Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 34

My revert
I reverted the recent edits as they're unclear:


 * "The burden lies with the editor who adds or restores material even when the material in question regards information that is not known. That is, if an article states that some information is not known, and that assertion is challenged, a source must be provided supporting such statement, or it may be removed."

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 05:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Do you get what I'm trying to say?  Did you read the discussion above about it?  Any ideas on how to say this clearly and succinctly?  Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a need to change anything. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. We do mean "all." We can't start a list saying, "and that includes this type, and that type, of information," because it would be endless. In the case you were dealing with, "X is illegal everywhere but California," clearly needs a source according to the current policy; there's no need to reword it to accommodate that example. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 07:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with SlimVirgin that trying to list everything that needs a source is futile. However, Born2cycle's point isn't that "X is illegal everywhere but California" needs a source. I think the point is the statement "X is legal in California, but the legality is unclear elsewhere" also needs a source, because it implies some qualified person studied the issue and concluded the legality can't be readily decided. What was really meant was "X is legal in California (Smith 2001), illegal in A, B, ... and J (Jones 2002), and Wikipedia editors are unable to find clear information about the legality elsewhere."


 * It isn't customary for what we call editors to make reference to themselves in the text of an article. This custom is not universal; Scientific American authors do it all the time. In this kind of situation, it may be the best way to indicate the true status of the research. --Jc3s5h (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I can gather (from multiple discussions about this at multiple policy talk pages), this seems to be a clear case of Original research.... from advocates on both sides of the argument. It seems that no reliable source has ever discussed the issue of where Lane Splitting is legal and where it is illegal. If this is indeed the case, having Wikipedia discuss it makes Wikipedia the first place to do such a review... that is the very definition of OR. My suggestion is to simply not discuss the issue of Legality at all. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On the lane-splitting issue, there are two sources here (David Hough and Cycle world) who suggest it's only legal in California, so they can be used. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Jc3s5h, I agree with your point, but the danger of allowing editors to (in effect) refer to themselves by saying, "X is unclear," when what they mean is, "I can't find more information about X," is that research efforts would differ greatly. We'd no doubt sometimes end up saying things like, "Whether Paris is actually in France remains unclear," when what was really meant was, "I couldn't be bothered to look this up." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what SlimVirgin is getting at. I think if something remains unclear after research, there should be a statement about who did the research. If the conclusion about lack of clarity is in a reliable source, the conclusion should be included and cited. If the research was done by Wikipedia editors, it might be possible to phrase the article to avoid making any statement about the unclear area. If this is too awkward, it should be explicitly stated that it was Wikipedia editors who were unable to find a clear answer; readers know or ought to know what Wikipedia editors are like, and should understand they should give little weight to the Wikipedia editors inability to clarify the matter. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a minor point: most readers do not know what Wikipedia editors are like.  The NY Times just ran a story about the Arbitration Committee because most people have no idea how Wikipedia works.   RJC  TalkContribs 17:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't it possible to indicate in the phrasing of a passage that just because something is stated as being in a particular set does not mean that it is exclusively so? Compare: "In Switzerland and Malta, cheese-stealing is a capital crime" with "There are countries, including Switzerland and Malta, where cheese-stealing is a capital crime". The first implies that the countries listed are all those which could be, whereas the second makes it clear that they are selected examples. 92.234.8.173 (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Josh

SlimVirgin, I'm just saying that the argument can be made that material of the form "X is not known" should reverse the burden to the challenger because such an assertion cannot be proven; but it should be easy to disprove by anyone who believe X is known. Such a argument can cite WP:COMMON or even WP:IAR to say this is a reasonable minor deviation from WP:BURDEN. Now, I'm not making that argument here, so please let's not debate that. I'm just saying that that argument can be made, and that it would be helpful to add something that clarifies that even for material of this form, the burden is with the editor who adds or defends the material; that a reliable source that says that must be found. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this would be a good clarification. Unlike most things we could list as coming under "all" things needing a source, most on that unbounded list are of an obvious nature: "of course that comes under the burden." I think this does not so intuitively. Probably the place where this comes up most often is when an article says "very little is know about his/her/its early history/childhood/origins"; "the origin of X is shrouded in mystery" and so on. This is not uncommon in articles and it always strikes me as original research when not sourced. I had this issue come up on a GA review, here where I stated I would not say the origins were obscure without a source so stating. Lo and behold, I later found sources for the origins, thus showing why we shouldn't allow such anti-statements in the absence of a source.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Television documentaries and RS
A user objected to using an episode of a television documentary series (in this case the Canadian documentary series Mayday) as a source for statement in an article (if a text transcript is not available). His reasons for objecting the usage of audio/video television are documented in this userpage discussion: User_talk:Crum375 - I feel that Wikipedians can, and ought to be able to analyze a television documentary program (in other words judge who said what, whether Person X or the narratory really said Statement W - In other words carefully watching the source and attributing statements to the proper people interviewed in the program) and make sourced statements based on what is said on the program as long as users properly attribute what is said on the program itself. Crum feels that users should not be trusted to use television programs as sourcing as they may misinterpret the content of the programs. How should Wikipedia handle using television documentaries as sources? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be concerned about a televeison show as a source if there was no way for readers to obtain either a transcript or a copy. But as for the ability of the editor who watched a show to extract information from it, it is no more difficult than many written sources. Written sources about a court case, for example, may contain quotes from the accused which certainly must be attributed to the accused (as quoted in source X) rather than put forward as simple statements of fact.


