Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 32

"Warning" signs on bio. pages and nomination for deletion
Have added a large number of and to a large groupe of players in the swedish top league, aka Allsvenskan, i myself is a major fan of Halmstads BK, also a team in Allsvenskan, and have made major contributions to that teams and players articles, i am trying to improve all articles regarding to Swedish top fotball, Allsvenskan and Superettan mainly, and was hopping that some user and IP numbers would help if i added this tags, this however havent happend and i feel that i know to little about some players to writte theire bios on my own. I also added this signs to the articles since i dont feel like they reach the demands on Wikipedia regarding bios. So now i wonder how long i should wait before i put up a bio. page for deletion or if there is something else i should do instead? --> Halmstad,  Talk to me  21:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles stand alone in terms of Verifiability
I have an issue concerning Verifiability that I could use additional input on at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#North_Sea_references. In short, I think an article should always be able to stand alone in terms of Verifiability, and leaving no doubt as to the article's sources. Many thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Context
I want to raise an issue that has been bothering me for some time. It is mentioned in RS but I think it needs to be spelled out, at least succinctly, here.

Many times an editor adds a statement with a complete citation. The statement and citation are accurate. But upon investigation I discover one of two things: (1) I can find the source - it is verifiable - and I discover that the quote, while accurate, is taken out of context and in one just reads a little more, discovers that the quote is then contradicted, or revealed to be a fringe POV. My point is that part ov "verification" is the availability of context. But this leads me to my bigger worry, (2) I don't have the book in my local library and when I try Google Books I find just the page that is quoted - quel surprise - and Google Books tells me that the next page is unavailable. This means I cannot check the context.

I think we have to have a statement that the reliability of a quote depends largely on the context, and verifiability means that one must be able to check not just that the quote itself is accurate, but must be able to check the context.

To be clear: I am NOT saying quotes from Google books are not verifiable and violate policy - my example is only meant to illustrate how I have come to realize the importance of this issue. I am sure I can get the full book through inter-library loan, and verify the context.

I think the main value of adding something to the policy, and it need not be long, just a few sentences as most, is to do what our policies largely do: help educate newbies about how to do quality research. We need to communicate that research is not just hunting for quotes taken out of context, but for evaluating quotes in their context ... that this is essential to "reliability" and the ability of others to do this is essential to verifiability."

If others agree, does someone want to propose an elegant way to word this?

Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How about:
 * Be very careful not to quote sources out of context. For example, suppose author A says that author B says the moon is made of green cheese, and author A goes on to dispute this view. In this case you cannot use author A to support the statement "The moon is made of green cheese." --Philcha (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that certainly makes the point, but perhaps a bit too broadly. How about:
 * Be very careful not to quote sources out of context. For example, a quote that may at first glance have a straightforward meaning may actually be using a particular word in an unusual or idiosyncratic way; you may need to read an entire article, chapter, or even book to understand how the author defines and uses an important term.  Or, for example, a quote may seem to be making a strong assertion, when in fact the author is being ironic; you may need to read the entire article or chapter for this to be clear.  Or, the author may go into some detail laying out an argument only to explain, later in the article or chapter, or even book, how and why the argument is wrong and rejected by most other scholars.  In these cases, it is not enough to provide a quote and simple citation.  You must explain the context, and an inclusive citation, or multiple citations, directing Wikipedia readers where to look to verify that the quote is being used properly.

Or something like this? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "You will often need to read an entire article, chapter, or even book to understand the author's true opinion" would be a useful addition to what I previously suggested.
 * However the rest is too legalistic in phrasing. I think "an inclusive citation, or multiple citations" is not going to be clear to inexperienced editors. How about:
 * Be very careful not to quote sources out of context. For example, suppose author A says that author B says the moon is made of green cheese, and author A goes on to dispute this view. In this case you cannot use author A to support the statement "The moon is made of green cheese."
 * You will often need to read an entire article, chapter, or even book to understand the author's true opinion. In cases like the "green chesse" example, you should cite both the chapters / pages where author A describes the theory he / she opposes (if that theory is relevant), and those where he / she explicitly states his / her own opinion.
 * (Ain't political correctness a drag?) --Philcha (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd like something less condescending, and more useful, than "the moon is made of green chsses." We have some ideas out, how about we see what other editors think, and maybe some others can offer proposals or help improve what we have laid out? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE also applies to the content of individual sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer Slrubenstein formulation of 15:45 rather than blue cheese.Mccready (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 This is an important issue, but to me it's an original research matter. Maybe something like "Remember that citations must accurately reflect the context of the source, and take care to avoid the original research of introducing a meaning not intended in the original source." . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that has a loophole: selective quotation doesn't add info, it misleadingly withs the additional info that the context gives. --Philcha (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, it would be better phrased as "presenting a meaning not intended..." . . dave souza, talk 18:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * introducing the concept of OR at this point will be confusing. NPOV and OR and V are inextricably linked, but it is clearer to use only one or another  at a time when discussing something in particular. The actual motivation for problems of this sort is most likely to be carelessness---and, as originally mentioned, in practice unavoidable given the availability of good print library resources to most editors, together with their general unwillingness to use what they do have access to.  Constructing one's own summary of an argument or the selection of just what to quote is inherently research, and necessarily involves one's own understanding of the matter and thus is to a certain degree unavoidable OR. Even the misquotation because of lack of NPOV is not necessarily conscious--we all have the tendency to find first what will support our position--I know that when browsing my own eyes will land to anything on a page I am hoping to see there--this is probably psychologically inherent in the operation of browsing. DGG (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well to put a slightly different complexion on it, I think it's a general problem with quotes. It's always best to read a source and then include the info. A simply statement to the effect that we should avoid over using quotations and that they should always "be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation." That's from WP:QUOTE. I agree context is important, maybe we should link to WP:QUOTE from here, and have a brief summary of what it says there? Alun (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is a problem with quotes. With respect to DGG, most Wikipedia editors seem not to have access to good libraries. From what I have seen at the articles on my watchlist, many people rely on google books or other on-line resources that often do not provide the entire text. This leads to out-of-context quoting.

