Verifiability. "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." Master Redyva (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several ways to "challenge" unverified Material... 1) If it is a single sentence or paragraph, tag it with a tag. 2) If it is an entire section or entire article, place an  tag on it.  But the best way is to: 3) raise the issue on the article talk page.
 * Simply deleting the material without discussion is also a form of "challenge"... but deletion without any discussion first should be saved for extreme cases and for potentially harmful material in BLPs. How long you wait between tagging/raising the issue and deletion is a matter of choice... but I would recommend waiting at least a week. You also have to figure in the difference between unverified and unverifiable... If you think the information is verifiable (ie it is not currently verified, but it can probably be verified), give people a chance to do so (or do so yourself). If you think it is unverifiable (ie it can not be verified, no matter how long you wait), go ahead and delete now.
 * If you delete, and someone reverts you... STOP... don't re-revert as that leads to an edit war. Go to the talk page and discuss. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no hard-and-fast rule about removal. Some fact and unreferenced tags hang around for a very long time (months or even years). If I think a particular statement is probably true, but ought to be verified, then I am generally in no hurry to remove it. As my confidence in the material decreases, so does the time I am willing to wait before deleting it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Me has ayudado mucho." Master Redyva (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews
I have a concern about the growing number of quotes and citations to interviews posted at Wikinews... to me these are unreliable (Wikinews is a wiki... there is no verification that the quote is accurate). Comments? Blueboar (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm agnostic on the reliability of the interviews, and I share your doubts. At the least, interviews should not be used to comment on third parties. See RSN#Wikinews redux, RSN archive#Wikinews. Whether wikinews quotes are generally reliable is for our community to decide. See Jimbo#Wikinews interviews are being questioned. Cool Hand Luke 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See also the particular live dispute at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cool Hand Luke 21:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I share your concerns. Ever since Reliable source examples was turned into an unofficial essay recently, any claim that appears on a blog, forum posting or other wikia, including Wikinews, has suddenly become OK. Until this point, we could revert such "cited" claims by pointing to this exemplar &mdash; and now we can't. Judging from all the blog and forum-post "citations" that people try to add &mdash; whether because they're unversed in substantiated research or just pushing a POV &mdash; the change to Reliable source examples means we're going to see a lot more edit wars by people saying, "Hey, no one says we can't use blogs, forum postings and outside wikia". Not everyone has the stomach to fight insistent POV'ers, for example, so a lot more unsubstantiated "citations" are going to appear in Wikipedia &mdash; exactly the kind of thing that can kill any credibility it has. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikinews has guidelines: n:WN:OR which in theory imply verifiability from notes. In theory, you can ask for proof on interviews, for a sound recording or for notes to be checked by an administrator. But if someone is a trusted Wikimedian and has photos to prove he's not making it all up, we have been quite lax about providing interview notes and things on Wikinews. Even then, notes are not 100% guaranteed. But most quotes from interviews seem reliable to me.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to worry about things that are only implied, since implications are open to interpretation. I wonder why a workable policy hasn't been created?
 * On a second notion, what's your take on people using blogs, forum postings, etc., as citations? I'd have to suggest that if something is a verifiable fact that it could be looked up in more than one place, particularly if that place is one outside person's (who could be anybody; on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog) claim. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Forum Postings are definitely not reliable. No way to verify that the person posting is who they claim to be. Blogs are a bit more of a grey zone... generally, blogs are not reliable.  The exception is the blog of an acknowleged expert in some field writing on the subject of their expertise.  In these cases, I can see the blog as being a reliable source for a statement about the opinion of the author (but not for statements of fact).  Such a statement should be directly attributed in text so the reader knows it is an opinion and who's opinion it is.  This goes to the notability of the author... the assumption being that an acknowleged expert's opinion is notable and worth discussing in our articles.  Joe Blogger's opinions are not notable... The opinion of Steven Ambrose, blogging about US History, is. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:SPS&mdash;useful for the subject's views only. Interviews are also like this because of little or no fact checking, but they're a bit better than blogs because there's less doubt of the opinion's provenance. Cool Hand Luke 00:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And having been 'quoted' by news sources on two or three occasions, I am very uncomfortable about the chances of my comments being reported correctly. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 01:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not an issue with our interviews because they are recorded and transcribed, and sent to the subject in case anything was misheard. -- David  Shankbone  02:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently, Jimbo has suggested that if an Audio version of the interview is included in a Wikinews interview, it might help it to pass the Verifiablility test here... thoughts? (Jimbo's idea is being discussed at Wikinews... a link to that discussion is posted at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Perhaps we should consolidate our discussion there?) Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Even though I think this thread would have been better as a generalized discussion not tied to Al Sharpton, we should move there to avoid WP:MULTI. Cool Hand Luke 01:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree - this is too WP:MULTI.-- David  Shankbone  02:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Open wikis
Back in October 2007 we discussed the ban on open wikis.Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 22 I had proposed removing the word "open" and others suggested that a few wikis, like Citizendium, are reliable enough to use. Then another user finessed the matter by removing the entire phrase, because "WP:SPS already covers this issue". That seemed reasonable at the time, but now I don't think that leaving it implicit is sufficient. We mention "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs". I've restored "open wikis", adding it to the list in order to make it explciti. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources - newsletters
In the WP:SPS section, I would like to add self-published "newsletters" to the list of items "largely not acceptable as sources". It is relevant to an article I am working on. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, if you feel it's not already covered. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 13:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel this issue more squarely falls on the WP:RS talk page. Please discuss there.
 * As for my opinion, it all depends how it is used.
 * Acceptable: Company A claimed in a newsletter that they, "sold 400,000 widgets in 2007" as long as it is not controversial or varies widely from other estimates.
 * Unacceptable: Company A's widget was the best of all cog-related products and citing the company newsletter.
 * In short, a violation of WP:UNDUE needs to be avoided, but quotes and basic statistics are fine, IMHO. I assume this is in reference to Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church? I'll drop some comments there. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your distinction, but this is the right place&mdash;it comes down to being unduly self-serving. Cool Hand Luke 23:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point; WP:RS is effectively a subset of WP:V. Comments struck accordingly. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language and verifiability
Can we please have a discussion of foreign language sources and verifiability. This came up in Articles for deletion/Henrik Kreüger where the only sources are in a foreign language. I am not sure where I want to go with this but I feel that the policy (WP:RSUE) is vague as it goes "therefore . . ." and then discusses only quoting. What about where you are not quoting? Obviously a bit of clarification is needed but first I would like discuss this from the more overarching question of; How can we say "readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" if we allow non-English material to be used as sources without providing a translation? That is my basic issue; that use of non-translated foreign-language sources goes against the spirit of WP:V. I would like to see what we think of this and clarify the text to match any consensus that we can come up with. --Alfadog (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Verifiability does not need to be instantanious. Statements cited to works in foreign languages can be verified... perhaps not easily, but the ability to do so exists (a reader just needs to find someone who understands the language and ask... "does the source match what is being stated in the article?".)  It is a matter of "best practice" vs. "mandated practice"... best practice when citing to a non-english source is to quote the relevant passage from the source, along with a translation, as part of the citation footnote... as this facilitates verification, and makes it less likely that someone will challenge the source.  However, doing this is not mandated.
 * Ease of verification is not a factor... Citing a foreign language work is not dissimilar to citing a hard to find English language source (say a rare or out of print book that is not available on line or at the average local library - something that you would have to travel to a major city or university library to obtain). It may take some travel and expence to verify the statement and source, but as long as it is possible for someone to verify it, the source is acceptable.
 * If you suspect that the source is being mistranslated, or that the source does not actually say what the article says it does... question it on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the foreign language exception is comparable to other practices. It is a long-standing exception, along with translations, to the standard treatment of policy. For example, relying on Wikipedians for translation/verification of foreign language material is a well-embedded exception to WP:NOR. It is periodically contentious (and prohibiting them is a perennial proposal of its own). Generally rare and obscure sources are rejected (from what I've seen) as not reasonably verifiable and/or as a violation of NPOV. Material generally available in large and university libraries is not usually treated as rare or obscure material. Just some comments and thoughts. Vassyana (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see translation work done by Wikipedians as essentially similar to the summarizing work normally done by Wikipedians. In both cases, you end up with new, (original!) wording that represents what the source says. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, except if you mean that they translate (to themselves) as they add to the article, then one I can WP:V and one I cannot. If they provide a translation in the ref notes then I am more than willing to WP:AGF that it is an accurate translation. I just want to see the translation of the bit that they are using as a source. Can we put that in the policy? --Alfadog (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) I see them as fundamentally different because translation involves a layer of interpretation not normally present in summarizing sources. For example, we don't usually permit Wikipedians to use their own opinion of the meaning and/or origin of Greek and Latin words in historical articles, but rather usually demand that they source their claims to a reliable reference. Also, even professional and experienced translators struggle with accurately representing the content of translated materials. Various words carry differing connotations and contexts that do not necessarily translate well between languages and literal translation can fundamentally change the meaning of a statement. With foreign language sources and their translation, we allow activity that would be plainly considered original research in any other context. Vassyana (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is certainly a perennial issue, and one that still has not been dealt with. The problem is that some words and concepts in some languages simply do not exist in other languages. The concept behind the word "mind" for instance, referring to the arrangement of thoughts and feelings in a person, does not occur in German or Dutch. You could explain to a German or Dutch person what it means, but it would take some time person to person. There is no way to convey it simply; any attempt will mislead. I recently had a problem in a translation of the German word 'Schmalz.' After discussing it for some time I still have only a sketchy idea what the word means to an older-generation German. I don't know how this should be resolved, but generally requiring a quoting of the original text must be a good start. Rumiton (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to mention that it seems that there are two issues here; 1) my original issue of (what can be boiled down as) whether an author using a foreign-language source should be required to post a translation of the bit he used as a source in the ref comments and, 2) the fact that translation itself is WP:OR and has been tacitly accepted as an exception to WP:NOR. Does that seem to sum it up? Then lets hammer out some consensus!! --Alfadog (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As is already written into the policy, it only really matters when quoting material from a foreign language source. If you're not quoting, but instead simply using a source as a reference for material, then you simply cite the source as it is the same as using an English language source and citing that. The policy already covers that the English source is preferred if of the same quality. So that leaves us with quoting. I for one, don't like the idea of having an exception for including Wikipedian produced translations, as that has too much original research character to me given all the relevant translation difficulties. If there isn't a published translation, then WP:OR already tells us we shouldn't use an original research version. - Taxman Talk 15:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We have 2 choices, we either make this the encyclopedia of all knowledge, in English, or we make it the encycloepdia of all knowledge in the English speaking world. It has always been the former and the idea that this should change because some editors value education so little that they don't klike foreign languages and/or can't be bothered to learn them. This is an utterly ridiculous idea, of course we must use foreign language sources where none are available in English, otherwise we'll have to delete that half of the encyclopedia that deals with stuff outside the English speaking world. Plenty of editors here are bi- or multi-lingual and this really has nothing to do with verifiability. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "because some editors value education so little that they don't klike (sic) foreign languages and/or can't be bothered to learn them" Oh please. How about "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Thanks. --Alfadog (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I really don't know why we are discussing this at all, such an idea would seriously affect content and should not even be up for discussion. I had to find a source for an unverified death in Deaths in 2007, there was no English source for this notable royalty with an article so i found a Portuguese source. What is being suggested? That Portuguese sources are not verifiable so we mustn't record the death? Thanks, SqueakBox 17:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is saying (in this discussion) that foreign sources should be prohibited. (The prohibition of such sources is a recurring failed proposal, but the use of such sources is not without contention.) As far as I understand it, the original poster is simply asking for clarification of the matter, such as whether original translations are indeed an exception to core content policy of WP:NOR. Vassyana (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My point has always been that perhaps we should require that a translation be provided in the ref notes for anything referenced from a foreign-language source. I think it is an undue burden to ask that the reader find a native speaker or translator and ask them. As an editor here I know that I can find someone here to translate or verify easily enough but what about the casual reader? WP:V is directed at them also. If an editor is already adding something to an article, how much additional work is it for them to translate the bit they are using as source? --Alfadog (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's really just not usually feasible. For example, say a journal article in Spanish is the best source for a paragraph or so in an English article. What would you want there? A translation of the whole journal article? What if it was a book? Again verifiability doesn't have to be immediate, it just has to be possible. And if the best or only source is in another language, it should be used and cited, not necessarily translated. Again, we should minimize original research translations to the greatest extent possible. Ideally only published translations should be used. - Taxman Talk 21:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This really is no different from any complex mathematical or scientific articles. Without a scientific training people cannot understand many a ref but that does not mean we don't use the ref, or indeed only talk about stuff everyone over 12 can already understand - as an encyclopedia that would be truly shooting ourselves in the foot. See the opening to Cook-Levin theorem to see the kind of thing I ma talking about. To me it might as well be a foreign language for all the sense I can make of it but just because I cannot verify the factuality does not mean we junk the article, and removing all the foreign language sourced articles would be a disaster, we have a countering systemic bias projectt hat tries to do the exact opposite of this. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Cf. Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 23

Re. Alfadog's "This came up in Articles for deletion/Henrik Kreüger where the only sources are in a foreign language." - appears there was a source in English (ISBN 91 7054 958 3), used in the Henrik Kreüger article. Also, in the AfD debate (which ended on keep), Alfadog received this comment: "I must admit Alfadog's reading of WP:RSUE sounds quite strange to me [...]". --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Heavens, someone thought I said something strange - "let's ignore him, he is obviously a kook." We could have done without that bit, Francis. --Alfadog (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Anywho; Francis, you seem to think that there was some conclusion to this discussion based on your recent edit summary, "not covered by current talk page CONCLUSIONS". I see no "conclusion", just a somewhat open-ended discussion. Francis, what, exactly, in my edit did you object to?? --Alfadog (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If there's no conclusion here on talk, then there's no blanket approval of policy change. I hope you appreciate that.