 * It would be a good practice for any editor who wants to use a tv program as a source to record it on a VHS or digital video recorder, so the first impression from watching the program can be confirmed. Of course, the editor should also make a note of how readers can gain access to the program. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am always warry of citations to TV shows, but just as with print or electronic media, there is a range of reliability to consider... Some TV documentaries are quality sources, others are complete "infotainment" rubbish, most are some where in between. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The variability in quality is true for any type source, printed or recorded. The problem I see in broadcast material is that there is no easy way for a reader to verify it. If it is a high quality documentary, there should hopefully be a transcript available, and that would solve the problem. Otherwise, if there is a way to purchase or borrow the DVD from a library, then we should include that information in the same way we specify a book's ISBN, title, author, publisher, year, page number, etc., so the reader can go to the library and borrow it, or Amazon and purchase it, and verify the reference. If it's just a broadcast, with no DVD available and no transcript, then I would have a problem with it, because it wouldn't be verifiable by an average reader. Crum375 (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify another point regarding broadcast material: if there is an online version of it, of reasonable reliability, I would consider that verifiable, no less than a transcript. Crum375 (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are copies of every single Mayday/ACI episode floating online, but I don't know where Mayday is legally uploaded, so therefore I haven't linked to any copies of Mayday. It is very easy to find Mayday episodes on a certain video broadcasting site, but Wikipedia cannot link to them as they are all copyright violations. If either Discovery Channel Canada or National Geographic (in various countries) has copies of Mayday episodes, and those copies are scheduled to remain online for a long period of time, we could link to those ones. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a way/place to download the videos for personal use for a fee? If so, that would be equivalent to buying a book, assuming the price is reasonable, and hence "verifiable". Crum375 (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain which websites offer legal pay-to-download video services. Those sites exist, but I'll have to see which ones have Mayday episodes. BTW, effective on 6:30 AM Central U.S. time on June 27, 2009 I will be on a trip for a few days and will be unable to post on Wikipedia during that time. EDIT: I checked Vuze, and I cannot find episodes under any of the English names used (Mayday, Air Emergency, Air Crash Investigation(s)) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

conflict of interest causing content removal?
An article can't be a GA if it has unsourced content, and that appears to cause a conflict of interest for those editors wishing to increase their association with GA/FA/&c. or for those who are overzealous about WP policy, favouring appearance and style rather than content. This kind of "corrective" editing is likely to repel primary contributors (← please read that), and without their content, WP consumes itself and withers.

A case in point concerns the article Stalker in which a quote of significant relevance and interest was removed (moved to the talk page) by a WP administrator (!?), along with similar content which was tagged as unsourced. The edit summary merely reads "corrections and fixes throughout". (I only discovered it because I returned to the article, several months after reading it, to find the quote again, but it was gone, so I examined the edit history.)

Naturally, primary contributors are likely to be unfamiliar with WP policy (regarding verifiability, &c.), and it seems foolish to expect them to be otherwise.

WP:Verifiability states:

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed [...]

[...] you may move the material to the talk page.

however, it also states:

[...] it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.

I suggest and request that the policy be changed to support content, primary contributors and readers by explicitly deprecating the removal of unsourced content (assuming it appears to be relevant and useful) unless a thorough search for sources has failed. Further, if content is removed (or moved to the talk page), the edit summary should clearly indicate that. Moving content to the talk page has problems because it removes context and the content is likely to be forgotten unless an active discussion is already underway.

It may be difficult for those on the inside, familiar with WP policy, to understand the outer perspectives of primary contributors and readers, but I think that is essential to the healthy development of WP. —Richard Taytor (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion is more appropriate in the reliable sources talk, but I largely agree with you. If I see an unsourced statement, I will try to source it.  If I don't have time and I think that the statement is probably/possibly true, I will fact tag it.  If the statement strikes me as probable rubbish, I will go ahead and remove it, stating in the edit summary that it can be added back in if sourced.


 * We should not discourage edits from outside of the more policy-knowledgeable wiki community, but neither is it ok for questionable and unsupported statements to stand unchallenged. One of the things that the off-wiki community will need to come to understand is that wikipedia relies heavily upon citation, and that adding unsourced information is inviting it to be removed.  To some extent, challenging unsourced info via removal furthers that goal - though I still would not remove what I considered to be a valuable but as-yet-unsourced contribution. Removing unsourced material is also good for Wikipedia's reputation off-wiki, which I estimate to be lower than we would like. Mishlai (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We need people to remove uncited material because that's how we stop people from sneaking all kinds of actually false claims into the article. If someone is being a bit overzealous about removing content that could easily be sourced, discussing it with that person would be a better idea than going to the policy and creating the false impression that editors don't have to add citations for the claims they add to articles. --causa sui talk 04:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we have to achieve a bit of ballance here... there is a difference between how we deal with unsourced statements in a new article (look for sources ourselves, tag if we can not find one, etc.), and how we deal with unsourced statements in an article that is being considered for GA status (remove to talk page for discussion, or delete completely). We also have to consider how long a statement has remained unsourced after it has been tagged (there comes a point when we can assume it can not be sourced).
 * There is a happy medium between Inclusion and Exclusion. It is not always easy to achieve, but it does exist. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I do essentially as Mishlai--it depends on the article and the material. In my experience, it is possible to destroy an article by insisting on exact citation for even the obvious pieces, word by word through the article--and then challenging the reliability of every source. This is also a common tactic in dealing with a disliked aspect, or portion that contradicts owns own POV.   It is equally possible to turn an article  or section into pure promotion (or abuse) by inserting multiple pieces of material that don't actually have any sources. DGG (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there any objections to the following?


 * Unsourced content, which appears to be otherwise relevant and useful, should not be removed unless a reasonable search for sources has failed. If such content is removed (or moved to the talk page), the edit summary should clearly indicate that. —Richard Taytor (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd support the second sentence, but not the first. We don't want people to think they must search for a source before removing something if it strikes them as wrong and it's unsourced. Especially at GA level, which you mentioned above, an article should definitely be well-sourced. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 09:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with SV here. By all means encourage editors to search for sources rather than just deleting, but the onus needs to be on the person who adds claims. --GenericBob (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that my message has been missed by several who have posted here. I am not advocating the protection of content which appears to be incorrect/irrelevant. Rather, I mean to draw attention to a pernicious pattern: the removal of relevant/useful content simply because it lacks citation. Present policy appears to support the removal of unsourced content regardless of its relevance/utility, and regardless of the availability of potential sources. I simply wish to reduce the loss of relevant/useful content (a pattern which I have observed; one case in point cited above).


 * Objections?