I think it becomes a verifiability problem when the source provided is a link to an online text. Of course that link enables us to verify that the quote exists outside of Wikipedia. But such links often take us to incomplete sources where it is impossible to verify what the quote means. For example,k if a link takes me to a page at google books, and the preceding page is not available through google books and the subsequent page is unavailable through google books, it can be very difficult to verify that the quote has been used appropriately. I do not think this is a matter of original research, it is a matter of appropriate source-based research which must be the basis of all wikipedia articles. Right now, this matter is broached in WP:RS which is a content guideline; I think it needs to be addressed in a core policy. I agree that this problem has NPOV and NOR dimensions - our three core policies often intersect or have moments of overlap. I certainly would not object to someone raising this issue at NOR or NPOV!!! But I do think there is a verifiability issue. Put most simply: quotes are often being to made claims that are verifiable, but require more information, either other quotes or multiple page numbers, in order to verify the claim. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * DGG makes 2 good points:
 * NPOV and OR and V are inextricably linked. However rather than try to narrow any particular discussion artificially to one of these, I'd be quite happy for each of these policies to say in the simplest, plainest terms that selective use of sources is unacceptable.
 * I also agree that perfect observance of NPOV and NOR and V is impossible, becuase an encyclopedia inevitably summarises and selects. So what really matters is that we don't distort the source's meaning. So terms like "distort" and / or "misrepresent" must appear in the policy wording. --Philcha (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Slrubenstein is looking at the Google Books issue the wrong way. If the citation said nothing about Google Books and your local library can't get you a "dead tree" copy within a couple of months, you can't challenge the citation. In fact a lot of reviews WP:AGF on books. So Google Books gives sceptics such as the Slrubenstein presents a chance to see whether there is a real risk of midleadingly selective use. It's not Google Books that's the problem (in fact its' a help), it's selective use of sources. --Philcha (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What's happened to me is that I'll do a google search, and google books will pop up. The sections of google books that are available will only give a taste of the subject. But if I want to quote from google books it's easy to provide a link to the very page from the book I quote from. It's easily verified. Now if the quote is out of context even I don't know. BTW I never quote from google books, I don't see the point. If it's so easy for someone to check the quote, then they don't need it to be reproduced in Wikipdia, they can just follow the link to google books and read it there. I agree that we can use words like distort and misrepresent when it comes to quotes, but I also think we need to say "unintentionally" distort or misrepresent. If the policy acknowledges that many online sources are inclmplete, and that due to their incompleteness it may not be possible to get the full meaning of the author, then at least we're being fair and WP:AGF. Alun (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) My point was only an example. But Google Books is often a problem since it often provides only portions of a source, in those cases it invites misleading selective use. And providing the citation to Google Books does not help because we get the citation for the page the quotation came from, but not the citation to those pages that make clear what the quoted passage means (because those pages are often not available through Google Books). But this is only an example. I have never suggested specifying "Google Books" in any edit to this policy. My point is that in adding a quote and a citation of the source, we need to be able to verify not only that the quote appears in the source, but that the quote is being used consistent with that of the source. To verify this, we may need to know not only the page the quote comes from, but other pages that provide the necessary context for the quote. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If Google books - or any text available to an editor does not provide enough text so that the editor can understand the authors intention in the quote ... that is, if a good-faith editor cannot be sure s/he is not taking the quote out of context, s/he just shouldn't do it ... to do so would be to make what is in effect a hard to verify claim. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No harder than citing a book that's not avaiable online. --Philcha (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. If you have the entire book in front of you, rather than a fragment (it doesn't matter whether the whole book is on-line or paper, and it doesn't matter whether the fragment is on-line or paper) it is easier to see the context for the quote - and provide a complete citation. That is my main point. That Google Books usually provides people with fragments, and lending-libraries usually provide people with entire books, is a secondary point. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Context of a source is more than just relevant, it's central to whether the source actually supports what it's being provided for. A change along the lines Slrubenstein suggests make a lot of sense. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd support that change too, and Slrubenstein's wording, except perhaps a little tighter, and also probably minus the point about idiosyncratic word use, because that's more to do with basic comprehension than context. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest our eventual wording be positive--we should, for example, talk about the need to  make sure that quotes are in context, not that we forbid their being out of context. this is meant to be a guide o good editing, not a weapon. DGG (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's say what WP:QUOTE says about context, and link there. Alun (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be very happy if Slim Virgin, DGG, and Alun crafted wording they felt appropriate and useful; I appreciate their suggstions and would like to see a concrete proposal .... Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also support Slrubenstein's proposed change, along with SlimVirgin, DGG and Alun's suggested modifications; context is everything. Dreadstar  †  17:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So here's a suggestion. Currently the Burden of evidence section of the policy states: "The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article." Then there's a footnote I suggest that we move the footnote to the main body of the text, and add a further two sentences from WP:QUOTE: "Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation." We also link to WP:QUOTE at the head of the section. So we end up with:


 * For how to write citations, see Citing sources

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference. Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books. How does that sound? On a different note I also noticed that WP:QUOTE is an essay, I wonder if it should be a guideline? It makes sense to me that we have a proper guideline for quotations. Alun (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

. A similar formulation appeared on June 5, 2007:  On June 26, 2007 the WP:BURDEN language in the template was changed to say:   (emphasis mine). From then until now it has persisted with versions of that language, with no one apparently commenting or showing they noticed the change. This language reverses the burden set forth in the policy. Stating that unverifiable material may be challenged and removed requires anyone removing material to show it is unverifiable first; that is, that it cannot be verified. The policy explicitly stands for the opposite proposition, i.e., that unsourced (unverified) material that is challenged may be removed; the burden is on the person seeking to add challenged material, not on the person removing it. I raised this concern at the template's talk page seeking to change unverifiable to unverified and have received opposition mainly from one user. Another objects mainly to the use of any of the "v" words, and given that long-existing prior versions, and the related template refimprove use unsourced, that is the word I am proposing be restored. I probably should have come here first rather than the template's talk page and subsequnelty the village pump where few commented (and await a charge of forum shopping) but I thought what I was broaching was obvious. I changed the template earlier tonight, and was quickly reverted. I'm fairly frustrated because this seems so clear cut to me. Well, maybe it's not. I certainly have had many discussions with users convinced they were right but bucking the community. So I am here asking that more than a few of you weigh in. I'm getting nowhere on my own. If consensus is really against me, I'll shut up and move along but not enough people have commented to convince me of that. Note that this is not a trivial issue. Many of our users are informed more about policies by templates appearing in the article space that link to those policies, than from anywhere else. On that note, this template is transcluded in 127,664 articles, and all of those templates say material must be unverifiable before it can be removed. So again, please visit the template's talk page, whether it's to agree with me, shoot me down, or propose a compromise.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Circular references
There's a brief note to avoid references that cite WP as their source, but I'm not sure that's an adequate warning against the problem of circular references. For example, a newspaper article could be written based on an WP article that has unverifiable and perhaps incorrect information in it. Then the newspaper article gets cited as a source for that same WP article. Should there be more warning about that, or is there more warning about that somewhere else that I missed?Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure we can give a stronger warning... We say that, when we know that a source has pulled its information from us, we should avoid that source. Yes, concievably a source could pull its information from Wikipedia, and not actually cite us or say something like "according to Wikipedia"... But, in that situation, how do we determine that the source actually did pull its information from us?  I think what we have is the best we can do. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that there's not much we can do about a source that used WP without saying so. My concern with the wording that is there now,
 * In addition, information that is cited to Wikipedia by other sources should be avoided. However, the Wikipedia article being cited may contain reliable sources that can be checked and used (see: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT).