 * Anyway, I'm not so worried about the Henrik Kreüger article. Here's an article that uses some of the same sources as the Henrik Kreüger article: Haakon the Red. In that article I'm worried that the proposed regnal succession line (used for example in the succession box at the bottom of that article), is speculative, or someone's original research. I can't check while I don't understand Swedish, Norse or whatever language used in these references.


 * Re. "what, exactly, in my edit did you object to?" - well, the invitation to laziness (as it invited wikipedians not to make their own translations). I'd rather have a home-made translation if that benefits Verifiability. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Francis, I do appreciate that there is no section titled "conclusion" and no collection of "support" and "oppose" votes. And I hope that you appreciate that "consensus" is a chimera and equally as mythological. What I did was make a good faith assessment of the issues discussed and the points of agreement. To avoid discussing the same thing in two places, I will continue this is the current thread. --Alfadog (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus is policy. Not accepting policy change by those who postulate that Wikipedia policy is chimera. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to address directly any of the comments above, may I just point out that Wikipedia exists in howevermany languages, and in many (most) of them, restrictions on the use of foreign language sources would make working on many topics just impossible. On English Wikipedia we can count ourselves lucky that most of the world's (western) knowledge is available in English. Assuming that all knowledge would/should be available in English-language sources is just a tad arrogant IMHO. (The question of the quality of translations is another matter. Perhaps too much is being made of that, as in most areas it's not a big problem.)  Hordaland (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is English Wikipedia. Whether other language Wikipedia's have a policy similar to en:wp's WP:V is not the issue here. Anyway, let's get on topic ASAP. What can you do about the current state of the Haakon the Red article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

sneaky overlap between WP:V and WP:NOR
The "challenged or likely to be challenged" language is fine for for flat assertions of fact (e.g., "The Holocaust never took place"),

However, it conflicts with WP:NOR when it is applied to Interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims.

Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It is unable to draw conclusions of any kind about primary sources, ever, period. That is the job of secondary sources. Uncited conclusions... [and by uncited I mean, without explicit reference in the article body to the source of the analytical conclusion being presented] regardless of whether they reflect consensus in a field.. are presented in Wikipedia's "voice" and thus are instances of treating Wikipedia as a secondary source. In other words.. the wikipedia editor says it is the consensual view, but without a specific citation to a reliable source, all we have is a wikipedia editor acting as a secondary source. Hum.

The "challenged" wording is OK for flat assertions of fact, but not for any sort of conclusions... drawn from facts. Those always and everywhere need to be explicitly cited in the body text of the article.

Ling.Nut (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Items are challenged and removed as POV all the time. What's the problem? -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, the prob is that WP:V has no language to distinguish between information presented as "fact" and information presented as interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims. It frequently makes sense to refer to the "challenged or likely to be challenged" language with respect to the former, but not the latter. Unfortunately, because V does not distinguish between these, the latter category can remain uncited by using "challenged or likely to be challenged" as a safety blanket argument against cn, based on assertions that the synthesis represents academic consensus. However, academic consensus is wholly irrelevant. Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, cannot ever make interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims without explicitly citing them (in the body text of the article) to one or more reliable secondary sources. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't buy your argument. Opinions, analysis, etc. in WP articles are just like 'facts' as far as verifiability is concerned. If a source for the fact, opinion, analysis, etc is not cited, it can be challenged and removed. Statements of opinions and analyses are 'facts'. You can say, "It is a fact that Professor Gremlin has called The Da Vinci Code "the most important piece of historical research of the 20th century." If you can cite a source, then the fact that he holds such an opinion is verifiable. The statement that an opinion is the 'consensus of the field' is a statement of fact (that the the consensus exists), and therefore must be verifiable. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed an uncited statement of interpretation, analysis or sythesis can be removed on two grounds... as a violation of WP:V and as a violation of WP:NOR. NOR goes a step further in that some types of statements can be challenged even if they are cited (it depends on how the statemnent is worded and on whether they go "beyond the source").  I don't see any conflict. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm happy that you feel that way when discussing the question abstractly &mdash; but in practice, the "synthesis" argument is commonly (and quite successfully) used as a means of subverting WP:V. This argument needs to be explicitly addressed. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example? In any case, good editorial judgment is always needed when applying policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Mmm, I had an article in mind as an example. I had put a cn tag on it, but soon unwatched the page after its dedicated editor made remarks that seemed to presage a long slide into incivility. Lo and behold, when I looked again today, he had later returned and offered both a better tone and a more reasonable explanation. I still disagree with his opinion, but I'm loathe to wade into naysaying the good-faith attempts of an established editor to present information in the manner that seems best to him. When it has been explained carefully, it appears to be recast as a philosophical difference between us. I still stand by my original position, but I guess I respect the right of others to disagree, given that they offer a reasonable rationale. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It was unclear and I fixed it.
I posted my above topic on Foreign language and verifiability because the policy was was not written in a clear fashion. There was discussion (in which, incidentally, the consensus went against my idea that translations be provided for foreign sources used) and a number of topics seemed to have general agreement. I incorporated those and edited the section so that it was clear. Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.
 * Before

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

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

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. However use of a non-English source does not, of itself, violate this policy. Readers that seek to verify a non-English reference may seek out a translator off-Wiki or request help from one of the editors listed at Category:Available translators in Wikipedia.
 * After

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

Translating quoted material is of special concern. There is often a degree of interpretation done by the translator in deciding exactly how to translate something. This interpretation can cause conflict with Wikipedia policies on original research (see WP:NOR).

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

So ain't my version better? --Alfadog (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * No, see comments added above to --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Francis, please tell us what you object to in my edit so that we can reach a compromise. Thanks. --Alfadog (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I did, above: --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Your objection is pointing people at help translating when it is better to do one's own translation? Two points; 1) that is the only bit that you left in and 2) if one can translate themselves then one will, there is no need to stress that. No matter how much the polyglot, there are languages that one will need help with. I will leave it at that. --Alfadog (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the sentiment of the addition... but I do have questions and concerns. To me it is a question of emphysis... The original language made it clear that, while non-English sources are permitted, every effort should be made to find English language sources before using a foreign language source.  The addition shifts the line a bit... reducing the emphysis on locating English sources. I am not completely adverse to this shift (but not completely for it either)... in any case we need to have more discussion about it so that everyone is on the same page. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I see where you are coming from. I am not sure that your concern can be avoided without leaving the policy ambiguous. It is kinda like "Don't ask, don't tell", meaning that if we spell it out then we are saying something - better to leave it ambiguous and say little or nothing. I disagree with that kind of thinking, at least in this case. --Alfadog (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you need verification to say that a fictional character is such?
I am in an argument (and want to avoid a revert war) at the article Hiram Abiff over whether you can say a fictional character that appears in play that forms part of the Masonic ritual can be discribed as such in the lead. The other editor agrees that the character is fictional, but that we can not actually say this unless we have source that actually states this. I say it is rediculous to demand this. I include a citation to a reliably published verision of the actual ritual/play itself... isn't that enough? (We have also had a similar argument over whether you can call the character and the play "allegorical" or not). Please pop in and take a look. Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The key difference here is between a "fictional character", which is at best poorly defined, and a loose, if rather suspect, apparent fraudulent amalgamation of several existing characters. The difference lies in the fact that the first is a creature of, as it were, total cloth, while the other is, if anything, worse, a willful corruption of existing information. I regret to say that the above editor seems to want to insert an adjective directly after the first verb, as the fifth word of the article, passing a summary judgement on the remaining content. I do think most people can actually be bothered to read three sentences before they pass judgement, while the above editor wishes to prove his own judgement with the fifth word. The fact that one section deals with the Hirams extant in the Bible very clearly calls into question whether this character is one made up, or an amalgamation. And I would urge anyone who wishes to discuss the matter of allegory to actually look at the definition in that article. It is at best bad writing to describe something as being indicative of something else without also indicating what that something else is. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see where there is a "willful corruption of existing information" here... the character is either fictional or real, and the play is either allegorical or not. If the character is fictional, then I don't see why we can not say so in the opening sentence of the lead.  If the play is allegorical (which, according to the cited ritual, it is) then we should be able to say that.  I don't think this is something that needs further verification.  Blueboar (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I see what JohnCarter's issue is... what we are dealing with is essentially a conflict of two similar names... one that appears in the Bible, the other that appears in the Masonic ritual. There is good evidence to suggest that the Masonic character, Hiram Abiff, is based upon one or more Hiram's mentioned in the Bible. However, there are differences... For example: one of the biblical Hirams is a Smith (ie works in metal) while the Masonic Hiram is an architect who works in stone; also, none of the biblical Hirams are given the last name "Abiff". More importantly, the events that take place in the Masonic story are not the same as those found in the Bible. Now, if the Bible is fiction, any characters based upon characters in the Bible are also fictitious.  But let us assume that Bible is relating historical fact, and that the Biblical Hirams were real people... if this is the case, then that essentially makes the Masonic drama an Alternate history story (sometimes called counter-factual fiction).  It is still a work of fiction.  So the question becomes, is it appropriate to discribe a character that appears in an Alternate history story as a fictional character.  And if so, does this need to be verified.  My contention is that it doesn't (we don't bother to verify that Harry Potter is a fictional character, after all). Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We do not generally categorize figures from religious traditions as "fictional characters". For instance, neither Jesus nor Xenu are categorized as fictional characters. --FOo (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one needs verification to say that a character as fictional. WP:NPOV prohibits characterizing religious beliefs as false and hence prohibits characterizing them as fictional. Fictional characters appear in works of fiction, the works verify them. If there is a sigificant, dispute about whether a work is fictional, its characters should not be presented as fictional except when describing the relevant viewpoint. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV prohibits characterizing religious beliefs as false and hence prohibits characterizing them as fictional. Really? Where???
 * Religion
 * Disrespecting my religion or treating it like a human invention of some kind, is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?
 * NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices evolved. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.


 * Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which might be from an ahistorical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: "Many adherents of this faith believe X, and also believe that members of this group have always believed X; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z." --Vidkun (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is some confusion here... No one is saying that a religious belief if false. No one is categorizing a figure from religious tradition as "fictional characters". The character of Hiram Abiff is not religious figure. He is a character in an allegorical play... a work of fiction.  There is no named "Hiram Abiff" in the Bible.  The character may be based on someone mentioned in the Bible, but the character itself isn't in the Bible.  Nor are the events portrayed in the play part of the Bible.
 * Let me give an analogy... take the the character of Marcellus Gallio in the movie The Robe (film). This character is based upon the Biblical reference of several Roman soldiers playing dice for Christ's robes at the Crucifiction.  However, I don't think anyone would question that "The Robe" is a work of fiction, or that the character of Marcellus Gallio is a fictional character.  If we had an article on Marcellus Gallo, would we really need verification to say this? Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe time to meet some other borderline fictional characters --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Francis... this helps a lot, and it points me to some other examples. Take a look at the leads in the articles Count Dracula, and Charles Foster Kane, both clearly states that they are fictional characters based upon/inspired by real people.  Perhaps this can be solved with a disambig... creating an article on "Hiram (Biblical)", and renaming the current Hiram Abiff article as "Hiram Abiff (Masonic)" so that there is a clear distinction between the biblical character and the one that is in the Masonic play. Blueboar (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * sigh... nope. Now the issue seems to be whether the masonic play itself is "Fiction" or not (the argument against it being fiction seems to be based on the editors speculation that there might be some lost Jewish targum somewhere that links the Biblical story to the masonic one... ie prove that there isn't such evidence).  Looks like this is one that will have to be argued out at the talk page.  Thanks anyway. Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, with due respect to religious beliefs, the point is simply whether or not Hiram Abiff is considered fictional by Freemasons. If yes, then there is no problem mentioning it as such; if not, just indicate somewhere that (some?) Freemasons consider him real and others mythical (which in that case can be sourced if needed). Verifiability means you can verify things, but there is no need to do it in straightforward cases, given what is said about Hiram Abiff, its being considered real by somebody should indeed be sourced, but not the other way around. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 07:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fansites
Does fansites count as unreliable sources?. Mythdon (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Without knowing the exact site, or how it is being used in the article, we can not say yes or no definitively... but in very gerneral terms they are not considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Statements coming from a person
What if a prominent person owns a blog (like Gilbert Arenas) where he regularly posts his thoughts. Is this a violation since it's not really a third-party source? -- Howard  the   Duck  05:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The use of the phrase "reliable, third-party published sources" has produced some consternation of late, leading some to believe that it precludes the use of primary sources. The wording is a bit iffy, but Wikipedia policy, and current widespread usage of such sources, clearly allows the use of that player's blog as a source for article material, as long as: 1) it is verifiably his blog, and 2) information in his article sourced from the blog relates only to the player or his area of notability. Best regards, Steve  T • C 10:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. -- Howard  the   Duck  12:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and 3) as long as it's not trivial nonsense: ("On October 3, 2007, Arenas said he had salmon for dinner.") But I guess you already knew that. Best regards, Steve  T • C 12:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How about an official MySpace, for example, an artist omits a certain musical genre, can that be cited? -- Howard  the   Duck  12:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you have a specific example in mind? I assume you mean something along the lines of listing an artist's influences by citing his saying "My music is a blistering fusion of jazz and opera" even when secondary sources have noted that the artist's influences also include, er, heavy metal or something. In that case, the secondary sources (from reliable, recognised authorities on the subject) would still be valid cites, IMO. Best regards, Steve  T • C 13:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That was mostly what I had in mind. I'd just look for cites supporting an artist's claim that the artist isn't supposedly classified on that genre. Thanks again. -- Howard  the   Duck  13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

mnemonics
There seems to be a disagreement over mnemonics.