 * Unsourced content, which appears to be correct, relevant and useful, should not be removed simply because it lacks citation, unless a reasonable search for sources has failed. If such content is removed (or moved to the talk page), the edit summary should clearly indicate that. —Richard Taytor (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is usually the right way to go, but I'd still be uncomfortable making it a general rule. I have run into bad-faith editors who take advantage of the fact that it takes less time to make up a 'source' than it does to check it, especially if you make the source inconvenient (e.g. "The British House of Lords, Hansard, Question to Lord Irvine by Lord Spens 2000 April 16", no URL provided); requiring editors to treat unsourced material as innocent until proven guilty would give them even more of an advantage (since you can always find somebody who thinks it looks correct, relevant, and useful, even if that somebody is a sock). 'Assume good faith' should be the default, but there are times when we need to be able to ditch that assumption and limit how far a malicious editor can waste people's time. There's also the question of what to do when unsourced comment looks correct, relevant, and useful, but could also be construed as defamatory - do we really want to default to 'keep'? --GenericBob (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no benefit to adding this. It's also arguably pointless in the sense that any editor wanting to remove unsourced material will simply claim he looked for a source, even if he didn't. And with BLP, unsourced contentious material must be removed immediately. The bottom line is that if editors want to increase the chances of their edits surviving, they need to cite their sources. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of any change in policy, I think the edit page should include an explicit warning that content must attributed to reliable published sources (external to Wikipedia); otherwise, it is likely to be removed. Presently it reads: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." which is likely to be of little use to primary contributors, especially when it's embedded in text about legal issues. SlimVirgin has proposed that Verifiability be changed to Attribution (and that change seems inevitable; so, it may as well happen sooner rather than later). —Richard Taytor (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there are no objections to this suggestion to change the edit form? —Richard Taytor (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mr. Taytor, I object, because the proposal is unclear. Please state the exact exact wording before and after the proposed change. It is hard to pull out of this rambling discussion exactly what the proposal is. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a more detailed proposal:


 * Remove the following sentence from the paragraph located immediately below the edit textarea:


 * "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."


 * Prepend the following paragraph (to the paragraph located immediately below the edit textarea); alternatively, Attribution can be changed to Verifiability:


 * "Content must include citations to reliable published sources (otherwise, it may be removed). Please read Attribution for more information."


 * I don't know how to edit the edit page; please advise on appropriate procedure. —Richard Taytor (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have two basic objections, now that I understand the proposed change. First, at the beginning of this section, Mr. Taytor gave a description of what is required in good articles that is not quite accurate. Mr. Taytor wrote "An article can't be a GA if it has unsourced content" but what the WP:Good article criteria actually say is "[a good article] provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons. So neither the verifiability policy nor the good article criteria require uncontroversial statements that are unlikely to be challenged to be sourced.


 * Like Mr. Taytor, I don't know how to change the text that appears on the edit page. This discussion is meaningless until the correct forum for discussing changes to the edit page is identified and this discussion is either moved there, or a notice of this discussion is placed there. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * At least one WP administrator apparently believes that the bulk removal of fact-tagged content is correct and appropriate.


 * A primary contributor adds content, an editor fact-tags it, another editor removes it (neither attempts to find sources; why?...). Primary contributors are not likely to be familiar with WP policy. Editors (who are) ought to recognise that, and I suggest that over-zealous fact-tagging and unsourced-content removal be tempered by explicit statements in WP policy. It may be easier for editors to tag and strip content rather than to locate and cite sources, but an attempt at the latter ought to preceed the former. —Richard Taytor (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

MusicMight
Musicmight is a reliable source? (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC))


 * JoaquimMetalhead, please take this inquiry to Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

Using Wikipedia articles as sources
The Wikipedia and sources that mirror or source information from Wikipedia section says:

Wikipedia itself is self-published. Therefore articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, may not be used as sources. In addition, sources that present information known to originate from Wikipedia should not be used for that information, as this may create circular sourcing.

The "Therefore" is not at all obvious, since this section immediately follows two other sections that describe some cases where self-published sources may in some circumstances be acceptable.

I also suggest that the de facto standard in Wikipedia is that embedded links in non-controversial statements serve to verify statements.

For example, the Wikipedia Good Article Brown v. Board of Education says in its Background section, "For much of the ninety years preceding the Brown case, race relations in the U.S. had been dominated by racial segregation." The date of this case combined with the Wikipedia article on racial segregation easily verifies the statement.

Similarly in the same article, the next statement has no citation but is easily verified by reference to Plessy v. Ferguson.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of citationless statements in Good Articles are easily verified by reference to Wikipedia articles.

I suggest the policy be reworded to something like the following.

Wikipedia is self-published. Therefore, when using Wikipedia articles as sources, great care must be taken to ensure reliability and avoid circular sourcing. Toward this end, a Wikipedia article must never be used as a referenced citation. This supports the reputation referenced citations have for reliability and lack of circular sourcing. Embedded links to Wikipedia articles may be the verification for citationless statements, provided the linked article relies on external citations for its sources, and the citationless statement is not controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidForthoffer (talk • contribs) 10:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree: Wikipedia or mirrors should never be used as sources. If a Wikipedia article has sources, which hopefully it does, then those sources can be used. In the example given above, the first google hit I found was {http://brownvboard.org/summary/} which looks like a pretty good source to me.  Using Wikipedia as a source would just be plain laziness. If good sources  can't be found then the information shouldn't be in Wikipedia.  Unfortunately, it seems (especially from my experience reviewing Good articles) that far too many editors can't be bothered to get out and find sources, preferring blogs, wiki mirrors, fan sites, etc.. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How to resolve theory versus practice? If Wikipedia articles should never be used as sources, why do so many Good Articles have so many citationless statements? I do see that verifiability is a requirement in Good article criteria. I perceive a conflict between theory and practice. DavidForthoffer (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, currently all GAs passed before September 2007 are undergoing review at GA Sweeps - you could always help out there. Otherwise if you find such article, you can search out citations, put tags on, take them to WP:GAR. You don't have to just pass on by. In answr to your question, How to resolve theory versus practice?, the answer is simple.  Get stuck in - this is a collaborative project.  Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Statements that are unlikely to be challenged, and which in fact have not been challenged, do not require a citation. At the same time, there is no reason not to include a wikilink in such a statement for the benefit of readers who want to learn more about it. DavidFortoffer's presumption that such links are for verification rather than further information is not necessarily correct. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For me, this issue came up when I added "Furthermore, arresting citizens are not protected by qualified immunity, so if they are mistaken, they may face a civil lawsuit or charges of battery or false imprisonment" to the Fourth Amendment article. That statement seemed unlikely to be challenged, and easily verified by following the Wikipedia links to other articles that cited several relevant cases. However, it was challenged. Note: I was not presuming that such links were for verification rather than further information. I was presuming both, since I thought all statements should be verifiable. DavidForthoffer (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) All statements should be verifiable, but in the case of statements that have not been challenged, and are unlikely to be challenged, verification is so easy that readers can be left to their own devices to verify them, without the aid of any citation. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. So for the case of statements that ought not be challenged and verification is so easy that readers can be left to their own devices to verify them without the aid of any citation (though perhaps with the aid of a linked Wikipedia article), yet are challenged, I'll go ahead and add (external) citations. DavidForthoffer (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Fallacy of Peer Reviewed Journals
Eventually I could probably rediscover the source, but for the moment you'll just have to trust me. I am not making this up.