is that it doesn't explicitly mention the hazard of circularity, and that it's under the heading of WP mirror sites, and so does not provide a sufficiently explicit or prominent warning about the circularity hazard.Ccrrccrr (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Clarification on Self-Published sources
If a person is part of an organization, and the organization publishes information written by said individual, is the publication consider a self-published source?--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A definitve answer will depend on the organization, and what the exact relationship between the person and the org... but in very general terms, and yes. Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to get some one to review the debates about Aset Ka and 'Asetian Bible' in the Talk:Vampire_lifestyle and Talk:Ankh discussions? I assert that inclusion of information pertaining to Aset ka citing the the 'Asetian Bible'is irrelevant because the 'Asetian Bible' is self-published, original research and an unreliable source. I reason this because the author, a member of the organization, has not been established as an expert within the fields relevant to the articles by third party publications.  Additionally, there doubts about Aset Ka even being a legitimate organization which have not been addressed.


 * The counter arguments are attempting to compare this to the Pope releasing a book through the Vatican press or a university professor publishing a book through a university press. But I understand those cases to be reliable sources because of their expertise in their fields having been previously established via third party publications, such as peer review journals.  However, perhaps I don't have a full understanding of what is intended by the no self publication policy when it comes to making references about a sub-culture or self-references to an organization.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would indeed call it self-published, and as such it has limited reliability... it is reliable for statements as to the views and opinions of the author and the organization that published it, but not for a general statements of fact. Whether that opinion is note worthy in the context of your article is another issue, and falls under the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV.  That is a determination that needs to be made at the article level through consensus.  I doubt anyone here knows enough about the topic to say whether the information should be included or not. (It is also not within the scope of this Policy).
 * As to whether it is original research (OR)... Please read WP:NOR again. The ban on OR is not focussed on whether our sources present original research (most sources do that, especially articles presented in accademic journals - which we consider highly reliable), but on what we write here in Wikipedia.  In other words, WP:NOR tells us not to add our own original thoughts about the topic, but we can report on the original ideas and research that appear in published sources.  Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * thank you for the clarification.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Third-party sources, again
On February 15, 2009, Equazcion changed the sentence: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." to "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

I noticed this alteration recently and removed the sentence, saying "WP:N is not a policy." Then Wikidemon reverted me, saying "too bold - WP:N derives from this, not the other way around."

That claim is false. WP:N does not derive from that sentence, nor this policy page. As far as I can tell, WP:N derives from people voting delete in VFDs, saying "non-notable." The WP:GNG in WP:N derives in part from this summary of the subject-specific notability guidelines at the time. The addition of "third-party" to that topic sentence in WP:V came about because of this thread in these talkpage archives, started on April 25, 2006 by a user who was having an editwar on an article (and who wrote that summary in WP:N) and since at the time this policy said "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The addition of "third-party" to the topic sentence led to this thread from December 2006 started by Jguk. The original sentence, "If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic.", originated with this edit by Jguk on January 31, 2006. I don't know why an article content policy is talking about topics, but okay...

I oppose any and all attempts to shoehorn Notability into this policy. The first sentence says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..." Verifiability is different than verifiability by third parties. I oppose the change by Robert A West as well as the change by Equazcion. I started a thread about this sentence over a year ago on January 31, 2008, after my removal of it was reverted, which led to further edits. A source can be reputable without being "third-party." A source can be reliable without being "third-party." Information can be verifiable without "significant coverage of a topic" by third parties. I think the sentence "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" needs to be removed from this policy until it has consensus to be in this policy. --Pixelface (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The old version "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." is better, and this is just instruction creep.  Notability - used in AfD's, and Verifiability - used in all articles, are  very different concepts and should be kept separate, and the former should remain a guideline without its essential parts put into policy.John Z (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved the sentence to OR it is currently duplicated in OR because when I moved it the consensus was that it needed to be retained here. Personally I think the sentence is better off in the OR policy, but if it is to remain here then how about replacing "third party" with "reliable" and linking reliable sources to the section of that name? BTW any change here should be reflected in the OR policy page--PBS (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The "third party" indication needs to be clearly and specifically called out. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think neither version of the sentence belongs here, or in WP:OR. Restricting the articles we permit to those that are the subject of third-party sources only is a job for WP:N and its subsidiary guidelines, not policy. It is not an issue of verifiability or OR if the sources for a statement are not independent, as long as they are reliable. Therefore, I don't see why this should change simply because we're talking about an entire article. I definitely support removing this sentence in its entirety, or at least removing the reference to third-party sources from it (i.e., we could state that if a subject has no available reliable sources we should not have an article on it). JulesH (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is long-standing policy and we shouldn't change it without a serious consensus to do so. That goes for people who are trying to strengthen it to the point that it resembles WP:N, and for people who want to remove it altogether. It works exactly as it should. Randomran (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to change it back to the pre-February 15 version if no one minds i.e. to "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The recent addition that the source must also "featur[e] significant coverage" of the topic raises the bar somewhat. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the change; we don't need trivial sources, we need solid ones; i.e. significant coverage. Google can dredge up trivial shite in milliseconds. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "third-party" is not defined, and badly used on this page. The worst phrase is "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons..." since this means that police and court web sites cannot be used as proof that a living person was accused, convicted, or aquitted of a crime, since the web site is self-published and not a third party. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the phrase "third party" isn't needed in that sentence. But police and court websites are not self-published. Self-published means published by one person usually, or one very small unprofessional group. Court and police websites are primary sources, but not self-published ones. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I reject SlimVirgin's definition of self-published. A publication by the same legal or natural person as the author (which can also be a legal or natural person) is self-published. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the definition we've always used, and it's the definition the policies rely on. The New York Times would be self-published in certain circumstances according to your definition. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course some of the material in the New York times is self-published. All the stuff encouraging readers to subscribe, the masthead, etc. Also, I reject all definitions that are relied upon in talk page discussions but not included in the policy or guideline (this rejection is equally applicable to all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not just this one). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It certainly used to include that definition.