On the one hand, we have people who delete mnemonics (see Talk:OSI_model), apparently following the Wikipedia is not for things made up one day guideline. And certainly mnemonics are things that someone made up one day -- they are not facts about the physical world, and they make no sense when translated to other languages. (The mnemonics in those languages also make no sense translated into English).

On the other hand, we have people who seem to feel that Wikipedia is supposed to help us learn things, and mnemonics are a good means to that end. Some even feel that some particular mnemonics are notable enough to earn their own Wikipedia article: Roy G. Biv, All Students Take Calculus, FBI mnemonics, List of mnemonics for star classification, and others in Category:Mnemonics.

Should we delete all mnemonics from Wikipedia? If not, how do we distinguish which mnemonics are "encyclopedic enough" to include in some article? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we have to distinguish between an article on the concept of mnemonics and a mnemonic that appears in an article about something else. In the article Mnemonic, it is certainly appropriate to list a few commonly used examples... even if they are "something made up in school/office one day".  It might be appropriate to mention a particular mnemonic that is commonly used to, say, remember a physics formula in an article about that formula (however, we would need to demonstrate that it is commonly used... so the mnemonic should be cited to a reliable source). I don't think we should have an article about a specific mnemonic.  Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * mnemonics that are frequently referred to in sources, like anything else, could have an article--this would include any frequently referred to in multiple standard textbooks. DGG (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how to. It seems however that relevant mnemonics should be easily incorporated into article texts. Hyacinth (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of Comedians providing political satire
There appears to be some desire to use political satire (such as Colbert and Jon Stewart) as a source for political articles. Recently some editors have attempted to use Colbert to advance a position on the Media Matters article. [] However, Colbert is acting as his alter (fictional) ego when making the statment as part of political satire. I have removed the material twice, however there is debate as to whether it is a reliable source. Jon Stewart is also used in several articles as a source for commentary when performing political satire for his fake news show. How is this information to be treated? Are commedians a reliable source for articles, especially when their political satire equates to criticism (in the form of comedy)? By my understanding these sources would fall under extremist sources since by there very nature they present an extreme view of the subject as part of the satirical presentation. Arzel (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting. The London-based magazine Private Eye is largely regarded as a satirical magazine. However, many of its articles have a serious bent and are clearly allegations written in a slightly cynical manner. As a result they have been the reciprients of numerous libel Writs, notably from Sir James Goldsmith and Robert Maxwell. In addition many of the letters they print (or used to print) have been deadly serious responses to the lies they have printed about others. So the question posed under this sub-heading, from a Private Eye perspective, is important. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Website links question
I have come across a reference and I would only be able to view the article it links to if I sign up with the website hosting it. Am I correct in thinking this is a wholly inappropriate article to use as a Wikipedia reference? (I've actually already removed the reference but would like to be sure I did the right thing in case its contributor decides to revert) ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 13:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is acceptable as a wikipedia reference. Even sites that make you pay to see their info and books that are not on the web at all are acceptable as wikipedia references. You can even refer to an out of print book that Amazon doesn't sell!!!. The important thing about references is that they should be authoritative and many authoritative sites still ask users to register or even pay. If you can find a free site which has the same info then you can add that reference as well however if the paysite is the origin of the information then it should still be kept as the primary reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filceolaire (talk • contribs) 15:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur with above — BQZip01 —  talk 00:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your feedback. I certainly see the point made and will abide by this in future. Regards, ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB
How do you know if a selfpub statement is 'relevant to the subject's notability'? This should be clearer. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, does the SELFPUB rule apply to governments? I could point out many examples of self-serving, promotional propaganda that has been sourced to governments in WP. Fourtildas (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy on SELFPUB explicitly prevents sources that are unduly self-serving--at least in articles about themselves. ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, if no one can define the term then I propose it be deleted as garbage. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why. We have many areas where the guidelines are not very explicit, and need to be interpreted reasonably.  Friday (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a guideline page; it is a policy page. Policies seek to acheive specific aims. This is item specifically is on a list of things which self-published sources cannot be relied to produce encyclopedic content. What does the language of this policy seek to prevent? What does a statement irrelevant to a subject's notability look like? If neither of these questions can be answered in a way that can demonstrate this policy is necessary, it should be deleted for the utter meaninglessness that it is.
 * If this is a verifiability policy that aims to reinforce WP:SOAP, then that'd be useful information. If the real aim here is to specifically prevent the inclusion of full resumes in biographies, that'd be a useful aim. But if so, there should be more specific criteria to examine to make the policy enforceable. If you insist on keeping the policy then adding an paranthetical explanation like (the primary source can only be used to cite and describe facts, opinions, or beliefs which third-party sources have deemed to be of note). Then it would be a useful policy. If someone else has an idea for a guideline to evaluate the relevance of primary sources, that would be a good thing to have also. But to set forth a largely meaningless policy and expect wikipedians not question its meaning or purpose isn't, to contradict you, reasonable.
 * My opinion is this. Wikipedia finds itself overrun by organizations writing their own articles in the face of WP:COI... but yet members of those very organizations will bring expertise of experience and unique interest in developing an article. If a policy is in place that spells out the rules for this, it will make Wikipedia a better place with better content and less WP:BITE. What should we do about the Association of Vineyard Churches or Vatican City ("Because of their rarity, Vatican euro coins are highly sought by collectors," says Catholic News). Maybe the number of subscribers on all T-Mobile's networks is relevant to their notability, "T-Mobile Macedonia applied for a UMTS license on the 1st of August 2007" is less so, and "Additionally there is also the U-Fix plan which is a monthly plan which can also be topped up with pay-as-you-go extra credit" borders on other issues.
 * On what does a good editor rely in these situations? Policy. I don't want to run off the Catholics or the Protestants and I certainly don't have any beef with T-Mobile. I just want a tool that allows me to make good edits. If I'm going to delete or revise things on the basis of 'I think that's irrelevant to person's/organization's notability', then it's not going to be as friendly to people who might become good editors as saying, 'this doesn't meet our policy of relevance, let me show you'.
 * In some cases, we could delete a lot of what's added to Wikipedia in many articles according to another basis like WP:NOT or such, or even another criteria under SELFPUB. But then why have that language in policy. Whoever wrote that must mean something by it. Although the aim and definition escape me. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

ClaudeReigns, what exactly are you proposing to delete?

As for "self-serving, promotional propaganda published by governments", it satisfies WP:V. If there is any question as to the propaganda's veracity, then the fact that this is government data should be explicitly mentioned in the article text and not just in the footnote. Any counter-balancing data or information should also be presented per WP:NPOV. What's the problem?

--Richard (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Richard, WP:SELFPUB (part of WP:V) specifically requires that self-published sources not be "unduly self-serving". I am proposing we delete "it is relevant to their notability" as a criteria for inclusion of self-published sources--or seriously elaborate it--since no one has been able to say what it means or what the criteria in the policy aims to accomplish. We should have a consensus about the aim and meaning of the policy or it should be excluded. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with ClaudeReigns. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Googlefiability vs. Verifiability
I wrote an essay on this after dealing with it twice in the last 24 hours. In the first case, someone asserted that because they found references on scholar.google.com that such references automatically demonstrated credibility. In the other case, the opposite was true: Dharmic religions has been renamed Indian religions simply because the former term is not widely used on scholar.google.com. This is despite the fact that any expert on the matter knows that referring to "dharmic" religion as "Indian" is extremely inaccurate. Sikhism is Middle-Eastern (scholars regard it as the influence of Hinduism on Islam, during the Islamic occupation of India), Mahayana Buddhism is Asian, and then there are groups like Hare Krishna, which originated in the west. All of these claims of mine can be verified by books, some of which I own myself. Saying "but its not on google" is not a valid defense.

So, I wrote this: User:Zenwhat/Googlefiability. Your opinions are welcome.

The opinions of the above essay do not appear to be a part of WP:Verifiability, but some clarification along those lines should be included because of the amount of times people making the argument, "but it's on google" or "but it's not on google." Zenwhat (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Simply because something is Googlefiable does not mean it is verifiable. The reverse is also true: Simply because something is not Googlefiable does not mean it is unverifiable.True, true. Anyone making an opposite argument to that, needs to be hit over the head with the cluebat! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent essay. I have seen many a AfD use "but there's no hits on google" and I find it's ridiculous to use that as a gage.  Google searches are hit and miss and they are subject to how the search is entered.  Google should not be a guide to notability. KellyAna (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice essay (needs more paragraphs...). You probably should include the comments above with a link to cluebat. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Google should be good for a notability disqualifier, however. Are there things I won't find on Google that I should take note of? ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy on Google should at least be consistent - if it isn't reliable enough to be used as a notability qualifier, then it shouldn't be used as a notability disqualifier either. And yes, so long as editors are able to cite books and academic papers as sources for articles, there are things you won't find on Google (or at least, find easily) that are nevertheless notable for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. Google is after all a proprietary Web search engine that is biased in various ways, and that's before you even begin to consider the biases of the Web itself. 217.155.20.163 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Anon, you didn't answer my question. You can't provide me with a single notable topic I can't Google. Simple logic dictates that a large set of names may include an X name while failing to show that a name is X just by its inclusion in the set. X in this case is notability. Google is our most accessible map of humanly discoursable topics today. If it ain't on there, it's because hundreds of millions of netizens from all walks of life, homeless people, world travellers, heads of state, the deaf and the blind, proselytes and skeptics, athletes, scientists, and kids of all ages have ALL failed to take note. I'm not suggesting that Google contains the sum of all human sources. But I definitely claim that if a topic isn't discussed on the internet, then it isn't noteworthy, and that if any topic is discussed on the internet, Google will most likely sniff it out instantly, and invariably sniff it out given enough time. Is there some secret topic of note that you claim Google overlooks? Pore over your many tomes of forgotten lore and simply disprove me with an example we can agree is noteworthy. There may have been a time you could have but I believe that time is nevermore. ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're putting a bit too much trust in a net search engine. Recently, I was looking to buy some tracks from a CD on eMusic. As with many DL services, there was scant info about things, in this case nothing on the performers. A google seach? Nothing either. MANY sites had info, a few offering for sale (seemed to be a French CD mainly), more mostly it was legal download sites (there seem to be an enmormous number these days...). In the end, they all had the same scant info -- Google was absolutely NO help. Now, the music obviously exists (Rhapsody even had full tracks for previewing), so it's not like I was looking for something odd. But there's simply no info out there, probably because of the English bias (other language sites, what there were, didn't seem to have much more). I'm sure a LOT of notable topics will have similar issues along the line. Granted, this probably isn't particularly notable, but it's a good example of Google not being the definite thing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's interesting how non-specific the topic was. I'll assume Google eventually did sniff out your non-notable chansons, since you're not sharing. Yes, we presuppose an English language bias. This is the en server of wikipedia.org ... if I were looking for something spelled in Cyrillic, I'd use Yandex. Pourquoi on ne parlent pas le nom de la chanson? Est-ce que c'est profane? ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no I didn't end up finding the info. That's the point (and for the record, it was instrumental music). I was giving an example of someone one would /think/ should be findable on Google (info about a CD/tracks many sites are selling and charging $10 or more for), but I didn't. I barely found any info about the composer either, maybe one page that wasn't related to said CD. And I don't know French either, so I have no idea what you just said. Look, the main point here is that while yes, Google is a fantastic resource and without it and similar search engines, Wikipedia wouldn't be what it is. I haven't written that much original prose here (or whatever you wanna call it) but what I did, much of it has been as a result of the ease of clicking a search term in a box. But I think you're missing a big point -- if WP wants to be the sum of notable human knowledge, it HAS to go beyond what just happens to be archived online. There's a lot that used to be online that is basically impossible to find now, so why should we even reflect what Google says as the end all? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're still just dangling the phantom of the example unless you can name that tune. I submit that it's possible that since you don't speak French, you might be incapable of Googling in French. You can know how to use funny ISO characters to make your sig show eighth notes without knowing what an accent grave is. Much music approaches non-notability day by day and a lot of it is instrumental. Once again, I'm not saying that sources must all be comprised of works online. But if there is no buzz online, then you've got a dead radio station. Music theory professors, music history professors, music performance professors all have websites online and all of them are just as mouthy and opinionated as they are in their classrooms. It's possible that it hasn't been tossed around in English simply because it has escaped their attention in favor of secondary dominants, "Bransles de villages", and Billy Tipton.
 * I don't know why I am wasting my breath, though... I'm talking to a crowd who still thinks Lorraine Collett is notable. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Should there be an exception for table-of-contents-like lists?
Lists of mathematics topics doesn't provide any references to prove that the items on the list belong on the list.