In late 1980s I was digging around MIT/Sloan for research on software maintenance. I found an article abstract that sounded spot-on. I paid the $15. When the full article arrived, the full abstract said that while the original intent of the research was to study software maintenance issues, they found there was such a low incidence of peer reviewed articles about software maintenance that their article was going to describe how object oriented programming would eliminate/greatly reduce the need for software maintenance. Total fantasy, but spot on for how the academic world looks at software.

So much for peer reviewed articles being the ultimate source of truth.

Personally I file this under: "Since my eyes can see visible light, this is PROOF that x-rays, gamma rays, & all sorts of non-visible light do not exist." DEddy (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand - you found an early abstact that did not agree with the published article? This is why people don't cite abstracts. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He found a peer-reviewed article that argued for a position of wild-eyed optimism, and which some Wikidiot would cite as proof (Proof, do you hear me? PROOF) of the wild-eyed fantasy.


 * Quite seriously, we do have a problem with people who cite journal articles as evidence that some argument is the Truth, ignoring the academic incentive to write a one-sided article for a novel position. (That way you get cited, even if the position is radically unsound.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps journals like this should also be used as sources, then? Count Iblis (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While probably a useful project for those who can discount exaggerated claims, I would expect it to be more tendentious than normal journals (consider the clause on squaring the circle in the mission statement).


 * No, this is an inherent problem with many of our sources; we need to be aware of it, and do more to discourage the POV-pushers, who take advantage of the situation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Journal articles? There are whole books of that sort, e.g. Super-recursive algorithm. It's just another reason editors need to know the topics they write about. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also concerned about the reliance by some editors on peer-reviewed articles, which is often primary-source material, because they can contain nonsense just as anything else can. As with anything contentious, relying on secondary sources often fixes the problem. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Relying on a poor secondary source is just as bad as relying on a poor primary source. It may be worse, if one is more trusting of the bad secondary source. Wikipedia is not an exercise in writing fifth-grade book reports, in which one copies material one does not understand. Editors here need to know the areas they write in well enough to be able to evaluate which opinions are broadly held in the literature and which are not. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 05:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just a question of whether the source is poor. Relying on good primary sources is problematic too for people who don't know what they're doing. I agree with your final point, but there's nothing we can do about it, unfortunately. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

How Does a Contributor Give a Verifiable Source for the "Oral Tradition" of a Story?
I am of Sicilian descent and know full well the oral traditions of the Island, one of which is that Santa Rosalia ended a plague and is therefore now considered the patron saint of Sicily. By definition an oral history is passed from generation to generation and is not "verifiable" in the usual sense of the word. An exception might be when an "esteemed academic" has previously written an article and therein recites the "oral tradition". But really, is the "expert's" recitation any better "sourced" than the contemporaneous writer?Siciliano99 (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Siciliano99 7/20/09


 * You are correct that most oral history is not verifiable... and thus can not be included in Wikipedia. It would indeed need to be recorded (written down, filmed, or audio recording) and published.  The author who makes this record is factor in reliability (do we trust the author to record the oral history accurtely)... but for verifiability he/she does not necessarily have to be an expert (or even an "esteemed academic"). Blueboar (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Siciliano99 asked "but really, is the 'expert's' recitation any better 'sourced' than the contemporaneous writer?" I don't know what you mean by contemporaneous writer. But the esteemed academic is better than Sicilano99 or Jc3s5h because the esteemed academic has established a reputation for honest careful work, and has an incentive to continue to be honest and careful, lest the reputation be ruined. Sicilano99 or Jc3s5h have no reputation, they are just anonymous people from the internet. They have no incentive to be careful and honest; the worst that could happen is they could be banned from Wikipedia, and have to sign up for a new account. That is why all material added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually someone has written an article or a book or pamphlet about such oral traditions and stories. It doesn't have to be an academic, but reliability needs to be assessed case by case. This is a reference I found in Frommer.  It could be cited as Frommer recounts the legend and then a quote.  An oral legend or story has to be quoted from another source repeating it. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do your best to locate a source. If you are sure of the information, and specifics, you may be the best person to be able to do it. If you can't, and if there is a real danger of the information being lost forever (eg you are the last of your forgotten tribe), add the information to the talk page and let others decide. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt, if it has been passed down by oral tradition but has not been published by a reliable/verifiable third party source, then it's not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. That is, if nobody will run into it anywhere, then there is no need to provide information about it. That said, if you're really interested in getting these oral traditions preserved for posterity, then before getting them into Wikipedia you either need to publish them yourself, or get someone in a university or something to hear them out and publish them. But until something like that happens, the information about it does not belong in an encyclopedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Born2cycle raises a key point... just because something can't be put in Wikipedia, that does not mean it can't be put elsewhere. There are other options. Blueboar (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding "Questionable Sources"
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking" would be more accurate/explicit/clearly defined if it was tweaked to "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation, or no reputation, for fact-checking". Just a suggestion. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 19:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I endorse the change, sans commas. Implicit in "poor reputation for fact checking" is that there is a reputation in existence, and it is poor, which is probably not true for most unreliable sources. I think many people will take the correct meaning from the present language even if we don't make this change, but why make people read into something when we can say it explicitly and with economy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty much what I thought too. I also agree that we could go with or without the commas, either way works fine. So leave this here for a few days, if no objections, I'll make the change? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 00:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that, but it could be worst. I undertand that some people could read this sentence and understand "bad reputation" instead of poor. This can lead to misundertanding I agree. But most of us probably read it like "poor, but still positive, reputation and under". On a -10 to 10 scale, this would be a 5 and under. The true threshold vary : "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", but it still prety much over zero reputation in any case. By insisting on "no reputation", people will probably understand "any not bad reputation" (more then 0 on my scale). Which is not what this sentence is meant for. This will remove the 0 reputation from the misintepretation, but in the same way, will create more misinterpretation about the scale 1,2,3,4 reputation which is, amho, not quite enought in most cases. Iluvalar (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone removed a key part of that sentence: "or with no editorial oversight." The sentence ought to read: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight." I've restored it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for spotting that the sentence wasn't quite right, by the way. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And I like that version of the sentence much better now, thanks for repairing it. I guess that's why we pay you the big bucks huh? [[Image:Smiley.svg|19px]] -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 02:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just saw this &mdash; I was busy spending my enormous Wikipedia salary. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Verified or verifiable?
I am party to an ongoing dispute here. Following advice found at WP:DR, I am seeking opinions about some questions raised.