 * According to you, if the New York Times were engaged in litigation against a living person, we could not use it as a source of information about that litigation, because it would be a self-published source. That is obviously not correct. It would be a primary source, not a self-published one. A self-published source is when you pay someone to print your novel for you, or when I create a blog. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability
The discussion above seems to clearly indicate that there is no consensus for the change which added "significant coverage" to the verifiability policy. This is an attempt to elevate the notability guideline to policy status, something which clearly has no consensus. It would also potentially result in thousands of articles for which there is consensus that they should remain (for example, small villages or small-market licensed radio stations), suddenly violating policy. DHowell (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I think that the point there is to exclude "my self-help group is listed in the 'meetings' section of the local newspaper" kinds of claims to fame.  It's not enough for the source to mention the person, place or thing in passing:  it needs to say something significant about it.  You can't write much of an article if your sources really only say, "AA meeting daily, Smallville Church Hall, 6:00 p.m." Smallville itself, however, even if it is quite tiny, can probably produce sources that do more than assert its existence.
 * And, well -- if the best we can produce is truly just "____ exists", then we honestly don't need to have an article about it right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * depending on what it is, it may be a very good idea to produce the article, so people can add to it--if its one of the things which are overwhelmingly likely to be notable. The use of sources has to be judged by reasonable people--there is no completely reliable or unreliable source, 1st person or not. DGG (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * True... but I think the point behind saying that the sources should have significant coverage of the topic is to guide that decision.
 * It's not a question of the source's reliability: it's a question of how much of an article you can source with what you've got.  A newspaper announcement about a daily AA meeting is likely to be highly accurate.  It is an independent, third-party, fact-checked publication.  However, that wholly reliable source is not sufficient for you to write even a three-sentence stub about the meeting.  The mere fact that a tiny source exists, even if it is truly reliable source and is reporting uncontested facts, does not mean that we should have, or even that we can have, a full article on that subject.  This is why the source needs to do more than assert the existence of an thing; it must say enough about the subject to let us write an article.  If no sources do more than assert its existence, then Wikipedia simply does not need an article on that subject (yet:  if new sources appear, then we re-evaluate the situation).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: DHowell's preferred version says, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
 * So I've got one "reliable, third-party source" about the Smallville AA meeting. According to this, there is no barrier to me creating an article on Smallville AA meeting:  the sole requirement is the existence of any reliable, third-party source.  The entire sourced contents of the article, by the way, will be:  "There is an AA meeting daily at the Smallville Church Hall at 6:00 p.m."
 * The previous version of this policy said that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
 * Under this approach, I've got a source, but it doesn't really count as "significant coverage", so I would conclude Wikipedia probably doesn't want an article on my local AA meeting.
 * IMO, the question at hand is whether we really want articles based on meeting announcements and other trivial mentions of products, organizations, and people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The barrier in this case is notability, a guideline, not verifiability. But, there is even already a policy barrier in this case: Wikipedia is not a directory for the schedules of local group meetings. This is verifiable information that wouldn't be appropriate in Smallville, Alcoholics Anonymous, or even a Smallville Church article, let alone having its own article. DHowell (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And the harm you perceive from saying here that Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on subjects for which no significant coverage in reliable sources is... what? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * People will wikilawyer over the meaning of "significant coverage," especially if they want to keep the article out because of POV. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some articles that should be kept despite no source having significant coverage of them. Consider, for instance, Cnebba. A minor historical article on a figure of no particular importance, except that he was a King of Mercia, a topic for which there is consensus we should have articles on all known members of.  Yet all any available sources give about him is a simple mention in the genealogy of more important Kings.  So here is an article for which there is no significant coverage in reliable sources, and according to the phrasing you're arguing for must be deleted.  All right, that phrasing can be used at WP:N because that's a guideline and we understand there are clear exceptions in some cases, but it absolutely should not be used here, because this is a policy and should be as close to absolute as possible. JulesH (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's not good enough to have that single-sentence stub (entire contents: "Cnebba was the grandfather of Creoda of Mercia and the son of Icel. Cnebba's son was Cynewald.") redirect to Kings of Mercia family tree, which includes all of that information, plus the dates of his reign?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article on Cnebba needs a citation... At this point it does not even cite a geneology. How do I know the article isn't a hoax? (I am not arguing that it is... I am simply saying that, without a source, I have know way to know if it is or isn't). Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification about Summary Style
I have a question regarding summary style and this policy. In one case on the "Sabbath" page, I tagged the page with unreferenced since it doesn't have a single reference, but another user reverted and stated that summary style articles don't need references since the sub-articles have the references. This is not how I read WP:V or WP:SS. First of all WP:SS a guideline and not a policy and thus cannot overrule the WP:V policy; secondly the summary style guideline states that it's a good way to organize references, further reading and external link sections, not to get rid of them. It also states that not all references for the subtopic are needed in the main article, but that doesn't mean that none are needed. It then points back to the WP:V policy. I wanted to get some clarification if WP:SS articles need references or don't need them. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow... that is the first time I have ever seen an article that is made up entirely of summary style paragraphs linking to other articles. Technically, the editor who removed the tag is correct... the information is cited elsewhere.  However, that is what you get when you look at the letter of the policy instead of its intent.  The intent is that every article should have at least a few references.  So, I agree with you that the main "Sabbath" article should have at least a few citations.
 * For one thing, can we be sure that every statement made at the main "Sabbath" is referenced at the linked sub-articles. If not, those unreferenced statements would need citation.
 * Perhaps the better way to deal with this is through a few well chosen cn tags (with an edit summary that note that, a) the information isn't cited at the sub article either or b) you think it is worth referencing again in the main article) rather than with a unreferenced tag. Blueboar (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup... I checked and it is as I thought... a lot of the linked sub-articles are under-referenced, and don't actually give references for the material that is summarized at the "Sabbath" overview article. This is a not uncommon flaw with the argument that summary style exempts you from the need to give sources. Blueboar (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll go ahead and add cn tags. However, I think that if policy allows for an exemption of SS article from being referenced, there are a couple major problems: (1) The daughter articles may change over time, while the main article does not and cause inconsistencies; if the main article needed to be referenced then these inconsistencies could be tracked and tagged better. (2) we don't allow other Wikipedia articles to serve as references for other pages; allowing summary style articles do so can be seen as hypocritical. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the tag on the article... there are enough statements that need citations and are not cited elsewhere that the article needs to be tripple checked and properly sourced. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, as the (an) article maintainer, I had intended to get around to the synchronization issues with the subarticles after I was comfortable that the main article was sufficiently ready. And yes, I was scraping for this article to become something of a model of good summary style, at some point in the future .... But suffice that (eventually) all summary statements will be synched to subarticles, and all challenged statements will be referenced. (I'm not highly prioritizing the referencing of unchallenged statements that have appeared elsewhere in WP for sufficient time, as they have the default of silent consensus until they are challenged.) Thank you for your attention. JJB 03:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There really isn't an exception for summary-style articles. Each page has to be referenced in its own right. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 11:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