Should it have to?

And how should this be covered in WP:VER?

&mdash; The Transhumanist  23:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:V only requires that things are verifiable. In this case it is blatantly clear that the topics on the list are mathematics topics. References have never been required for such lists and I see no benefit to adding them. Of course, you are free to add them yourself if it pleases you. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Should there be an exception for indexes?
List of mathematics articles is a 28-page alphabetical index of all the mathematics-related articles on Wikipedia (or at least it tries to be).
 * List of mathematics articles (0-9)
 * List of mathematics articles (A)
 * List of mathematics articles (B)
 * List of mathematics articles (C)
 * List of mathematics articles (D)
 * List of mathematics articles (E)
 * List of mathematics articles (F)
 * List of mathematics articles (G)
 * List of mathematics articles (H)
 * List of mathematics articles (I)
 * List of mathematics articles (J)
 * List of mathematics articles (K)
 * List of mathematics articles (L)
 * List of mathematics articles (M)
 * List of mathematics articles (N)
 * List of mathematics articles (O)
 * List of mathematics articles (P)
 * List of mathematics articles (Q)
 * List of mathematics articles (R)
 * List of mathematics articles (S)
 * List of mathematics articles (T)
 * List of mathematics articles (U)
 * List of mathematics articles (V)
 * List of mathematics articles (W)
 * List of mathematics articles (X)
 * List of mathematics articles (Y)
 * List of mathematics articles (Z)

There's a growing number of indexes on Wikipedia. See:
 * List of anatomical topics
 * List of aviation topics
 * List of biochemistry topics
 * List of biology topics
 * List of chemistry topics
 * List of conservation topics
 * List of ecology topics
 * List of economics topics
 * List of game topics
 * List of history topics
 * List of literature topics
 * List of musical topics
 * List of optical topics
 * List of philosophical topics
 * List of philosophical topics (A-C)
 * List of philosophical topics (D-H)
 * List of philosophical topics (I-Q)
 * List of philosophical topics (R-Z)
 * List of plate tectonics topics
 * List of physics topics
 * List of physics topics A-E
 * List of physics topics F-L
 * List of physics topics M-Q
 * List of physics topics R-Z
 * List of psychology topics
 * etc.

None of these provide any references for any items listed on them.

Should they have to? And how should this be covered in WP:VER?

&mdash; The Transhumanist  23:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't this what Categories are for? I can understand how something like "List of mathematical concepts" would be more appropriately done in list format... but articles and "topics" should be in Categories, not listified. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lists are superior in many ways. See WP:CLS.  But that's not the issue here.  Since these lists aren't likely to be deleted in favor of the category system, how should they be covered in WP:VER?    &mdash; The Transhumanist   00:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that membership in a list of this type requires a citation - in the end such inclusion is by necessity an editoral decision. IANAL, but even if you picked a reference for, let's say, list of psychology topics, the referenced list would be copyrighted so we couldn't use it to form ours.  Based on my understanding of it, the only way around that is if ours is a unique, creative synthesis of cited lists, in which case we're back to editorial discretion.  Besides, I don't think that such references would actually help any readers out.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 02:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * we probably do need a statement that lists of this sort are self-verifying--they are lists of articles in WP, and an exception to the rule that WP does not establish notability. Any dispute about whether an article belongs can be discussed on the talk page of the list (or the article).  DGG (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There have been a lot of discussion about this issue when List of basic economics topics, List of basic geography topics and List of basic history topics were nominated for FLC, which they failed because of lack of citations. For me, the issue comes down to the concept of the page: Does the "list of topics" primary goal is to list the topics, concepts, fundamentals, basics, key actors of any field to help establish for the reader a general overview of the field; or to act as a navigation aid much like categories. If it is the first option, then citation is necessary: There obviously should be limit to the number of topics listed, so only the most fundamental ones are displayed. But who gets to decide which ones are the basics one? What if an editor adds a fringe theory as a basic topic, stating its importance in the field, whith no necessary citations to back it up. And what about the list of key actors in each field. Anyone could add his favorite, or anyone whith the same nationality. Therefore citations are critical in this kind of list, but they should aim at showing the importance of the topic and its place in its respective field, and not showing that it exists or it is discussed (as it is the case in articles).Finally, if the list of topics where just navigational aid, categories fullfils this function. CG (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Categories may fulfil the function of a navigational aid, but lists are better in some regards. I'd for instance argue that list of numerical analysis topics is superior to category:numerical analysis, at least in some respects. For such lists, that contain all Wikipedia articles on a certain topic, citations are not necessary. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there should be.-- Phoenix -  wiki  16:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Should be what? And why?   &mdash; The Transhumanist   23:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest a bold Portalify, putting pages such as these in the Portal namespace since they're primarily designed to aide navigation. This would expand the current use of the currently underused Portal namespace -Halo (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur. Compare Village pump (policy)/Archive 14. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion at Move navigational lists to portal namespace. Please comment :) -Halo (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, because as DGG said above "lists of this sort are self-verifying--they are lists of articles in WP", which means they are not encyclopedic lists, but are navigational. See specifically the last 3 (unanswered) questions I asked at the VPP thread (we need a category name, possibly need a new naming standard, and possible namespace-placement options). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Lists fall into at least two categories - lists for which there is no reasonable dispute as to whether a particular item qualifies, and lists for which the notability of the list items is given but the classification as being part of the list is not. In the latter category would be things like "list of business failures", "list of serial murderers", "list of genocides", and so on, where those who regularly help maintain the lists may legitimately decide by consensus to ask for reliable source citations as a necessary condition of putting an item on the list - not to establish notability but to establish validity of the claim that it belongs there.  For something like "list of mathematical topics" they may decide that the categorization is self-evident.  Wikidemo (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An example of a list based on 'notability' is List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft. There has been much discussion in the past as to what 'notable' means on that list. It is not an easy question. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 15:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

'respected publishing houses', how to tell?
I see in the sources section "...books published by respected publishing houses;" and "reputation for fact checking". In an era where we are seeing easy 'on demand' printing of books; how is an editor to quantify 'well respected' or 'reputation for fact checking'? For instance, I might guess that Duke University Press is well respected with good reputation, though some editors would disagree. Or, for instance, I could also guess whether Paladin Press is well respected, but some editors would also disagree. Or, what about Praeger Press?

In short, what good is having a policy that depends on guesses. Is there any way to objectively measure a publishing house's 'respect' and 'reputation' as defined by WP:V? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You should discuss these in the article's talk pages and reach consensus. Do not expect that a list of "reputable publishing houses" will be made available here... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

YouTube
In an article like Pepsi Blue, where the items cited (in this case, advertisements featuring popular musicians) can be viewed at YouTube, can that video link be used as a good reference even though YouTube is a user-generated content site? Is additional print-media coverage (EW, USA Today, etc) necessary when the YouTube video allows the viewer to become a second-hand source (having seen the information), or should print reference trump YouTube for a reference citation? Thanks! --BizMgr (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In general you would want a secondary source to stand for the proposition that a particular musician appears in a particular ad, rather than citing the primary source (the ad itself). It's a very light example of original research, but it really is original research for you to look at source material and ascertain for yourself that a particular person appears there.  It's not 100% reliable, plus it's a lot of work to verify.  Maybe better if there's a credit sequence or some other utterly indisputable statement you can find.  That same logic applies whether it's an ad, a film, a photograph, anything.  You could link to the Youtube video as a helpful external link if you believe it's used with permission, i.e. no copyright violation.  I would try to find a more reliable site than youtube and use that if available, and even though it's not required, leave a comment in the edit summary or discussion page explaining why the link is legitimate because otherwise someone might just remove it.  People are justifiably suspicious of youtube links.  (note - a lot of this is just my opinion, not policy)  Wikidemo (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Avoid vague statements
I was bold and made a suggestion. Discuss if interested. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Samsara thank you for your contribution it's much appreciated and may improve the policy. However since V is such a sensitive page, please post here first and seek consensus from other editors before making a change to the policy page.  Thanks and have a super day. Wjhonson (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Samsara, the policy is already more specific; see below the part you edited. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see now. The footnote shouldn't have been where it was. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Samsara. I see that all you did was move the position of the footnote from the end of the sentence to the word where it was most relevant within the sentence. Personally I like your way of positioning footnotes, it seems more clear to me.  It's the way I tend to do it myself.  Have a super day. Wjhonson (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant that the text itself, not just the footnote, is later more specific about self-published sources. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 13:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Exceptional claims ?
WP:V has a section on how it applies to exceptional claims, but nothing to say how it should deal with absurd claims. Right now both exceptional and absurd claims are treated equally by some users, how do other users feel about motioning that WP:V being modified to differentiate between the two?

For example, it would clearly an exceptional claim if one public figure accused another of being a murderer, but it would be absurd claim if a UFO writer were to claim that the public figure was a shape-shifting lizard. Treating the two claims as equal for verifiability would make a joke out of WP:V.

perfectblue (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * With the absurd claim, we would only need to show that the source had said it, and it would only be appropriate in an article about that source. David Icke is a good example. But what we mean about exceptional claims is your first example -- when something that might be taken seriously, but is very surprising, is being added. That's when we need excellent sources.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I know this and you know this, but I've encountered several cases where editors have applied Redflag to non-redflag issues. I've done exactly what you suggested and reminded them that with absurd things you only really need prove that an absurd claim was made but I've been stonewalled with insistence that WP:V is supposed to treat all extraordinary claims equally. It's all rather frustrating as can sometimes make it very very difficult to cover some topics.


 * I'd like to try and get a clause added to WP:V saying exactly what you've just said. How should I go about this? Is there an official process?


 * perfectblue (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Government statements
Governments are not paragons of honesty and truth. Most governments lie for various reasons. In this respect there is hardly any difference between the type of government.

Often government officials would speak to the media on the condition of anonymity. How should an encyclopedic work, such as Wikipedia, handle such spin? Has the Wikipedia developed standards for reliance on media reports as representing facts? Is the Wikimedia community supposed to rely on "established media" reports as "reliable sources" for inclusion in a Wiki Article, even if these "reliable sources" do not disclose their own sources or attribute their facts to anonymous government officials?

It has been shown again and again that media outlets cannot be fully trusted as "reliable sources". There are many reasons for that: The speed with which news must be produced, the corporate control of established media, the incestous relationship between government officials and their helpfulf media outlets, commercial and sensationalist bias, and the laws of inertia.

Even books by known scholars and peer-reviewed journal articles are not necessarily "reliable sources", particularly in controversial subjects. It is widely known that academics' work is often tainted by the source of grants, the fear of losing tenure, conflicts of interests and other considerations. In some fields, most academic work is actually funded by the government or by corporations, a fact that reflects negatively on the reliability of the academic work.

I suggest that the criteria for "reliable sources" should be amended in the light of the above. The editor should be made morally accountable of assessing the reliability of sources and particularly refrain from relying on sources which are hidden behind the corporate or government veil (even if they are disseminated through the open media).--Sannleikur (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since Wikipedia works on a principle of verifiability not truth, I suggest that a government source be considered verification of a government's own position on a topic. Loosely put, you can use a government source to say "according to the government of ....." and if there is a contradicting source that should be noted afterwards.
 * perfectblue (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I like that more open standard. Quoting a position which is controversial or disputed can show the position of it's author, who is the subject of the article or strongly relevant to the article.  Quoting other verifiable sources can then cement a neutral point-of-view.  This approach is highly preferable to ignoring the statements entirely. Can this position be expanded to any particular self-published statement by the subject of an on-Wiki article?Wjhonson (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What about when governments release information which is "fact", for example the results of a Census or when governments have collected available research for the purposes of informing a white paper or other public policy? Could the government material be used then? 82.0.206.215 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it can be used. It's primary-source material and so it needs to be used carefully, but it's definitely regarded as a reliable source. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering so quickly. Sorry to pester. Are you including government literature reviews in that answer? Or do these have different criteria for use? 82.0.206.215 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you give a specific example? I'm not familiar with the concept of a government doing literary reviews.  It certainly sounds a bit unusual.  While the government may be a good source for their own views and actions, I don't think they'd be necessarily considered reliable for evaluating art.Wjhonson (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Self-published sources
In the page section on self-published sources, the policy had said, in part: "there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it..."

I changed "wrote" here to "authored" so we can clarify that the policy does not only cover writen material, but any self-published material, for example an audio tape or a film.Wjhonson (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Essay
I have written an essay about assessing the reliability of different articles. I was hoping to get other editors to review, add to it and edit it. Currently, it is in my userspace at User:Billscottbob/Assessing reliability. Thanks for any input you may have. If you have anything you wish to discuss about it please do not discuss it here. Please discuss it on the talk page of the essay. Billscottbob (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability (fiction)
I suggest there be a policy called Verifiability (fiction), to give users an understanding of what is reliable or unreliable in the cases of fiction such as tv shows, video games, books, novels, comic books, and other fiction related stuff. Mythdon (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you give a specific example where you feel there is a flaw in the policy and how you would address that example to clarify policy? Thanks.Wjhonson (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to second this motion. At present, there are several long running disputes revolving around WP:V and WP:RS as they apply to television shows and comic books. The nub of this argument is that WP:V and WP:RS both require editors to base a Wikipedia entry on reliable secondary sources that exist in the real world (Scientific journals, news paper reports, and so on), however in most cases such sources simply do not exist for fictional material, and what material there is that does exist often only discusses specific controversies or issues and is unsuitable for providing information on the content of fiction.