1) The section in the article being discussed includes a citation to a published paper. After asking several times, no editor admits to actually having read this paper.  The question is: Does a citation need to be "verified" or is simply being "verifiable" enough?

The reason I ask is that it looks like it might be a case of having an idea, then doing a Google search to find a source to confirm your personal idea, a sort of WP:SYN. Notice that the point being made is taken from the opening sentence of the abstract of the paper. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it possible that the citation was added by someone not currently active in the article? In other words, perhaps it was added by someone who did read enough of the paper to ensure that the information in the article accurately reflected what is said in the source?  Just a thought.
 * Do you have reason to doubt that what is said in the article does not reflect what is said in the source? Blueboar (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No it was added by a current active editor.  The problem is that the source speaks of the "right to arms".  It is controversial to assert that the "right to arms" (meaning individuals having weapons) is synonymous with the "right to bear arms" (meaning collective militia rights).  The author is the senior attorney for the National Rifle Association, and I don't dispute that their viewpoint must be included, what I dispute is that neutrality policy calls for their hypothesis to be described as one viewpoint, not as universal fact.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The citation in question was discussed at the end of May, here, and SaltyBoatr was involved in that discussion. Of course editors read the paper.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course? No editor to my knowledge has made that claim in spite of being asked the question.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have also asked about other editors' educational background and reading habits. You'd have much better luck if you would just stick to what's in the article, why it may not be appropriate, and what can be done to improve it.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Educational background and reading habits? Not true.  To be clear, I have simply asked what reliable sources have been read behind the statement of opinion.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, it is true, as there has been badgering of multiple editors on this very point, here. Yaf (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice that Yaf doesn't point to a specific diff, and instead uses innuendo. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)The Wikipedia article presently says: "Early Americans viewed the right to arms with three considerations. In no particular order, they viewed this right as important for: (1) deterring undemocratic government; (2) auxiliary to a natural right of self-defense; and (3) maintaining an organized militia system."

The cited source says: "Professor Saul Cornell's recent book, A Well-Regulated Militia, represents the latest addition to the ongoing debate over the nature of the Second Amendment and the American right to arms. Early Americans wrote of the right in light of three considerations: (1) as auxilliary to a natural right of self-defense; (2) as enabling an armed people to deter undemocratic government; and (3) as enabling the people to organize a militia system."

Notice that neither the source nor the Wikipedia article uses the term "bear arms", and thus obviously neither the source nor the Wikipedia article asserts here that "bear arms" is synonymous with anything. Why should the article verify something that the article does not state?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article does use the term "bear arms". The source says "right to arms" which is synonymous with "bear arms" according to one POV and not synonymous according to another.  This POV distinction needs to be neutrally explained.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK... given that this is a very controvercial topic, I think Salty does have a point when it comes to statements of fact vs. statements of opinion. It is important to make it clear who says what and holds what opinion.  As for verifiability, it seems clear to me that the statement is verifiable... as a statement of opinion.  Does that help resolve the issue? Blueboar (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Salty ought to give us some verification that this is opinion rather than fact. Is there anyone who contradicts what's now in the article?  The article now says: "Early Americans viewed the right to arms with three considerations. In no particular order, they viewed this right as important for: (1) deterring undemocratic government; (2) auxiliary to a natural right of self-defense; and (3) maintaining an organized militia system."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Early Americans also agreed that baked beans were tasty food. What is the relevance to the article?  There is a POV push of one of the advocacy groups, and not the other, that having individual weapons is linked to bearing arms.  I have no problem with stating this dichotomy of views in the article.  Right to arms is relevant to the second amendment according to gun rights advocates like Mr. Hardy and his organization, the NRA.  And, right to arms is not relevant to the second amendment, depending on your POV.  I do have a problem of just describing 'right to arms' was important while implying that it is "of course" relevant.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Saltyboatr's point, with respect to verifiability, seems to be that instead of citing the book A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America, a review of that book is cited. Saltyboatr obscures his point by describing the work as a book rather than an article. Saltyboatr's point 1, "the section in the article being discussed includes a citation to a published paper. After asking several times, no editor admits to actually having read this paper" is fatally flawed because in the talk page he or she asked if other editors actually read the article, not if they read the book. Since his/her question to other editors was gibberish, the responses to the question (if any) are meaningless.