On sources that are acceptable
It says that forums are not accepted, but in some cases they should be, for example official announcements by Game Masters--Legeres (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a common complaint. But no.  If an official announcement is worth noting it will be repeated elsewhere (in sources that are reliable). Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * this is where i'm confused, how is an official announcement not reliable?--Legeres (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the most obvious problem with most forums is that they are annonamous. There is no way to verify that something is an official announcement. How do we know that the person posting the announcement is who they say they are... how do we know if he/she is actually the Game Master? 19:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Forums are acceptable sources in the unusual circumstance that we can be sure that the poster is an expert in the subject of the post, per the general rules at WP:SPS. I would say that if the forum is hosted on a domain under the control of such a person and the poster claims to be that person, this is the case. I think this may include Legeres's situation. Also, if such a person identifies the account they post using in a non-psuedonymous location (e.g. on a personal weblog where their identity is well established), we can also track them back and be confident of the validity of the identification. But there must be a reason to believe that the poster is somebody who can speak with authority, and that they claim to be such a person is not enough. JulesH (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * well let's use DragonRealms as an example, the names of the GMs of this specific forum are in red, normal users are either blue or black. Therefore all the official announcements would have a name in red, identifying the source as a GM.--Legeres (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To go into further detail, about the example, people aren't allowed to choose names similar to the GM names, if they manage to come close they are usually forced to changed their name. Even if not forced into a name change, the name itself will still be black color, as forum users have no options to change name color.--Legeres (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we may need to examine "editorial controle"... ie who determines whether a user is a GM (and thus posts in red)? and how do they determine this? Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * i don't understand what your asking, if you want external links to the forum i can give them(DragonRealms forum policy DragonRealms forums), if you want to know how people become gms they have to apply for the position. If you want to post something for yourselves (dragonrealms forums won't work because you have to get past the 30day trial and the first payment before you can post) you might try Hero's Journey forums same type, same company, but anyone that signs up can post(unless you just want to browse, anyone can browse).--Legeres (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so if you want to become a GM, you have to apply. My question is, who approves/rejects the application? Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know on that one, you'd might have to contact them to find out. I did manage to dig through their site to find the DragonRealms Staff & Employment section. --Legeres (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I got the answer now, I asked in the forums, they said Product Managers approve or deny applications and Solomon has to sign off on them as well, he said you could ask him to verify it if you want, here's his e-mail address SIMU-SOLOMON@play.net and these are the posts with the responses if you want to see those  --Legeres (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK... that is good. It means that postings from GMs are verifiable as being from a GM... and that they have some degree of "offical" authority from the website. Two more questions: What exactly do GMs do? and What sort of "official" information do they put in their postings? Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It varies depending what the GMs duty is, in DragonRealms they are split between various systems, races and guilds, among other things. Here's a wiki link: elanthipedia, that tells some types and the description of said types, although if necessary, since I know some don't consider wiki's dependable, I'll go into more detail if requested, provided you don't want to use the link.--Legeres (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Google translate reliable source, esp for libelous statement in BLP??
If not, this should be made clear in the text here Verifiability. First time I brought this issue up no one replied in WP:BLP noticeboard. Maybe it needs clarification here?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you asking whether Google computerized translations should be used as sources? No, I would say not, and if there's something you believe is truly libelous in an article, it should probably be removed, unless the source is extremely reliable and mainstream; and even with such a source, please exercise caution. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The source is a local paper. Since a Yahoo translation was added and a German speaker looked at it, other editors want to keep it. That's why I think the language needs to be a bit clearer here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop throwing the phrase "third-party" about carelessly
Editors of this policy seem to like to stick the phrase "third-party" into nearly every sentence. This is wrong. Reliable organizations can and do produce reliable publications about matters they are involved in. For example, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation is a reliable source concerning hunting regulations, even though they are a first party. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable organizations, experts, and people intimately associated with a topic that publish their own material are exceptions to the rule and not part of the rule (excepting of course that part that describes the exceptions). The entire rest of the policy does not need to be watered down because of it. I should also note that edit warring over your changes to a policy is pretty bad form. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Third party" is a distinct concept from "self-pubished". The most relevant definition at Merriam-Webster Online is "a person other than the principals &lt;a third party to a divorce proceeding&gt;&lt;insurance against injury to third parties&gt;". In the context of this policy, a better term would be disinterested party, that is, a party who has no stake in the outcome of a discussion, project, mission, campaign, etc. "Self-published" means published by the author; it's easy in the case of a natural person, but tricky in the case of a corporate author. For example, are IEEE standards self-published? In any case, it is perfectly possible for a self-publisher to be a third-party. If I were to express my opinion on my website about what my favorite Hubble Space Telescope image is, the opinion would be self-published and third-party. Hubble Space Telescope images published by NASA are first-party and possibly self-published. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the point is that a source can be reliable without being a third-party. "Verifiable" does not mean "published by a third-party." --Pixelface (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think instead of 'disinterested', we usually choose 'independent'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unduly selfserving
Clarification requested for WP:SELFPUB: what exactly does the first exclusion criterion for self-published sources mean in relation to BLPs? The policy says such sources can be used as long as "the material is not unduly self-serving". Does this exclude citing a subject's political views from (a) articles published by them on third-party websites (b) on their own website? or even (c) from published interviews? I always thought it meant excluding spammy advertorial, particularly where there are WP:COI issues by editors; if it means a whole lot more than that then it really could do with amending for clarity. Rd232 talk 01:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think "unduly self-serving" is fairly self-explanatory. Can you give an example of where it might exclude citing someone's political views? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you tell me! From your question I deduce a certain puzzlement, which I share. I'm not sure I can do any better than point you to the debate that prompted my question here: No original research/noticeboard. Both jayg and THF (most clearly THF) have advanced positions that made me want clarification of the policy. NB the controversy of that article, and the other related issues (accusations of OR/WP:SYNTH) makes me hesitant to link to it, but I don't see an alternative. The problem is that dispute about the degree and nature of quotation from the subject has shaded into dispute about whether it is valid to quote the subject at all. I just want to clarify the basic point here - the question I asked - and not get tangled up in the specifics of that content dispute. So to restate: ignoring degree and nature of quotation (a separate issue) is it at all permissible to quote a subject's self-published sources for their political views, or is that generically excluded as "unduly self-serving"? NB if you're tempted to comment on the other issues please do so elsewhere, eg Talk:Gilad Atzmon. Rd232 talk 05:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course it's fine to cite the subject directly for the subject's own views on a political issue -- assuming that the subject's political views are relevant to the article. You wouldn't cite a self-published random blogger for a major issue, like tax reform (because we just don't care what some random blogger says about tax reform).  But if you're writing a bio, and the person is known for some sort of political activity (such as celebrities involved in AIDS awareness), then you can certainly quote the person's own self-published statements instead of, say, a newspaper's summary of those statements.
 * I think that what we really want to avoid is promoting someone's self-published views in a context where their self-published views are truly unimportant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes
People are making a lot of changes, and some of them are unnecessarily wordy, so I've reverted. Can we discuss them here first, and decide what the benefit of adding them is? Diff here. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 04:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a problem about a conflicting edit--Lawrencekhoo and I both edited moved a section of text at the same time (00:26, 25 March 2009), so that is part of the problem. Anyway, I want to argue strongly for some sort clarification that audio and video sources count as "published". See the discussion above for more detailFixer1234 (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss what counts as "published", you might consider computer programs as well. For example, if I claim that the northern hemisphere spring equinox for the year 1800 occured on  March 20 at 20:12 UT, based on the Multi-Year Computer Almanac published by the United States Naval Observatory, is that acceptable? After all, the program does not contain any static text that says that is so; you have to request that it calculate the equinox, and it will then do the calculation on-the-fly. --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We have a tradition of trying to keep this policy tightly worded so that people actually read it. With that in mind, I can't see the benefit of:


 * "Reliable sources may be print-only, electronic-only or be available in both print and electronic formats. While the term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, reliable sources are not limited to text materials. Audio, video, and multimedia sources that have been broadcast, distributed, or archived may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered a reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable organization and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet."


 * Lots of unnecessary words (e.g. RS can be A only, or B only, or both). Also, what is the "archived" issue -- first we say "or," then we say they must have been archived. So it would have to be rewritten, but I wonder why we need it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixer, yes, audio and video do count as published/broadcast, yes of course. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, if I've caused trouble. I agree that it should be obvious that audio and video can be reliable sources, but if you refer to the "Definition of Published" section above you'll see that the changes were motivated by an actual misunderstanding.  For that matter, if you refer to the Wikipedia page on publishing, you'll see that audio and video aren't included in the common definition of the term.  This policy ought to be rewritten in some way to account for that.  The archived issue arises because I've sloppily used archived in two senses.  In the first, I'm referring to source (e.g. a lecture) that was recorded but not broadcast by a reputable organization (e.g. a university).  If this were archived at the university library, we would probably consider it reliable even though it had never been broadcast.  In the second incidence of "archived", I was attempting to address concerns WhatamIdoing expressed above.  See that conversation for more detail.  Fixer1234 (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We deliberately don't have a definition of published in this policy, because it gets too tangled. The university lecture would have to have been broadcast (published) before it could be used as a source: recording and archiving wouldn't be enough. That would be like writing something and filing it. We can add to the policy that material that has been broadcast is published too, but one or two words would be enough, and really not needed because it's self-evident. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For my own knowledge, does this mean that doctoral dissertations are not "published" according to Wikipedia policy? Dissertations (to my knowledge) often end up in only one library. Fixer1234 (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If they're available to the public, they count as published for our purposes, but it's a stretch, and for the most part we wouldn't want to use a PhD thesis as a source, simply because better sources are usually available. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, although the literature review in a thesis is reviewed by the committee, the data itself may not be of publishable quality and preliminary findings can be reported. I would never cite my own thesis, so I wouldn't recommend anybody else to do so! Tim Vickers (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy on integration of policies
A discussion here deals with the question of whether the editing policy should recommend that editors remove material that "clearly fails" our content policies. Input from editors with more experience of policy than I have would be appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Citing sources that cite Wikipedia
The revert clobbered an edit to "Wikipedia and sources that mirror (or cite) Wikipedia" which I think is independent of the controversy about the multimedia stuff, so I'm going to restore that. It was discussed on talk previously (archive 32), at least on concept, though the specific wording was not. If there are specific issues with the concept or the wording please explain (perhaps start a new topic here).Ccrrccrr (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that your addition is really needed... The section already warns people not to use sources that pull information from Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's my reasoning. First, the title of the section: WP and sites that mirror WP.  That does not include sites that cite WP.  So that issue could be missed in a scan of headings that might be relevant to a particular situation.  So I'd like to at least keep that heading.


 * Second, the statement in there now about avoiding using articles that cite WP might refer to articles that cite other WP articles. The statement "However, the Wikipedia article being cited may contain reliable sources that can be checked and used" sounds like that to me.  Furthermore, there is no explicit warning about the problem of circularity, either here or in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.