 * However, there is a usually a great deal of material available that can tell us almost everything that we need to know about a work of fiction. This material is verifiable, 100% reliable, and can be accessed by just about anybody. This being the work of fiction itself. Thus, I propose that self referencing be specifically permitted by WP:V and WP:RS. For example, it makes no sense to require a third party source to say that Character X first appeared in episode Y when you can simply cite episode Y directly.


 * Equally, where third party material does exist, it is often either highly time specific (A TV guide interview, for example, and thus more or less impossible to cite from for any work of fiction less than about a month old, or it is material covering a particular controversy and thus is not neutral.


 * WP:V needs a serious overhaul in this area. Primary sources should be permitted for in universe information (The credits of any episode of lost will tell you who the cast is, while the episode itself will tell you the plot), and interviews with actors, directors etc should be specifically allowed and counted as a third party source (If a directory tells you what inspired him in a magazine interview, why wold you need a third party source?).


 * perfectblue (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are mixing in some of Notability (fiction) and its parent Notability in this; for a topic to be discussed on WP it needs demonstration of coverage in secondary sources; once you have passed that point, it is appropriate to use primary sources (including the source itself) to describe without analysis/synthesis elements of the plot. But be aware that WP is more than just plot descriptions and focus of fictional articles should be on their notability and real world concepts, what you seem to be describing amount to a lot of plot information without notability to back it up, and this is strongly discouraged; if you want to go to this level of detail and you can't demonstrate notability, there are outside wikis (including Wikia) that you can use to build these up appropriately without concern for the higher standards of Wikipedia. --M ASEM  15:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I dispute WP:FICT, too, on the grounds that it excludes pretty much all children's entertainment. As it stands, it's easier to argue notability on a show that was canceled after 3 episodes because upset some parents group, than to argue notability on a show that was syndicated internationally for 10 years, based on the criteria in WP:FICT, but this is not the appropriate place to discuss that particular problem.


 * I'm sorry, but I think that you have misunderstood. I'm talking about a lot more than plot. For example, as things stand you can't cite South Park's own script to verify that it has episodes that debate serious real world issues such as 9/11 and racism. You can't even use an episode where Eric Cartman says that he is 8 years old as evidence that he was 8 years old during a given season. This is basic information about the show. Fortunately for South Park it is contentious enough that there are third party sources saying all of this, but for many long running shows that are not contentious there are no such sources. You just try finding third party sources for shows children's shows like Sabrina the teenage witch or for lifestyle programs.


 * I'd also draw issue here with the exclusion of forums and blogs when dealing with fiction. These days blogs and forums are used by the entertainment industry itself to make official announcements or to publish interviews with the creators. For example, when Disney decided to renew Kim Possible for a fourth season (it had originally been canceled at the end of the third season) the writer and director attended a series of publicity events where they discussed the franchise's past and its future, and gave details of their feelings, intentions, and inspirations, they also hosted a series of online chat events where they did the same thing, a transcript of which was published on the website of the fan club whose campaigning got the series renewed. Additionally, when the franchise finally ended the director published an online journal covering the production of the final two episodes in which he included background details about the episode's production and crew, as well as his personal thoughts. This real world information about the franchise, its background, and its creators, and makes up the bulk of what WP:FICT requires be included. Unfortunately, WP:V currently pretty much rules out all of this information because WP:V is 1) not in touch with the web 2.0 age in which blogs and forums exist that are studio sanctioned and 2) because WP:V treats non-controversial information about fiction as if it were an academic subject like physics.


 * WP:V needs and overhaul, or best yet a spin-off to deal with fiction.


 * perfectblue (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Part of what you're asking for is what is prevented by WP:OR - we cannot make analytic claims about a work. If the script says something is about 9/11, we can state that in the article, but if the script dances around the issue and makes a pointed yet vague reference, we cannot make the synthetic jump to say that that is a reference.  We rely on other sources to provide that.
 * Carefully read that WP:V does not outright ban the use of forums and blogs - instead, care must be taken to understand these are self-published sources and normally not used, but when consensus agrees it is a reliable source, it can be. In the example of the KP post you mention, I see that as being an allowable source to include for that specific point in the discussion of the cancellation of the show.  However, an article entirely written based on blogs and forum sources would be very questionable and would need something that is universally more reliable than that.  --M ASEM  18:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * M ASEM, I've already taken WP:OR into account, I'm talking about blunt facts. Eric Cartman is 8 years old in series 1 and 9 years old in ...., that's not WP:OR as it is consistently stated in the script, however at present that script is mostly out of bounds. If you want to list celebrities who were parodied in South park, you can do this without violating WP:OR but not WP:V unless some magazine which probably won't pass WP:RS lists them all. It's not a good state of affairs. As for you're second point, I know that WP:RS does not outright ban these things, but it's not that simple. I'd like to invite you to be my advocate next time that I try to cite an official blog and it gets removed on WP:V or WP:RS grounds. Official blogs are even being removed under WP:EL these days. - perfectblue (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that Verifiability/fiction would be an excellent idea. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement here with SlimVirgin that this sub-page, and discussion on it's associated talk page would be a productive contribution to the project.Wjhonson (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is another reason why i believe a Verifiability (fiction) policy would be an excellent idea, because the Verifiability only explains basic verifiability. if Wikipedia:Verifiability (fiction) ever gets to be a policy, then editors will have much easier understanding about reliable and unreliable sources of works of fiction. This is why there needs to be Wikipedia:Verifiability (fiction). Mythdon (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, a new policy subpage, Verifiability/fiction, would be a very good idea. - Neparis (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A subpage would not work. We would need to make a new policy, not a subpage for a policy. For example, it would be like having Notability have a subpage titled Notability/fiction instead of simply making a new policy titled Notability (fiction), so a subpage like what your saying would not work, we would need to make Verifiability (fiction). Mythdon (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Mythdon on this one, a new policy is needed. Every step forward for fiction in WP:V would be a dilution of it's ability to protect science entries etc. Trying to tackle two different areas with two different requirements isn't working now and I don't think that it an be made to work unless you basically had two separate policies on the same page. For example, if an actor is interviewed by a fan site about their latest role then there's not much in real terms wrong with it so long as you can be confident that it's a real interview, but you'd have a real problem if you tried to do the same with a physicists or a government official. WP:RS would be all over the place. - perfectblue (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Making changes?
What is the procedure for making changes to this policy?

Do I simply suggest them here and then make them if nobody objects? Do I need to get an admin to sponsor my idea? Is there a separate forum to post on?

perfectblue (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is an excellent question. As in all of Wikipedia, changes are made by consensus.  So post your idea here, and others who keep an eye here will respond.Wjhonson (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no procedure. You can edit the policy directly, discuss it here, or any combination. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes you could. However bold edits to policy have a tendency to be reverted within a very short time.  Which can lead to bad feelings, warring, and entrenchment.  So I'd still suggest using Talk to discuss the change first. Wjhonson (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Policies carry a wide acceptance among the community, so if you think your choice would be widely accepted then go for it. I find the best way to find out if the community will widely accept it is to post here at the talk page. undefinedUntil  22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability artwork
Image:Verifiability artwork.jpg is from Flickr. The creator put it under CC-by especially for us. One image can communicate great slabs of policy text, I think. Any deep objections? (other than "humor is intrinsically inappropriate" or equivalent) - David Gerard (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 12:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So we're the Inquisition? It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 12:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * From the artist upon telling him where the image ended up, "aahhahaha.. Thank you! I'm soooo proud! It's an honor!" :) He also stated, "I really appreciate wikipedia. I love your work and passion." Just passing it on, since it's so nice. :) - cohesion 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see the benefit, frankly. How does that image communicate anything about the verifiability policy? It also has the technical problem that the antialiased text looks very bad my monitor (because of a different pixel order or something). But, even ignoring technical details, I'm simply not convinced it does any good. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the image fun, not of use for the WP:V page itself though. I didn't even see anyone propose to use it on the WP:V page here on talk. I moved it to WP:Department of fun. Sorry for my wrong, insinuating Galileo being put to death. He was only gravely convicted. All other points of the edit summary were correct though. Especially, that this has no relation to WP:V. That's what makes it so funny. Galileo was wrongly convicted for Original research. Haha. And the religious tribunal swore so to say by "truth, not verifiability". That makes it even more funny. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would make much more sense to place it on WP:TEMP rather than here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia as an SPS
Since Wikipedia pages are open wikis and considered self-published sources, they cannot be considered reliable sources? What about open wikis that have strict verification processes and policies, such as this site?

I haven't been here long, but I was under the impression that Wikipedia, by its very design, is a publication with a greater "degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work" than most magazines and newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Snyder (talk • contribs) 17:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * While our policy calls for verifiability from reliable sources, we cannot assume that any article is reliable at any given time. Many articles are currently incomplete and poorly sourced, and any article can change drastically at any time. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is explicitly not a reliable source. Please use the source sources, and if none our available, the article itself provides no support. Cool Hand Luke 01:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Images Question
What is the policy with regards to verifying image content. Users are actively encouraged to create and submit images but in most cases we only have their word that they depict what they say they depict. Obviously good faith should be assumed but this alone is not always sufficient in other areas where verifiability is the issue. Guest9999 (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR also applies here. If it is controversial, it probably shouldn't be here. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What about more basic issues; as a random example how do we know that the person in Image:Cher.jpg is not a Cher impersonator or if the picture was taken at a dress rehersal (if they have such things) and not the concert itself? Guest9999 (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Galileo pic


Does this thing actually help clarify the section? It's better than the koan which was recently proposed for WP:IAR, but what information does it convey which might lead to an improved encyclopedia? Does it present a coherent metaphor? In particular, was Galileo questioned as to whether he had a source for the telescopic observations he made? Was the problem that his research was original, or that it didn't agree with the hegemony of the time? Wouldn't this scene be more coherent if WP:UNDUE was the subject of discussion?