 * One of Saltyboatr's other points, "the reason I ask is that it looks like it might be a case of having an idea, then doing a Google search to find a source to confirm your personal idea" could have some merit if a person uses out-of-context quotes or biased sources to back up a personal opinion. However, we must recognize that the human mind naturally retains facts and conclusions better than it retains sources. So we cannot demand that an editor may not edit an article unless the editor remembers the source of every bit of knowledge the editor has relevant to the article. It is only natural that editors will often look for references to verify their personal knowledge. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Another subtly of this is that a small group of gun rights advocates, David Kopel, Alan Gottlieb, etc.. over the last two decades have endeavored to place online as much pro-gun rights documentation as possible. There is no equivalent push for the "non-gun rights" second amendment published reliable sourcing.  Hence, doing Google searches returns a disproportionate ratio of gun-rights documentation, a form of systemic bias.  A specific example of this is the recent edit to this article of an very obscure 1986 book review.  Almost with certainty this "Google research" was skewed by the David Kopel bibliography and the online archive availability of the gun rights advocate Alan Gottlieb.  Not that I oppose presenting both points of view, my objection is to the bias and disproportionate advocacy being violation of WP:NPOV.  The policy is that the article should reflect the balance of reliable sourcing on the topic, not the balance of reliable sourcing accessible via Google searches on the topic.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this page's discussion focused on verifiability and leave NPOV discussions for the NPOV page. Salty, do you agree or disagree with the contention that the statement about early American views is verifiable from the cited source?  If so, then there is nothing more to be said on this page (discussions can continue elsewhere)... If not, why not? Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have answered my question then, thanks. Your standard is 'verifiable'.  I don't dispute that it likely is verifiable (future tense) from the cited source.  My question here is whether it is required to be verified (past tense).  So far, no one claims to have done that.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the standard is verifiable rather than verified (although we certainly prefer both). Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course if the assertion is "liable to be challenged", the onus is on the editor adding the assertion to provide a citation, and intellectual honesty requires that they read it before claiming that it supports the assertion. So there's little reason for disputes to arise over whether the source backs the assertion, except in the interpretation of an ambiguous reference or in outright error. Any editor is justified in adding a cn tag to any assertion they find improbable, or even removing it outright.LeadSongDog come howl  19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * LeadSong... In this case, a citation was provided... the questions raised here related to checking whether the source was valid or not. Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess my concern hinges on "intellectual honesty requires that they read it", and when I asked, no one would come forward claiming they have read it, including the editor who inserted it. This is seeming more like a civility question than a WP:V question now.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The cite for the review was clearly verified by a number of editors, (and, of course, remains verifiable by anyone else, including SaltyBoatr, even now). Badgered editors, though, tend not to respond to endless questions from SaltyBoatr regarding their educational backgrounds, what books they have read, what books they plan to read, where they have lived, their hobbies, and other personal topics, such as exhibited here. It is difficult to respond to such endless drama except through an analogy of WP:DENY or WP:RBI. The lack of badgered editors responses is not surprising.  An Assumption of Good Faith would have prevented this whole Wiki-Drama from occurring in the first place. Yaf (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This also could have been prevented if someone would have answered my simple question. A question which remains unanswered even today.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I daresay someone read the review of the book; it is the book itself that might not have been read. Certainly it would be better if the book had been read, but I don't think the verifiability policy disallows the use of book reviews to support claims. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just want to double check something... is the review cited or is the book cited? If the no one actually checked the book, but someone did read the review, then the review should be cited (per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT) and not the book. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to point out the elephant in the room here. Yes, it is a book review written by the senior attorney of the National Rifle Association, which is a critical attack on a book deemed 'bad' according to the NRA point of view.  Another issue is whether it is appropriate to call attention to the affiliation of the author of the book review.  I think that mentioning the advocacy position of the author of the book review is prudent per WP:NPOV policy.  A group of editors, with a pattern of pro-gun editing, disagree with me.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Blueboar's got the right question. Of course, we have a systemic deficiency on en: in that we don't track the verification of sources used. We really need a standard way to tag citations to effectively say "editor joeblow sighted and confirms that this cited reference is credible and supports the text as cited in this version". All it would need is an edit timestamp hidden comment added to the citation, the rest is in the history. Still, it appears this discussion is more about civility than anything else. Much progress could be made by the simple policy of criticizing edits instead of editors.LeadSongDog come howl  21:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Reality check
The material in question is as follows: "Early Americans viewed the right to arms with three considerations. In no particular order, they viewed this right as important for: (1) deterring undemocratic government; (2) auxiliary to a natural right of self-defense; and (3) maintaining an organized militia system.[1][2]"

"[1]Hardy, David. “Book Review: A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America”, William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 15, p. 1237 (2007). Abstract: “Professor Saul Cornell's recent book, A Well-Regulated Militia, represents the latest addition to the ongoing debate over the nature of the Second Amendment and the American right to arms. Early Americans wrote of the right in light of three considerations: (1) as auxiliary to a natural right of self-defense; (2) as enabling an armed people to deter undemocratic government; and (3) as enabling the people to organize a militia system.”"

"[2]Malcolm, Joyce Lee. “Book Review: That Every Man Be Armed,” 54 George Washington Law Review 452, 455 (1986): “The Second Amendment reflects traditional English attitudes toward these three distinct, but intertwined, issues: the right of the individual to protect his life, the challenge to government of an armed citizenry, and the preference for a militia over a standing army. The framers' attempt to address all three in a single declarative sentence has contributed mightily to the subsequent confusion over the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment.”"

This material is obviously verifiable and verified, and no sources have been mentioned (by anyone anywhere) that contradict this material or indicate that this material is opinion rather than fact. We've put excerpts in both of the footnotes, so I don't know what we could do to make it easier to verify this stuff.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ferrylodge... so the citations are correct as far as WP:SAYWHEREYPOGOTIT is concerned (citing [1] Hardy and [2] to Joyce Lee)... I just checked the links and can confirm that these book reviews say what they are quoted as saying. So Salty, you can consider them both verifiable and verified.  I think we can call this aspect of your issues concluded.  All that remains are your NPOV questions, which I know you have raised at that page.  Blueboar (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the citations don't verify the article text, in that the article text is not an accurate summary. Our article is stating that "Early Americans viewed the right to arms with three considerations." Neither cited source makes this claim, which is actually a synthesis. The actual right as enshrined in the US Constitution is "to keep and bear Arms", not "to arms".  That's an important distinction, and it is synthesising if we do not use the actual right that was granted when we discuss that right. This is very much a question of verifiability and synthesis.  Neither article verifies the statement that Americans "viewed the right to arms", since, per the Constitution, the right is "to keep and bear Arms", and that is the right discussed in both cited sources. The constitution may or may not grant the "right to arms", that's a semantic debate and using one definition over another in conjunction with the sources provided is synthesising a new interpretation not supported in the sources. The article text should be amended to read either that "Early Americans viewed the right to keep and bear arms" or "Early Americans viewed the Second Amendment right". Hiding T 11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the quote in the first footnote. It specifically references a "right to arms."  So, the article text is accurate.  Please keep in mind that the article text is in a subsection of the article titled, "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution."  This is in a background section about stuff that happened before the Second Amendment was written.Ferrylodge (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we quoting the review or the abstract? The text seems to be pulled from the abstract, so we might as well acknowledge that in the citation. The abstract also makes clear that "A Well-Regulated Militia is, in short, an excellent explanation of why the Framers wrote that A well-regulated miltia was necessary to the security of a free state. It omits, or misreads, the reasons why they did not stop there, but added on a right of the people to keep and bear arms." This makes it clear that the three reasons apply to the Second Amendment, and not only to the right to arms. The second quote also make it clear that the reasons apply to the Second Amendment, and that the ambiguity of the text of the Second Amendment is an issue.  So the whole thing hinges on the exact text of the Second Amendment, and if we do not make that clear, we are not accurately reflecting the sources, but rather synthesising by utilising a definition of the Second Amendment other than the actual text itself. Hiding T 22:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not quoting anything in the text of the Wikipedia article. I will go ahead and clarify in the first footnote that the quote in the footnote is taken from the abstract.  I'm not sure I understand your other points, but in any event readers can easily go to our footnotes to read exactly what the sources say.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We were quoting text up above, though, weren't we? As to what my other points mean, maybe it will be better if I show you through editing the article rather than trying to explain then. Hiding T 10:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article appears to have been edited to reflect my points, so it appears somebody understood them. : ) Hiding T 10:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Stupid
Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.