 * There has been public criticism of WP for this issue (for example see ), so I think it's important that it be addressed somewhere. If this page is not the right place, is there a better place? Ccrrccrr (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have pondered this problem (and mentioned it on Village Pump see Village pump (policy)/Archive 50 (July 2008)) particularly when the site does not credit Wikipedia but just copies some facts. I think what we need is a template to add to the top of the talk page warning other editors that this has been done with a history version of the Wikipedia article which was copied. If the template were to include a category then there would also be a central repository. It is no use putting it into a citation as usually it that citation will be deleted. --PBS (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

See also --PBS (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 11Village pump (assistance)/Archive_7 February 2008
 * Village pump (policy)/Archive 41 February 2008


 * And Notable citation won't do? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have tweeked the text... to:
 * Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on other websites that mirror Wikipedia content, may not be used as sources. This includes information that is copied from or is cited to Wikipedia by other sources (as citing these sources sets up a circular reference). In cases where a Wikipedia article is cited, that Wikipedia article may contain reliable sources that can be checked and used (see: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT).
 * Does this address your concerns, Ccrrccrr? Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a substantial step towards addressing this. I'm not entirely happy with this (or the improved version from SlimVirgin).  "This includes" isn't right, because articles that cite WP are very different from sites that mirror WP. Also, the heading has "mirror or copy" doesn't seem right because "copy" sounds to me like a synonym for mirror.  I guess you opted not to use "mirror cr cite" as I originally said because you want to include cases in which WP material was used but not cited?


 * Here's the text as I had edited it before, with the heading Wikipedia and sources that mirror or cite Wikipedia. Now that the discussion is going, I'd like to encourage people to articulate objections to this text.
 * Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on other websites that mirror Wikipedia content, may not be used as sources. In addition, information that is cited to Wikipedia by other sources should not be used. However, the Wikipedia article being cited may contain reliable sources that can be checked and used (see: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). It is particularly important to avoid adding apparent support for information already in Wikipedia by citing a source that obtained the information from the same Wikipedia article, as this can set up a system of circular references that seem to support false information. 