But again, the only real question is: Does this improve the encyclopedia? I'm very doubtful. MilesAgain (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that this page is WP:V. I'd have preferred it if the image actually mentioned WP:V. As it is it mentions pretty much everything but. Maybe this would be appropriate at the top of a page, but not half way down. - perfectblue (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see images in policies and guidelines, but whenever anyone introduces one, a small number of people revert. But images are good. They break up the text making it easier on the eye; they can illustrate ideas better than words sometimes; and they'd make the policies look less po-faced. So I'd like to include this image, preferably in the lead. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the cleanup, original research, or neutrality parts are particularly related to this policy. Also, the analogy to an inquisition isn't great; we don't want to perpetuate the inquisition model for verifiability. So I don't think this image presents the idea of verifiability better than words. I'm not sure what "po-faced" means, but "break up the text" hardly seems like a strong argument in favor of including an image. A large vertical space would have the same effect.
 * Many of the images included in policies (particularly the anime ones) come across as an effort to add humor for its own sake. I find they distract from the text rather than complementing it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally I like and what are the square brackets '[' in the picture?  Aren't all tags placed using braces '{' ? Wjhonson (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about --M ASEM 21:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Should topic deletion under WP:V be based on article as is stands or on article potential?
I have suggested an article be deleted here:Articles_for_deletion/Cooneyites. This is a test case I have put up where almost the entire article is uncited and what citations exist are from a self-published web site. The group is real, has existed for 100 years, and is still active. The editors of the article have a somewhat con- bias to the group. My question is this: should a decision to delete the article based on WP:V be based on the article content as it stands or on article potential? If the latter, my concern is that such claims can always be made about any topic, and such claims are very difficult to assess. In other words, I believe the consideration to either remove the article or reduce it to a stub, should be based on the article as it stands in wikipedia not on its potential. Slofstra (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We improve, rather than delete, articles for lack of citations. If we did that we'd be deleting perhaps 1/4 to 1/3 of all the articles.  As to the question of what we should do, I agree with the present system, except to observe that in most cases poorly written or uncited articles are written by new editors, single-purpose accounts, and so on.  It's good that we allow everyone to edit but it would be nice if we could reach out a little somehow and get the point across that articles need to have references.  An uncited article can become a dead end, or at least very hard to prove, because you have to go through it sentence by sentence asking yourself if the information there is verifiable and otherwise appropriate.  06:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)  Wikidemo (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Article deletion on WP:V grounds has to be based on both present condition and potential for growth. Simply saying "this article has no references" is not good enough.  An attempt to fix the problem has to be made ... If you know something about the topic, fix it yourself.  If you don't know much about the topic, see if others can fix it... tag the article, sections, or sentences that need work and raise the issue on the talk page.  Then wait (I usually wait several weeks if not longer).  If no one tries to fix the problem (or at least replies to your comments) then start stubifying.  Then wait some more.  If, after another reasonable amount of time, the article remains in stub form... then you can assume that the topic has little potential for growth, and is not all that notable (since no one cares about it enough to unstubify).  In other words, deletion on WP:V grounds should be a last resort.
 * Note... there may be other gounds for deletion. For example, if the only sources are fringy self-published sources, the topic may be a candidate for deletion under WP:FRINGE. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that that approach may reflect consensus and will act accordingly. However, I think this is quite misguided.  It allows wiki to get crapped up and then requires an inordinate amount of effort to clean up. And that effort never takes place.  Better to educate new writers on WP:V from the get go - saves newbie slams, edit wars, and disputes.  And 'new' writers become old writers with bad habits.  Further, I have followed your approach on one significant article; it's a continuing battle to educate writers on WP:V and is getting old with me very fast.  Then I look around at other articles which have not been subjected to that kind of vigilance, and see there are all kinds of articles peripheral to the main topic that have NO citations, all SPS sources.  Check out Restorationist and drill down from there.   It's a huge mess, IMO.  Why do we allow people to edit and write articles without citing at all. So you suggest, allow one person to edit some drivel in a minute or two, and then responsible editors have to do the heavy lifting?  Why not nuke the 1/4 to 1/3 you are talking about and make sure any new edits do follow WP:V?  That would be much less work in the long run. Slofstra (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do understand your frustration on this... there are too many articles that have potential for improvement, but never actually get improved. I see nothing wrong with filing AfD nominations on these... sometimes a deletion threat highlights the problem and spurs people to work on the article.  If that happens... great!  If not... well, the lack of interest in fixing the problem can be raised in a subsequent renomination.  I had of one such article on my watchlist that needed four AfD nominations (over a period of year and a half) before the admins realized that, even though sources apparently existed, no one was actually bothering to work on the article. The rational for deletion was that such a lack of interest indicated that the topic might not be as notable as it seemed. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree in that filing the AfD has been encouraging to see some response and focus on the problem that will at least move things in a positive direction. Slofstra (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Two additional related questions. (1) There is a whole class of potential topics, especially in Religion, which have not been subject to academic level research so only SPS materials exist. These are not fringe theories. Should that kind of topic be included in wiki, i.e. not Fringe, but no good WP:SOURCES exist? (2) In terms of histories, is it permissible to build secondary articles out of primary source materials, such as letters, newspaper accounts, diaries and personal photos. Or is that OR? Slofstra (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is almost impossible to have an article based on WP:SPS that conforms to the WP:V policy. And I think it is almost impossible to build a good article out of primary sources (although I would put most editorial content from non-SPS newspapers in the category of secondary sources, not primary sources).  UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that the primary|secondary status of a newspaper article depends on whether the topic is the primary focus. For example, a newspaper article on the 'Halifax Explosion' would be a secondary source for that single event but a primary source for writing a history of Nova Scotia. Or maybe not. Slofstra (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * From ,a newspaper is a primary resource when reporting an event. Use of such sources (event reporting) would then be OR. Slofstra (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If sources are found or very likely present out there, an article shouldn't be deleted simply because its creator hasn't cited them in the article. However, if there are currently no reliable sources published on the topic but editors think they are likely to be published in the future, the article should be deleted without prejudice to future recreation because of WP:NOR. WP:NOR, which prohibits being the first to publish on a topic, requires actual sources to be present here and now in order to avoid deletion. --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The definition of "reliable sources" is more flexible than just academic journals. To use religion articles as an example, many religions have a system of religious scholarship and authorities with a peer review system outside of but analogous to secular academics and emininent religious authorities can be relied on to present the rules and beliefs of the religious denomination; however, religious authorities and opinions need to be peer reviewed -- regarded as highly notable and significant by their peers -- and this needs to be documentable. The fact that they represent a religious viewpoint needs to be documented when unclear (particularly if the religion's view of history or similar matters is being presented - general practice is to present and attribute both religious and academic views of a religion's origins etc. when the two disagree, see WP:NPOV). The writings of a major teacher in an important Islamic seminary can be quoted on Islam articles, for example, but not an isolated Imam. Note that WP:NPOV requires presentation of non-academic viewpoints under some circumstances. (2) Primary sources are not prohibited, but use is limited. They can't be used to develop an argument in the manner that you seem to be describing (See WP:SYN). Primary sources also can't be used to establish a topic is notable. In order for a topic to have an article, reliable sources have to describe it and identify it as notable. For example, a book or politician needs to be reviewed by independent sources in order to have an article in the first place, but once this happens it is permitted to quote from the book or from the politician's website for descriptive purposese. It would be impermissable to add analyses what the book or the politician is saying that aren't obvious (and undisputed). Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of the Restorationist groups have no publications of their own, they tend not to have seminaries (by nature of being NT restorationist), and have not attracted much attention in academic circles. They have attracted attention - mostly negative - from established Protestant denominations, Evangelicals and anti-cult types and that is where the SPS comes in. Thanks, the comments are very helpful. Slofstra (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of interest on hard to find, archaic sources
FYI, this section is fascinating here. Please read and weigh in there. An editor is asserting it could be OR and unacceptable to make an article from sources that wouldn't be readily available to everyone, or using old harder to find sources. Lawrence §  t / e  00:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What is a reliable third-party publication?
Is it ok if I can get a list of reliable third-party publications?Megagents (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Any source needs to be evaluated in the context of the subject or article in which it will be used. There is no such a thing as an absolute in this regard. If you have doubts about a reliability of a source, discuss this in talk page with other interested editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Discuss it where?Megagents (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The talk page of the specific article that you're editing. --Lquilter (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh! That makes sense. Sorry to bother you, thanks :)Megagents (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * An opinion from me, and it just MY opinion - but a very good one:-)... particularly where BLP is concerned, very few newspapers pass the reliability test. Yes, some do, and have a very good reputation, but I so often see rumour and gossip that came from sensationalist (mostly, but not restricted to, England based) rags such as the Sun, the Daily Mirror... even News of the World. Look at a history of any notable England footballer involved in transfer speculation over the January transfer window and see how many times thay have been changed and changed and changed back again - even with quotes from these rags --ClubOranje (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy toward very old sources?
Are old sources, like Herodotus' Histories, Cassius Dio's Roman History or the Alexiad, considered reliable sources? I worked on referencing the Dobruja article, and since all modern historian basically quote or paraphrase the above mentioned authors when speaking about certain events, I decided to reference those events with their original sources. Now I'm not that sure I was doing the right thing. The good part of using the old sources is that they're freely available full-text on the web, most of them with English translations, so anybody can check whether a source is used fairly or not. The modern sources are mostly non-English books, inaccesible on the web, and hardly available for verification in the usual English libraries. I should note that no user disputed the accuracy of the events referenced by these old sources, but this may be due to the fact that there are not so many users interested in the subject. Should I continue to use those old sources, freely available on the web, or should I use the modern sources quoting the old ones? Baltaci (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think modern sources would be more likely to reflect contemporary viewpoints and realize errors in the perspective of very old sources. I would directly attribute claims for the older sources ("According to Herodotus...") to make it clear that the viewpoint expressed may no longer be common. But that doesn't mean not to use the sources at all. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally we have access only to modern (since the introduction of the printing press) editions of ancient and medieval books. I think what we should be looking for is that the publisher of the printed edition is a reliable source. This more or less assures us that the text has not been mangled too badly. Clearly, such old works can be cited for what they say, but rarely if at all as currently reliable authorities. We should also include fairly recent scholarly analysis, criticism and explication of the ancient works, applying WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Relying on manuscripts directly or on publication of the contents of such by unreliable sources would be risky. Ancient works that have been ignored or given little notice by established scholars are really not suitable sources for Wikipedia. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are referencing what an ancient author wrote about an event the best thing would be to reference the author directly. If an ancient author is the only authority to speak on an event, then perhaps he could be referenced directly. If, on the other hand there are multiple authors which discuss an event, then balancing their statements and coming to a conclusion would be originall research, and we should follow and report current scholarly opinion. I actually would be leary of using translations found on the web. For copyright reasons most of the translations of ancient and medieval authors on the web are nineteenth century or older. A new translation may very well be more accurate, as it would be based on the latest critical editions of the text. I would be very surprised if there was any major ancient or medieval text that hasn't had a new translation in the last thirty or so years. Dsmdgold (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The presence of multiple recent translations/commentaries/etc. of ancient works pretty much establishes the notability of such works, and provides ample material for an NPOV article in WP. One of the points I was trying to make is that if there is only one source of a translation/transcription of an ancient (or any other rare/obscure) work, we should avoid citing it, as that is an indicator that: 1. it isn't notable, 2. it has not been evaluated by more than one 'scholar', and/or 3. it is tainted (the work is of questionable origin or the translation/transcription is questionable). As the original question was whether old sources are reliable, I would say that the question of reliability needs to be applied to the recent translations, commentaries, etc. Direct quoting of works that were originally in manuscript is an imperfect process. If such a work has come down to us in more than one manuscript copy, there are almost invariably differences (copying errors) between the copies. When you cite or quote Herodotus in Wikipedia, you are not citing or quoting from an ancient manuscript (at least, I certainly hope you are not), you are citing or quoting someone's translation of what is often a reconstructed version of the document. Even if you quote him in Greek, you are still quoting someone's transcription, often with modern corrections and interpretations, of the document. You always need to cite the work in which you found the translation/transcription of an ancient work. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 12:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that we have somehow shifted grounds. The notability of a source is a different issue from its status as a relibale source. Peter Brown's Augustine of Hippo is obviously a reliable source. However, it probably is not notable enough to have an separate article. I would certainly agree that when quoting an ancient or medieval manuscript, the edition and or translation must be cited. I would also argue that a more recent edition is better. (As a side note, even if you are quoting Herodotus from an ancient manuscript, you are still quoting a transcription, as the oldest extant copies date from at least a thousand years after Herodotus.) All of that said, if one is writing an article on a reltively obscure Saint, and the only edition of that Saint's Vita is from a seventeenth century edition of the Acta Sanctorum, then that edition can be used as a reliable source. (I assume that the Saint has sufficient coverage elsewhere to be notable.)  To answer Baltaci's original question, if one is writing an article on historical events, quoting primary sources can be a good idea, as long as the quote is balanced by modern scholarship. In essence ancient and medieval authors can be considered reliable source, indeed they may be the only sources, but Wikipedia's interpretation of them must be filtered through modern scholarship. Dsmdgold (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have any argument with that formulation. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 11:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Music Blog?
I write a Japanese Music blog. There are no recognized English experts in this field and my reviews are subjective and critical, but they are reviews and so therefore they contain my own personal opinions of the music. I use Wordpress because I have no idea how to do any of the scripting required for such a site. My question is why my links are being taken down when so many people have no idea what this music sounds like or what it's about? I, personally, have been the victim of there not being enough information about an album, especially when wanting to buy it. It's not really about numbers, but, yes, I would like people to come to the site and learn about the artist/album/song they are interested in. On the subject of reliablility, barring severe illness, I have been posting at least once a week (if not seven days a week) since September. In closing, critics come in all forms (especially with regards to music). I do what most musical critics from major magazines do, it is just more in depth, and I would very much like to link to Wikipedia to further the depth of your resources and offer another studied opinion as I am a Music Major and do research musically about the album before posting.

Sincerely, Patrick

vinyabarion.wordpress.com (Who's Afraid of Music?) (Vinyabarion (talk))


 * I don't mean to be glib, but are you really saying that no one else in the entire world writes in English about Japanese music? That there is not one single journalistic source in English with information about Japansese music, and your blog is the only place editors can turn to? Honestly, anything's possible, but I'm not sure that's true. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course there are. In fact, for Namie Amuro's Queen of Hip-Pop, there is an article for it in English... but there are a myriad of other albums that do not. I didn't mean for it to come across like that. All I am saying is that my website can fill that gap of criticism for other albums.

(Vinyabarion (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 01:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clearing that up; your explanation is appreciated. I have to wonder, then: If no other English-language sources are covering these particular albums, perhaps those albums may not reach the threshold of notability for English-language Wikipedia (as opposed to the Japanese-language version.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has long held that blogs are not to be considered reliable sources. There are a few "unofficial" exceptions to that rule but, sadly, your blog does not fit any of them.  The exception that comes closest would be "a recognized expert writing in his field of expertize"... but (no disrespect intended) I am not at all sure that you really qualify as a "recognized expert".  The standard for that is fairly high.  Perhaps, with time, you will become recognized as an expert. Indeed, I wish you all the best and hope that someday you will become recognized as such. But until neutral third party sources start discussing your reviews and your blog, and the larger community starts to think of you as an "expert", we can not use your blog as a source.  Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change
Recently, myself and a number of other editors run into problems on a number of occasions where other editors have read WP:V and interprited the "extraordinary claim" clause as meaning that all claims that fall outside of the mundane should be treated equally, even if the claim isn't so much extraordinary as it is silly.

Thus, I propose adding the following clause onto the end of "Extraordinary claims" so that can be clear on the difference between "extraordinary," from "just plain silly" as far as WP:V is concerned.

Here goes.

Extraordinary v absurd

On occasion, editors may run across notable claims which fulfill one or more of the criteria of an "Extraordinary Claim" but which are so fantastic in nature that they cannot be taken any way other than with substantial dose of salt. By their very nature such claims fall outside of the bounds of an Extraordinary Claim, and when encountered the onus is on the editor to verify that an incredible claim was made, rather than to verify that the contents of the claim against real world benchmarks.


 * For example. While one public figure accusing another of being a murderer would fall within the bounds of "an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof", Serial UFO conspiracy believer David Icke accusing same said public figure of being a shape-shifting lizard would not.