So stupid. There used to be a clear guideline here, now I see you've watered it down to nonsense by these additions. Someone has added some obvious original research or some obviously unsourced controversial statements and then I 'm expected to look or proof that he is right (or that he is wrong)? This essentially shifts the burden of evidence from "the editor who adds or restores material" to me (the editor who disputes or deletes it). This is the perfect recipe to preserve both original research and unsourced POV statements for as long as possible, and no wonder that that's what I see all the time, too.

"Editors might object", while more long-standing, is a pretty wishy-washy wording, too. Sure, they "might" feel unhappy about the fact that some unsourced material is deleted, but that's irrelevant; the question is whether they have the right to do anything about it, according to this policy. The answer is, per this wording, an unequivocal "Nyaa." It should be clear that deletion may be immediate or postponed depending solely on the editor's perception of the likelihood and extent of the claim's inaccuracy or negative impact - not on other editors' "objecting" or "getting upset". --91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The difficulty is that some editors take the permission to remove content as an obligation to be taken too far. They may remove huge chunks of uncontroversial material only because it has no footnote attached, without making even an effort to familiarize themselves with the topic of the article. This policy was never meant to condone that type of editing. The text you mention is the current compromise on how to express the spirit of the policy. I agree it could be stated more clearly, but it's hard to get agreement on any particular rewording. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I believe people who watch this page have valuable perspectives and I hope you will look at this new page, and do what you can to help make it work: Areas for Reform Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

New subsection proposal
I should absolutely not have to spell this out, but...

Conflicting reliable sources
When a story in a reliable source has been superceded by a later one, especially when it involves a living person, it is not acceptable to use the earlier one just because it is "verifiable".

Objections? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't decide if that is acceptable without seeing the present text of the policy and the text after the change; it depends on context. That statement is fine if there is an actual conflict between an earlier article and a later article by the same author in the same publicaton. But Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can contribute to, not just those with access to every imagineable source. The mere fact that a more recent publication about a person has come does not make previous publications obsolete. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that we can not make a universal rule on this... what constitutes "superceeded"? Suppose two scholars write books about the same topic, reaching very different conclusions about the topic... does the fact that one book is published after the other mean that the earlier one has been "superceeded"?
 * That said... I do think we need to address the concept of outdated sources in some way. This is especially true for news articles... they may become obsolete over time... as new events happen or new information comes to light. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! That would turn recentism into policy! We don't pretend earlier reports didn't exist, we date the citations so the reader can put them in context. If necessary we can explicitly address the difference between early and later reports in the text. Sometimes the change is a legitimate correction. Sometimes it is timely reporting of developing knowledge. Other times it is censorship. We don't characterize them, and we certainly don't assume the latter report is better, we just make it clear who said what and when they said it.LeadSongDog come howl  18:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't agree with LeadSongDog. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a data dump of everything any reputable publication has ever said about a topic. Clearly outdated or erroneous information should just removed. The only exception that comes to mind would be if an erroneous report gained wide circulation, and is still frequently mentioned in current news sources as if it were correct. In that case it might be best to explain it as outdated information, with cites to thoroughly reliable sources showing it is outdated. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a lot depends on exactly what the older source is used to support. Outdated sources can certainly be used to support statements about historical context (what was thought at a particular point in time)... but they should not be used to support statements about modern context (what is though today).  Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can lay down a general rule about this. Sometimes old sources really are outdated and have been superceded, but sometimes not. Or they may generally be outdated, but not for the material they're being used to support. It will always depend on context and editorial judgment. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

One thing I find useful to remember is that, AFAICT, WP:RS never at any point says "sources that meet X definition shall be considered reliable". It sets a lot of necessary conditions for a source to be reliable, but at no point states what the sufficient conditions are (which is as it should be). So we're free to apply common sense and say that two sources that contradict one another can't both be reliable on that particular point. (Although "reliable but misunderstood" is sometimes an option.) --GenericBob (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Blueboare is really right here. I will give an example I know well. In the 1920s Bronislaw Malinowski (a man) published a book about a peculiar kind of ritualized trade in islands in the Western Pacific. In the 1970s Anette Wiener (a woman) published a book criticizing Malinowski for not having documented and analized an importantform of trade controled by women.  Shortly thereafter, Nancy munn came out with a book providing a new analysis of the trade.  The three books rpresent three points of view.  In one sense, one can sy that Weiner and munn added to our knowledge and thanks to them we have a fuler understanding.  But neither Weiner nor munn would claim they "superceded" Malinowski.  his work still contrains facts Weiner and Munny use, and his overall analysis is still something scholars discuss.  On can say: if you read only Malinowski, you get a partial understanding.  But if you do not read Malinowski, you are still geting only a partial account.  His is an old source but still used. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that looks to me like the sort of case where instead of trying to establish one of these three as a "reliable source", we would do better to just report the disagreement: "Source A says X, Source B disagrees because of Y, Source C says Z..." Here, even if Malinowski was completely wrong, it would still be important to discuss his work because it's influential. --GenericBob (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All this being said... we do have to be careful in BLPs. An old news story detailing allegations of criminal acts by the subject of a BLP may be verifiable... but if it subsequent news stories report that the allegations are groundless, we should not repeat these details under the guise of "this is what was thought at the time".  In this case the source has been superceeded. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo quote
I added this quote yesterday in the section about 'self-published sources about themselves', but Slimvirgin took it down shortly after with the comment 'it doesn't really say anything'.