The way the policy reads now, it makes it sound as if a source that cites a few isolated statements in Wikipedia but is written by an expert, published by a reliable publisher, and supported with a multitude of citations to reliable sources may not be used at all because of the citations to Wikipedia. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite correct... but certainly any information that came from (or cite) Wikipedia can not be used.
 * Let's be honest here, it is highly unlikely that a website written by an expert, published by a reliable publisher, and supported with a multitude of citations to reliable sources would cite Wikipedia in the first place (you have to admit that we don't have the best reputation out there). Oh, an expert might look at Wikipedia for bibliographic information, but that would be about it.  Any expert worth his salt would check the sources Wikipedia uses and cite them.  We want our editors to do the same when they come across information that is drawn from a wikipedia article. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Newspaper articles do cite WP and are considered reliable sources.Ccrrccrr (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Newpapers may be reliable sources... but I would not call them "expert" sources (which was the premise of Jc3s5h's concern). And any information a Newspaper might take from Wikipedia should not be used IN Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a big problem in BLP where as soon as someone noteworthy criticize Israel, pro-Israel partisans rush in and quote everything negative sounding they've said and any accusations of antisemitism etc (which quickly arise on partisan blogs which they are quoted in news stories.) Two days later media end up on the page and they end up quoting all this bad stuff. I have spent endless hours on this sort of thing the last two weeks in the Gilad Atzmon and Charles W. Freeman, Jr,. articles where both individuals have had a surge of worldwide attention in last 3 months. The answer of course is strict enforcement of WP:RS, NPOV and WP:Coatrack but it can be an incredible fight.  That's why the only place I support Flagged revisions is BLP, where editors who allow these things to happen will be quickly canned from editing rights. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Carol, I am not sure if what you are talking about relates to what we are discussing here (which is the problem of circular referencing, where Wikipedia cites a source that took its information from Wikipedia)... but (assuming it does relate in some way) does the current wording address your issue? Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have read it because was thinking back to some past economics talk page discussion where it looked like two reliable sources that did NOT cite wikipedia had gotten a couple of very abstruse economic sources from it. But that's not very provable, so the language above helpful! CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do here. When I edited the article, my edits got promptly reverted. But nobody has provided any specific criticism of the text I put in (in italics, midway through this topic). Meanwhile, other people's edits to the same section have stood for several days, despite my specific criticism of them that nobody has rebutted (just above the italics). Can I take the lack of criticism of my text, and the lack of rebuttal to my criticism as assent and go ahead an put back my text? Ccrrccrr (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I initially reverted your addition because I found the wording clunky, but I agree with the concept behind what you were trying to add. My subsequent edits to the section are an attempt to say the same thing in what I hope is better language... so, I think that your concerns have been addressed by my edits ... but if not, add your language back and we will work on it.  Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit changed the meaning of the policy. The way it read, I understood it as, ideally Wikipedia articles should not be used for citation within Wikipedia, however in case it happens to be used, it is OK if the cited article contains reliable sources. I have modified it to the original intended meaning. Jay (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Blueboar and Jay. I edited again, trying to make minimal changed needed to the text that was there to make it make sense and address my concerns.  It ended up a little longer but not as long as my first attempt.  Specific issues I tried to address:
 * "This includes" wasn't accurate. That began a sentence on a different type of problem.
 * "In such cases" did not clearly refer to any particular type of case, so I spelled that out. (I think it might have when it was first written, but it didn't anymore")
 * Ccrrccrr (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The current version works for me. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Section says (Wikipedia) articles may not be used as sources, but does not explain why. The reasons could be buried deep in archived discussions, but we would need to know what they were. Jay (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The reasoning is explained in a previous section of the policy... in WP:SPS... which tells us that open Wikis (which would include Wikipedia) are largely not acceptable. The only reason we caveat this statement with "largely" is to account for articles about a particular Wiki... and even there, sourcing to the wiki is quite limited. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do list-type articles need to be sourced?
I am currently having a disagreement with User: Gavia immer over the List of suicides article. The article, which lists hundreds of real-life people who committed suicide, is mostly unreferenced, with the exception of three citations. Gavia immer insists that "it is explicitly allowed to source it by adding a source in the linked article", and that most of those articles are indeed so sourced. This does not seem like a correct adherence to WP:V to me, since I would think that each article has to include sources for the information it contains. An implication of Gavia's position would be that any unsourced information about a person can be added to an article as long as the article is not about that particular person. And while I don't know if "most" of the linked articles are referenced, the first one I clicked on at random, that of Diane Arbus, was not sourced regarding her suicide, so I removed that bit of info. What do you think? Don't all article have to be sourced for the info they contain? Nightscream (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Short answer: Yes, list articles are not exempt from WP:V. Longer answer: It really depends on the nature of the list and how controvercial the list's theme is.  A List of townships in Essex County, New York probably does not need citation for each entry.  A List of people accused of Racism definitely would.  I would say that the List of suicides  article lies between these two extremes, but is closer to the "needs citations" end of the spectrum.
 * My advice... first see how serious the problem really is... go through the list and the associated articles... place a citation needed tag on any entries in the list where the associated article does not contain a citation for the fact of the subject being a suicide.  It may be that only a few entries need citation on the list... and if a lot of the entires are tagged, it will demonstrate clearly that there is indeed a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yikes... I took my own advice and started to go through the article... of the first 10 entries, over half of them did not have a citation for the person's suicide in the associated article (in fact, several of the articles were completely unsourced). I have posted on the list's talk page to highlight the problem. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Published
I think it would be helpful if we clarified what we mean by "published source". Specifically, I think we need to explicitly state that materials that are broadcast or that are in an audio or video format count as published sources. Some editors appear to be confused about this. This discussion is an example. One editor want to use an audio interview from the NPR program piano Jazz as a source. Another editor suggested this was a problem because the program wasn't "published". What do other people think about this?Fixer1234 (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a brief note on this to the "reliable sources" section. I hope this is a step in the right direction.Fixer1234 (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a useful clarification. It might be worth pointing out that we need an 'archive' copy of broadcast works, because it's not good enough to say "I heard it on the radio yesterday".  Someone needs to be able to verify at a later date that the radio show really did say whatever is claimed.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Proper citation will of course be needed.  We'll probably need to either edit existing pages on citation or create a page on citing media.  This link contains some helpful information about doing so.  Other thoughts?Fixer1234 (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just the citation that's needed: "yesterday's" broadcast has to exist somewhere "tomorrow".  So if the show is up on the radio station's website, then you're set.  If the radio station keeps its own archives, then you're okay.  But if it's an unrecorded/unarchived announcement, then you can't use it, even if you write down a full citation, because there will be absolutely no way for another editor to verify, at a later date, what was actually broadcast.
 * Additionally, I'm a bit concerned about misunderstandings from the existing text. A roundtable discussion in a classroom somewhere is not properly published, even if you record it.  I'm not sure how to fix the text, though.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To WhatamIdoing's concerns above. Sorry this is a bit lengthy.  Put briefly, my concern is that we don't put a higher level of scrutiny on A\V sources than we do on text sources.   (1)  You're correct that we need a way to verify sources.  Like text sources, A\V sources need to come from a reliable third-party.  This doesn't mean that they will be easily accessible.  An editor, for instance, might sight a rare print text source (let's say an issue from a 17th century newspaper) that is only available at a single private research library.  If the source is properly sighted and from a "reliable" source in the first place, we probably wouldn't question the source.  Likewise it possible that an editor would find a rare broadcast recording.  Materials from the early years of broadcast we not always officially archived by the broadcaster and recordings can be quite rare.  My only point is we need to be careful that we do not create the impression that one needs to link to a copy of the media in order to use it.   (2)  I'll take a look at the "roundtable" sentence.  I was primarily thinking about news programs that us a roundtable or panel format.  (Many local news radio stations have panel programs. National examples would include Washington Week and some segments of Meet the Press.)  However, I was also thinking about recorded panel sessions at universities.  You are correct that a student's private recording would not pass Wikipedia's reliability standards.  However, if a university were to record and archive a lecture or panel discussion, that would (being from a "respected third party") be considered "reliable", even though one might have to contact the university directly to obtain a copy.  Fixer1234 (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, I think we have the same overall goal. I would be just as unhappy about requiring a radio show's archive to be online as I would be unhappy about requiring a newspaper's archive to be online.  But a panel discussion at a university may not actually be 'published' in any meaningful sense.  Some will be, some (perhaps many) won't be.
 * To give you another way to think about this: a majority of US churches tape-record their services.  The doors are open to the public (unlike many university discussions), and copies are often available for free to anyone that expresses an interest.  But I wouldn't call the service properly published (not even "self-published").  Fundamentally, if you decide that four university employees talking about the importance of community service in front of a couple of dozen students is 'published' simply because they recorded it, then four church members talking about the the same subject in front of a couple hundred parishioners must also be considered 'published' when tape recorded.
 * For right now, I think we may want to concentrate on the obvious cases: a BBC radio show has always been considered 'published' for Wikipedia's purposes.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Perhaps, the notion of "published" used here goes back to  Wikipedia being a tertiary source.  From that point of view, I can understand excluding undistributed materials--even if they are produced by reliable organizations and persons.  That said, I would still like to see some small changes made to reflect the fact that distributed\broad A\V sources can be RS.  As it stands, the language of the article does not reflect this.  "Reliable sources may be print-only, electronic-only or be available in both print and electronic formats." Clearly refers to text.  I will try some very minor changes, and see what people think.Fixer1234 (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading text-only into the policy where it doesn't exist: An mp3 is electronic-only.  A DVD is electronic-only.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The text has been changed, so this is a moot point. But anyway...The old language was problematic because it compared "print" and "electronic" resources.  The term "print" implies physical printed text. So when we pair "print" and "electronic", we end up with a comparison of "print text resources" and "electronic text resources".  (Is the text available as physical or on-line resource?) The current version of the article avoids this problem because it refers only to "electronic media", that is media that "utilizes electronics or electromechanical energy".  So, basically SlimVirgin fixed the problem by removing the word "print".   (Which is, admittedly, a much more elegant solution than mine.)  Fixer1234 (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is also a precedent buried in RS/N somewhere (ill find it shortly) where it is made clear that material from 'freedom of information act' constitutes published, ie published is understood as made public. There are also some, to me, unanswered questions as to one ability to use 'internal' government reports, which while not generated for public consumption still constitutes, in my mind, a valid source of information. Any one care to weigh in? Here is the long but interesting thread regarding 'published' on RSN. Unomi (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Freedom of Information Act material, whether it is acceptable depends on what happens to it after it leaves government hands. If the government puts it on the web, or describes a way that anyone can easily obtain the exact same document at a reasonable cost, fine. But if some individual puts it in a mayonnaise jar on their shelf and tries to cite it, that won't do. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What? We don't have a "mayonnaise jar" exception to this Policy?  This is the 21st century folks... let's get with the tech!. Blueboar (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)