If nobody objects I'll insert this into WP:V.

perfectblue (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree with change, disregarding one position because someone considers it silly is not editing from a neutral point of view. The onus of the exceptional claims section is to remove unsourced fringe theories it should not matter how likely a Wikipedia editor considers these theories to be. Any exceptional claim which is not reliably sourced should be removed, regardless of how "silly" it is. Guest9999 (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I think that you are confusing my explanation of the problem with the actual wording that I want to include. I have modified the section to make things clearer. I'd also like to point out that WP:RS is a sliding scale. It requires a lower standard of proof for unimportant things or things that are for want of a better word silly. For example, you really need peer to discuss higher physics, but you need a TV guide ot discuss the cast of a soap-opera. I'd also like to point out that this change would have no impact on un sourced fringe material as this explicitely refers to sourced material only. - perfectblue (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Object too – the proposed language makes it seem as if for non-absurd claims Wikipedians have the "onus [...] to provide evidence that the claim itself has any measure of credibility", which contradicts WP:V, for example it contradicts WP:V's maxim "Verifiability, not truth".
 * What has happened to Patent nonsense? Is something wrong with that guideline? All the rest either conforms to WP:V, or should be removed from the encyclopedia. I don't think perfectblue has demonstrated the need for an additional caveat to the WP:V policy, and I think he has received a similar answer to a similar suggestion before on this page. Here it is, it hasn't been archived yet:.


 * I have reworded. My intention was to have a clause that told editors that when you are dealing with something fantastic, you have to verify that the claim was made, not that the claim is true. This is basically an expansion on verifiability not true. - perfectblue (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:V does not include demonstrating a measure of credibility. Even Writing about fiction does not need that distinction to clarify one shouldn't write from the fictional perspective. Even if one can "prove" the fiction has some form of credibility that is not a reasonable inclusion criterion. Further, if a Wikipedian would engage in "demonstrating" whether such credibility is likely (other than just citing sources that address the credibility issue directly), there's a WP:NOR issue too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't this exactly what I was trying to put into WP:V, you have ot prove that a claim was made, not that it is credible.- perfectblue (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly concur with both Guest9999 and FS. Brimba (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Take 2
Verifiability V Truth

On occasion, editors may run across notable claims which fulfill one or more of the criteria of an "Extraordinary Claim" but which are so fantastic in nature that they cannot be taken any way other than with substantial dose of salt. By their very nature such claims fall outside of the bounds of an Extraordinary Claim, and when encountered the onus is on the editor to verify that an incredible claim was made, rather than to verify that the contents of the claim can stand up to scrutiny.


 * For example. While one public figure accusing another of being a murderer would fall within the bounds of "an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof", Serial UFO conspiracy believer David Icke accusing same said public figure of being a shape-shifting lizard would not.

how about now? - perfectblue (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * nope, problem remains exactly the same, and you got your answers. WP:V doesn't ask that editors "verify that the contents of [a] claim can stand up to scrutiny" for less fantastic claims. Your rewrite above isn't even proper English any more: "to verify that the contents of the claim against real world benchmarks". Whatever that is meant to mean, it's not something we're asked to do according to WP:V, nor is there any reason to add that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, you've just proved my point. WP:V needs to explicitly state this in big bold letters. Right now too many editors are reading Extrodinary claims require extraordinary proof and are interpreting this as beinging that


 * FYI, If you want to get out your little red marker pen to ring my spelling/grammar mistakes in your notebook, that's fine, but raising them on a talk page can be construed as ad-hom. Ad-hom does not look good, it makes it look like an editor is trying to discredit another editor because they can't discredit their argument. - perfectblue (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying we don't require extraordinary sources to support "David Icke accusing same said public figure of being a shape-shifting lizard"? Actually, if someone did claim that a public figure was either a murderer or a shape-shifting lizard, and the claim became notable enough to be included in a Wikipedia article, then we would want good sources for the fact that the statement was made. What we couldn't do is write the article stating that 'so-and-so' was either a murderer or a shape-shifting lizard without damn-good sources establishing that fact. Personally, I think it would be extremely unlikely that we will ever find reliable sources 'proving' that someone is a shape-shifting lizard, but then the best we are likely to do for a 'murderer' is find reliable sources that someone was charged with and/or convicted of murder (which is not quite the same as saying he/she is a murderer). It's a matter of judgment. The harder it is for you to believe a statement, the better proof you will want to see. I don't see any point in trying to write into policy the kind of distinction I think you are trying to make. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 21:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. There is a huge distinction between somebody claiming that somebody else is a murderer and that somebody is a shape-shifting lizard. WP:NPOV aside, one claim is serious and the other is completely off the wall. In fact, you might even be violating WP:NPOV, WP:Fringe and WP:Weight if you treated the two claims in the same way. perfectblue (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Take 3

 * Extraordinary V Fantastic


 * Where a claim is both notable and extraordinary, but is also sufficiently fantastic in nature, it can be said to fall outside of the bounders of an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Where encountered, the onus is on the editor to verify the existence of said claims using sources appropriate to its nature as a fantastic claim rather than an extraordinary claim.


 * For example. To claim that a public figure had been accused of committing a serious indiscretion would require a high standard of verification from outstanding sources such as well respected national newspapers, but to claim that UFO conspiracy writer David Icke had accused same said public figure of being a shape-shifting lizard would require verification from a source more appropriate to the claim.

Rather than simply objecting, it would be more productive if people offer compromise wordings. What does everybody else consider an appropriate way to say that a while Extraordinary Claims (not capital letters) require extraordinary proof, not everything that is extraordinary is an Extraordinary Claim? The present WP:V wording imply isn't working. It's OK for serious real world issues such as politics and history, but it's highly problematic when dealing with more out of the box issues. - perfectblue (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * “Rather than simply objecting, it would be more productive if people offer compromise wordings.” Sorry, it does not work that way. It’s for YOU or anyone who agrees with your position to establish a consensus. End of story. I can see no need for this, nor do I agree with its premise. Feel free to try and reach a consensus, but do not try to force it through without one. Brimba (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Take 4
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=prev&oldid=188800853


 * Re: "While sources for exceptional claims must be of a higher quality the Verifiability, not truth threshold remains in place":
 * "Verifiability, not truth" is in the intro of the policy page, where did you suppose it would only apply to some sections of the policy and not to others?
 * "[...] sources for exceptional claims must be of a higher quality [...]" (my bolding): There's no problem for using sources of the highest possible quality for ordinary claims. So what you're saying about exceptional claims amounts to some sort of gibberish.
 * No, again, we don't need these redundant repeats, and self-contradictory statements. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If I understand perfectblue correctly, he is arguing that if some author says George Bush is a shape shifting lizzard, we should should not have to cite high quality sources such as a peer reviewed jornal or the New York Times as verification for the claim, as it is unlikely that such sources would talk about it... we should be able to cite the type of sources that would probably repeat the claim, such as the National Enquirer or the Weekly World News. I don't see the need for this.  The policy deals with this already.  If we are simply talking about verification that the claim was made, we can cite the author himself.  We can attribute the claim to the author and cite where he sais it... along the lines of "According to conspiracy theorist Ima Nutjob, "George bush is a shape shifting lizzard" . If, on the other hand, we are talking about verification for a statement that people actually believe the claim ("Thousands of people believe that George Bush is a shape shifting lizzard"), or that the claim is "true" ("George Bush is a shape shifting lizzard"), then we do need high quality sources.  Of course, this assumes that mentioning the claim in an aritcle is worthy of inclusion in the first place... But that inclusion is an issue for WP:FRINGE, and WP:Undue weight (and in many ways depends on what the article topic is)... not one for WP:V.
 * All of this is clear in the policy already... I do not see a need to ammend the policy to clarify this. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Take N
I don't think we're edit warring despite the rapid editing going on - we're working around a common goal and refining it. Still, I'm going to bow out for a little while because I've already had three edits to the "exceptional claims" section today...I do like the direction we're heading by tightening things up a little and specifying what specific areas (scientific, historical, etc. claims without widespread support in the relevant community) would caution that we're all susceptible to the objection that the old version was just fine and that we haven't established consensus for any changes. Cheers; happy Superbowl for the Americans here. Wikidemo (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think User:brimba's change here is too broad and would represent the kind of change we need to talk about first. There's nothing wrong with covering things that don't agree with the prevailing view, and I don't think we should even get into the business of deciding which is the prevailing view.  Covering minority views is a crucial part of NPOV and shouldn't trigger extra scrutiny or a demand for extraordinary sources.  We're talking about fringe ideas, not minority ones.  Wikidemo (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)  Note - I do like this edit by SlimVirgin.  Extra verbiage actually makes it weaker; the more succinct the more likely people will heed this.Wikidemo (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Series episodes
I'm going to suggest randomly that the above discussion might be about Television series episode synopsis. So the issue to consider might possibly be whether a series synopsis is purely descriptive and whether such an article would be verifiable in wikisense. This is a question, I don't pretend to have an answer.Wjhonson (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The notion that all series episodes were notable started with The Simpsons -- Jimbo is a fan, and originally said he didn't see any reason why Wikipedia can't have an article on each episode, since "hard drives are cheap" (I would have to do some serious digging to find this quote but trust me, it's there). Then people created articles for episodes of every TV show. Jimbo has since said he changed his mind about this (again it would take a while to find the quote, but it is there). The fact is, according to our general standards for notability, episodes are generally not worthy of articles. But there are so many of them, and the fans like having them around so much, that they're hard to get rid of. I don't think anyone's even tried for the many Simpsons episodes that lack third-party sources, even though they have for other series (and usually fail). I've had this discussion before and it always ends with "IAR for popular series' episode articles" -- and I'm really fine with that. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"> Equazcion •✗/C • 17:24, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... One could argue that episode synopsis articles (whether about individual episodes or grouped into more general "season synopsis" articles as is currently preferred) are really sub-articles stemming from a main article on the TV show itself... And, as such, do not need to re-establish that third party sources exist... since third party references are provided in the main article to establish the notability of the show. Of course, I am assuming that third party references are needed in the main article (I would think that, if a TV show - as opposed to an individual episode or season - has never been discussed by third party sources, it does not deserve an article on Wikipedia).  Does this make sense? Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha you're both avoiding the point. Very clever !  First Jimbo doesn't determine policy, he may be the catalyst for letting-the-cat-out-of-the-bag though.  And just when we finally got that darn cat bagged too!  Second blueboar, the question isn't is the series notable at all but rather, can a particular episode synopsis be created by a viewer simply because they viewed it?  That is, does viewing and writing a purely descriptive synopsis based on observation, constitute verification?  I hope that's more clear.  Not the series in general, but each episode.  Note for example our Bewitched article discusses various episodes and doesn't necessarily pretend it's using any third-party source to do so.Wjhonson (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I remain deeply skeptical that we have a consensus among our editors or users to turn back the "all television episodes are notable" approach, and would further suggest that, due to the differences in length between a television series taken holistically and a film, our commitment to giving a general plot overview of fictional texts for the most part necessitates some level of episode-by-episode focus for television series. But given that this debate has raged for over a year and was just the subject of an RfC, this feels rather like forum shopping. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Did the RfC come to any Consensus? I haven't heard of it.  Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The RFC is still open, but I've proposed a solution based on the numerous input which seems to have some support, though a few still don't like it. However, the idea that episodes are automatically notable does not seem to be a strong one, and that normal considerations for notability are to be made. --M ASEM  00:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that your proposal is currently running at dead even in favor of and opposed, I would guess it's not going to be a milestone of progress. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm I see that plot is already covered on the what wikipedia is not page, which addresses, provided that remains consensus, the question of whether an article could be solely a plot synopsis. To answer my own question, I guess I would concede that an editor-created synopsis of a plot drawn solely from their own observation would be fine. I'm fairly sure it's the actual practice onwiki. That reasoning would apply as well to artwork, books and articles. I.E. that any editor can create a descriptive synopsis without the need to quote it from a source other than the work itself.Wjhonson (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That reflects the consensus as I understand it... a work of fiction can be cited as the source for purely discriptive statements made about that work of fiction. The second you start to analyze the work or go beyond pure plot discription you need a third party source. Blueboar (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is guilty of hypocrisy
Much is made of the Wikipedia policy of verifiability, or citation of sources.

The problem is that Wikipedia is only paying lip-service to those policies. In order to adhere to those policies, Wikipedia needs to start again from scratch. Simple as that. We are nibbling around the edges, telling people the policies, diligently going round putting "fact" tags against factoids we don't know or don't like.

But to implement that policy properly, we have to go through and systematically root out every fact, every bit of information that hasn't been sourced properly. We don't dare do that, because it would mean the disappearance of most of what has been built up until now. Instead, we are trying to whip things into shape by using the "fact" (cite source) tag. But the problem is that the "fact" tag is actually being used in a sneakier way. People are adding tags to things that they don't like, or things that they've never heard of, sometimes removing information that they think sounds dodgy. It's being used as a weapon like POV -- a way of pushing other people around based on a "negative" -- failure to cite sources.

Some time ago, someone removed information on the old pronunciation of the character 白 in Li Bai (李白), which was Po or Bo. They said it "wasn't sourced". I didn't have the dictionary at hand that I could cite to prove the information. Someone just said, "Oh, this isn't sourced". They didn't add a "fact" tag; they just deleted it. When I appealed, I was told that that that kind of information (the old reading of 白) is precisely the information that should be cited or removed. Needless to say, I couldn't understand why that particular piece of information was removed when there are articles positively swimming in unsupported statements that people simply assume to be true.

At the article on Macanese pataca, someone did a quick-and-dirty appraisal for GA status, especially singling out the local name "葡币" as unsourced information. (Pretty simple-minded, actually. Since it was obviously "local knowledge" there was a good chance it couldn't be backed up from a "reputable source". But one of the strengths of Wikipedia, as I see it, is that it can bring in this kind of local knowledge that other encyclopedias don't carry. But that's just my opinion). So someone who wanted to defend the article from attacks added a fact tag, thinking he was bringing the article in line with Wikipedia policies. Well, he wasn't. Adding a question mark doesn't help improve the article, and it doesn't bring it any closer to fulfilling the policies of Wikipedia.

Our "fact" tag policy (or delete factoids without references policy) is nothing just a selective or simple-minded application of the verifiability criterion. In many ways it's worse than not applying it at all.

To sum up my point: quite simply, Wikipedia is guilty of hypocrisy. We are allowing people to wield "Verifiability" as a big stick to beat people when it's convenient. If we really wanted to follow our own guidelines we would stop letting people run round adding "fact" tags or deleting little bits they disagreed with. We would go though and delete entire sections, entire articles, that fail to adhere to policy. The only remedy for Wikipedia's current state is to delete information wholesale -- not just rather obvious factoids that are clearly based on local knowledge, but ALL information that doesn't agree with our guideline. We have our policies but aren't prepared to bite the bullet. As a result, our policies just turn into a weapon for people to wield, just like NPOV.

It's easy to say: "Everything should be referenced!" It's impossible to argue against. Who could disagree? But when it's done in a selective kind of way, it's just the same as the selective application of laws by despotic regimes. They use reasonable-sounding laws not to improve society, but to clobber people when they need to. If the guideline is so sacred, we should put our money where our mouth is. Stop pussyfooting round: go through and enforce ruthlessly. And take the consequences.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no "you guys". We are you, and you are us.  We are all part of a large consensus-based society.  It isn't our policy, it's your policy.  If there is something about it you don't like, discuss it.  Consensus can change, policy can change (in its details).  You just have to convince a large-enough-following.  It happens all the time.  Try to express your thoughts in small amounts, people don't like to read huge rants. Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So my accusation is being ignored because of short attention spans? OK. Thanks.


 * Oh, and Maury's posting on E-mail as a source is running into a very solid brick wall in this "large consensus-based society".
 * Bathrobe (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, attention spans and the value of brevity are two sides of a coin. The fact tag thing is a matter of game-playing by some wikipedians.  It's not hypocrisy to ask people to use judgment in applying fact tags, and only tag the ones that most need source citation to improve the article.  However, in any exercise of judgment there are some people who will exercise poor judgment, or not understand the system, or try to game it.  You can't stop those people.  If we had different rules they would just game those rules.Wikidemo (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

proposal: "independent" of interests involved
Our sources must be There seems be a problem when an otherwise reliable verifiable source is used in a wikipedia article on an issue in which the source has a stake. A source with an overall good reputation for fact checking and professional journalism might fail when self-interest is involved. I think we need to add the following to the wikipedia policy: The next question is: when is there a conflict of interest?
 * verifiable and
 * reliable
 * When a RS might have a conflict of interest on the subject at hand, all claims made by wikipedia on the basis of that source must be written as "attributed to" that source. (Not stating the claims of the source as undisputed facts.)

I propose as a solution:
 * if wikipedia editors cannot reach consensus on whether or not there is a conflict of interest, the article must be written as though such a conflict might exist.

&#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally I like direct quoting whenever possible. I find it's much more helpful to read the text as it was writen.Wjhonson (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Need help on application of WP:REDFLAG
There has been on ongoing dispute over the application of the "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" on the talk page of the permanently contentious article Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States. I would greatly appreciate it if a couple of editors who are very familiar with our verifiability policy and its application could help on this. Don't worry I'm only interested in a comment on how the "exceptional claims" policy should be applied, not in any help on the specifics of the article content.

An RfC was filed about this issue and can be found here (unfortunately most of the comments have come from people involved in the article). If someone wants to comment over there great, but I'll paste my initial description of the dispute on this page. It basically involves an editor named Raggz on one side and several editors (including myself) on another: (following excerpted from the article talk page, a specific example is used to illustrate the debate, but again I'm interested only in the general principle)


 * User:Raggz has invoked this policy (WP:REDFLAG) dozens of times to argue that a particular source should be deleted. He argues that if a claim made in a source is "exceptional" as defined by one or more editors (regardless of whether or not the source is reliable by our standards) then there must be what Raggz terms a "mainstream media echo" of the claim in question. For example, Marjorie Cohn made a claim in an article in an academic journal (see this section of the talk page) that US financial support for Israel was "state-supported terrorism." Raggz has asserted that this is an "exceptional" claim which must therefore be "echoed" in the "mainstream media." Since no one has provided a mainstream media source echoing this claim it should be removed.


 * Several others - certainly including myself - have strongly disagreed. I have argued that Raggz is misreading WP:REDFLAG which involves, as the name suggests, "redflags" for sourcing problems. This section of WP:V does not give carte blanche to remove a source that "raises a red flag." Rather it says that "certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim." The claim that the US supporting Israel is state-supported terrorism may or may not be "exceptional." But assuming it is exceptional, WP:REDFLAG would dictate that we examine the source carefully. When we see that it is an article in a respected journal by a scholar on the subject, and furthermore the current president of the National Lawyers Guild, we would probably conclude that the source is acceptable. The manner in which Raggz argues we use this section of WP:V (i.e. any source making an exceptional claim that is not "echoed" in the "mainstream media" must be removed) is simply a misreading of policy.

I think this is an accurate description of the dispute. If one or three folks could weigh in as to which of these general interpretations of the "exceptional claims" section is correct (or perhaps there are problems in both and the truth lies somewhere else) that would be much appreciated. The debate has probably taken up a couple hundred thousand kilobytes on the article talk page and we need help drawing it to a conclusion. I would welcome comments on the RfC linked to above but perhaps this is worth clarifying here on the policy talk page for future reference. Thanks in advance for anyone who can help on this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not going to address the dispute point by point, but I will say this: the following are always exceptional claims: anything that would defame; surprising medical or scientific breakthroughs; conspiracy theories; terrorism in the broadest sense; novel re-interpretations of history.


 * As an example, saying that Al-qaeda is responsible for 9/11 is an exceptional claim. That it is the generally accepted view does not make it any less exceptional; that the claim has considerable backing from multiple high-quality reliable sources means that we include it. Those who support alternate views generally can not point to such sources and so those claims do not carry the same weight and are not generally included.


 * The following illustrates the basic problem (taken from the talk page) “The most prominent example accuses the US of financing state terrorism through aid to Israel and committing it by bombing Afghanistan. (The same quote also mentions the Palestinian "national liberation struggle".) I'm not sure that too exceptional a claim, but even so, its from a well-known peer-reviewed journal, and written apparently by a professor of international law who's prominent in the field.”


 * 1)If you as an editor believe something, then you do not see it as being exceptional. That is almost universal. If I believe something that others do not, I simply can not see how others can be blind to the truth. It would likely not occur to me that my view might be challenged for cause.


 * 2)The view that if someone has academic credentials, then they are automatically a reliable source. It does not work that way.


 * The page covers allegations so the question is do those making any particular allegation have sufficient standing for the allegation to be encyclopedic. Anyone can allegations anything, so do the allegations raise to the level of being worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia; particularly for a highly controversial subject.


 * I am not sure how this was deemed to be outside of “Redflag”; any claim involving terrorism, assassination, treason, and other exceptional crimes would be covered. I am only saying that it is covered, I am not saying that the source is either reliable or unreliable.


 * Hope that helps. Brimba (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What a mess. That article needs serious pruning or rewriting.  I said my piece.  There are verifiability problems, original research, relevance, POV, balance isues, etc.  What else do you expect from an article accusing the United States of being a terrorist state?  (the title claims it is about the allegations, not the truth behind them, but the article takes off in a different direction)  Wikidemo (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brimba for weighing in here, though I'm not sure that your comment provided much clarity for me which probably stems from how I framed the issue. I'll try to cut right to the chase this time. What do we think of the assertion, which one editor on the "Allegations" page is making, that any source making an exceptional claim that is not "echoed" in the "mainstream media" should be removed? Is this an accurate interpretation of the "Redflag" policy or no? This is really the core question and I hope fairly straightforward.


 * Wikidemo as I said I really am not looking for comments about the article itself (which is quite well known, with a notorious history, and which of course has some real problems). I am on a policy talk page here asking about the application of a particular policy which I needed to do by referencing the article in question and the context in which debate over the policy came up. You don't seem to think there should even be such an article on that topic (you're certainly not alone in that regard!) which is fine but not really pertinent. If you want to come help out on the article itself, nominate it for AfD again, etc. then please do. I'm just here seeking answers to the questions posed above and then narrowed in my previous paragraph.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole mainstream part is from the bulleted section. That section job is to simply say “Hey, if you see this, it’s likely an exceptional claim”. The bullets themselves are not meant to define exceptional claims so much as to help flag them; although they do both the bullets are not all inclusive. Beyond that, I am going to punt for the moment, but I will get back to you with an answer, but it might take a day or two. That’s just the speed I work at. Maybe in the meantime someone else will be more forthcoming. Thanks  Brimba (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is helpful but I'll check back for more comments.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Bigtimepeace, I respect that you are asking a specific question about REDFLAG. My response is that the approach is misguided because you're missing (and now being dismissive over) the real problem with the article.  The content of the article (The US is a terrorist state) is inappropriate to Wikipedia, and it gets by only because the subject of the article (claims of US being a terrorist state) is permissible.  The problem with the sources is that they don't support the actual subject of the article.  Used for the proposition that the US actually is a terrorist state, they're exceptional and WP:POV.  Used for the proposition that the US is subject to a rhetorical attack by despots, extremists, terrorists, attention-seekers, and so on, the sources are WP:OR.  I'm not terribly impressed that the participants on both sides of this sorry article have come to terms and declared a truce whereby they simply skirmish here and there on sources, when the whole article is so inappropriate.  AfD and consensus clearly not going to help.  Perhaps RfC will, or people will eventually get tired enough of the embarrassment of an article to do something about it.Wikidemo (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have made it clear that you have a strong opinion about the article twice now on this page and also on the article talk page (I would point out that you are one of many with a strong opinion). I agreed with you previously that there were "real problems" with the article and invited you to help out over there, so I don't see how I'm being dismissive about said problems. But, for the third time, I'm not looking to talk about the article here but rather about a specific policy which applies to all articles (I would have loved to have brought up the policy only in a general sense in order to avoid precisely this kind of discussion, but thought it reasonable in the interest of transparency and clarity to bring up the context for my question). Wikidemo if you (or anyone else) wants to discuss the article it has a talk page with a lively, never-ending, and often rather pointless series of discussions which you are more than welcome to join. Here on this page I'm only looking for clarification on the "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" policy as described above. I'm here seeking advice from editors who are well versed in this policy, nothing more.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can say it fifty times if you want. You raise a policy question, I give a policy answer.  That's how policy discussions work.  I never mentioned deleting the article so telling me to take it to AfD, where six attempts have already failed, is telling me to get lost.  If you don't find my answer useful you're free to ignore it, but telling me (twice now) to go somewhere else with my comments is making it personal, something I see the article's defenders like to do on article talk page as well.Wikidemo (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi BTP, I agree with you that the "media echo" claim is wrong. It's true that this is an exceptional claim and that it needs a good source. Given that the source is a professor of law, and the publication an academic journal, the source is clearly reliable enough. I would say not ideal, because she doesn't seem to be a specialist in this area (at least not according to her WP article), but certainly good enough. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 10:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While I would have certainly worded it different, I concur with SV. I would think it is possibly the most problematic answer possible under the circumstances, but correct on its face. Problematic to the extent that it legitimizes (in particular Daniele Ganser as a reliable source for Gladio, the LIHOP-theory "Let It Happen On Purpose", the CIA’s involvement in the assignation of Aldo Moro and the attempted assignation of Pope John Paul II, etc.) certain views that where it not for the academic credentials of those promoting the view, such a view would not see the light of day within Wikipedia. In the case of Ganser a google search for “Daniele Ganser” gives 42 hits (some from talk pages). One of the things that the editors from Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States have in common is their support of Ganser’s theories, so I would expect to see that number rise. Thanks, Brimba (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I personally wouldn't use a professor of law as a source on terrorism unless she had credentials in that area. But if the material is in a relevant academic journal, there's a presumption in favor of it. Certainly, any material sourced to her should be attributed to her in the text &mdash; not "legal scholars argue," or anything like that. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This topic has also been discussed at WP:RS/N. Relata refero (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to SV and Brimba for your comments which are quite helpful, though I'll check to see if anyone else weighs in. I actually have no familiarity with Ganser and no opinion about him or his work other than he appears to qualify as a reliable source for at least some topics (I did not realize - or possibly forgot - that Ganser was involved in the 9/11 Truther movement, something for which I personally have a great deal of disdain).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)