I would disagree, I think it adds to the article the same way the first quote does. It doesn't add content, but it adds emphasis and shows that the sentiment expressed in the paragraph comes with weight behind it. What do the others here think about it? LK (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The policy already addresses this, Lawrence, as does BLP. Also, the quote you added doesn't say anything beyond, "they are sometimes okay, and sometimes not." The policy is more detailed. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced list of books published.
Re: An editor has put back books written by the LP in a BLP without supplying refs, saying wp:bop doesn't count because such lists are not subject to wp:v. If these things don't need refs, this policy should indicate that. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-27t14:16z


 * This policy, Verifiability, is as the name indicates, about verifiability, not citation style. If sufficient information to identify the work is present (such as author, title, year of publication, and publisher) then the information is verifiable. There is no rule against providing such information in running text, a table, or a list, rather than in a footnote or other inline citation. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Quote from the link above: "Linked ISBNs don't always indicate different writers with the same name write them,[...] depending on what link's chosen at Special:BookSources - I've had to clean up an article where books were written by another author with the same name" -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-27t15:00z


 * Mistakes can be made when citing a book, and such mistakes should be corrected. That has nothing to do with the format of the citation. A statement that a living person wrote a certain book is subject to wp:v, and including sufficient information in running text to identify the book in question satisfies wp:v. A decision not to place the information about the book in a footnote is not a violation of wp:v. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So if someone challenges the books, or they are likely to be challenged, there's still no need to have a ref showing that the person with the BLP is the one who wrote it? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-27t16:42z


 * If there is a challenge, certainly the issue should be resolved. There might not be any need to cite a different source; the preface, forward, or dust jacket of the book in question might provide verification that the person who is the subject of the article wrote the book. As for "likely to be challenged", if there are reliable sources that the subject of the article is active in a certain field, the book in question is in that field, and the name of the author is the same, I would consider the authorship of the book unlikely to be challenged. If, on the other hand, the book seems to be unrelated to any area of interest of the article subject, or if there is a well-known author by the same name who seems equally likely to have written the book in question, I would consider the authorship likely to be challenged. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In most cases major library catalogues show birth dates in their authority records. It's very improbable that different notable authors with the same name are born in the same year. Excepting contrary evidence, this is a non-issue. I'd start at the Library of Congress index.LeadSongDog come howl  20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-free and non-online references
I've seen a trend with some editors who believe that, for a reference to be verifiable, it must be immediately available to them online for free. I wasn't able to find anything in the WP:V wording that specifically addresses this issue. From my short search through the archives, it seems that it may have at one point. Does anyone know where I can cite Wiki policy/guidelines for references that aren't free or immediately verifiable?

For instance, you can cite a book that isn't free and therefore not readable online but it can obviously still be used as a reference. Thanks for your time. Ol Yeller '''Talktome 15:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:Reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help! Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 14:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have an instance wherewhere verification of a historical figure is not available online. Verifiable info is available through a few rare historical booklets and local new articles. There is nothing that I can find in Wikipedia resources that advises on how to provide verifiability in this type of situation. May these print items be scanned and uploaded for editors to review? If so, what is the process? Pregina (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Verifiability means that someone, somewhere, can check the source... it does not mean that every Wikipedia editor can do so, right now, with no more effort than a click of their mouse. As long as the historical booklets and local news articles in question are available for public review (at a library for example) that is good enough.  Thus, there is no need to scan and upload the items (in fact, doing so might violate copywrite laws).  Just cite the material. (That said, in the case where a document is extremely rare... such as only being available at one particular library or museum... I would suggest adding something like: "available for public review at the Bodleian Library, Oxford, England" to the citation.  This lets others know that the document is rare, and where to find it.  It also alerts them to the fact that more than typical effort will be needed to check the citation.  Adding such a comment isn't required, but it is a helpful gesture). Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

An clear and thorough answer. Greatly appreciated! Pregina (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What about information which is not likely to be available from any library, e.g. B-sides of singles in an editor's personal record collection? Such information is unlikely to be disputed, but an editor in another discussion has suggested that it would be impermissible on the grounds that it constitutes original research. While it's obviously not original research, it could be impossible for readers to verify although the evidence does exist somewhere. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Copyright libraries / sound archives. These are usually accessible to the general public after some difficulty.  If the pressing is unarchived, then cite the pressing.  Fifelfoo (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Recorings, like printed fiction or film, can be cited to the primary source (the recording itself). As long as it is in some way possible for another editor to obtain a copy of the recording (by going to a sound archive/museum, by purchasing the record at an old fashioned vinal record shop, etc.) it is verifiable. The only exception would be a recording that an editor made himself (that would be OR).  Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A clarification: I think the information on the cover, label, or booklet for a recording can be cited, but not the recording itself. So, for example, an editor could cite a songwriting credit using the label of a record, but couldn't say which person sang lead based on what the editor heard on the recording. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * True... there are limitations to what can be cited to aural sources. My point was that we can verify which song is on the B side of a record by simply listening to the record. And we can cite the record itself for that information. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the replies. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

From what i am reading above i understand that the material wanted is primarily what is online, secondly what is written by a secure source and nothing else. If i can see a pine tree in my yard i cannot write that its got needle leaves unless someone else has written that it is so. Obviously someone has to write for the first time about things, but the written view here prefers that he is not in wikipedia. Does the community agree with this?

I do not. Every word we use it is personal, the outcome of the synthesis is also personal. So we can be completely accurate, even if we have a "reliable source", unless we copy. Therefore the above view is absurd, cannot be applied to a common edited work, and should be removed as a common rule - or at least it has to be agreed by the community.

The only rule that can be applied, is "we highly recommend the use of references in the greatest extent that you can" and nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.38.141.211 (talk • contribs)


 * this last topic appears to be discussed in below. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on self-published sources
Could I ask that the section on self-published sources be clarified as to whether an organization's website would be considered a self-published source, not just an individual's website? I've been involved in editing disputes with a mind-control cult which says that my website (where former members tell their stories about being in the group) is self-published and therefore invalid, and they prefer to cite their own sites. However, their own sites seem self-published to me, the only difference being that the site owner happens in their case to be an organization rather than an individual person. For if indeed the way to avoid being labeled as "self-published" is for the site to be owned by an organization, I will simply promptly register for status as a not-for-profit org. Thank you for your help. MichaelBluejay (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All organizational websites are self-published (by the organization itself). Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't agree with that interpretation, and it's not what the definition of self-published was intended to mean. The White House does not self-publish its material. The White House is a primary source for its material, and therefore has to be used with caution. But it is not a self-published source. There is a big difference in terms of how we can use self-published versus primary. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as the regular participants on this talk page and that of WP:Reliable sources are concerned, publications by large organizations with a reputation for good editorial control are not self-published. For example, the National Electrical Code is not self-published despite the fact that the publisher is not just a neutral publisher, but an advocate for safety.


 * If all material on an organization's web site were considered self-published, the Verifiability policy and the Reliable Sources guideline would have to be revised to encompass this new interpretation, but the regular talk page participants will not allow any changes or clarifications in this area. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree... the National Electrical Code is self-published (by the National Fire Protection Association). People need to remember that we allow self-published sources to be used in Wikipedia. Yes there are limitations as to how we can use them, but the important thing is that we do allow them.  In fact, there are situations where a self-published primary source can be the most reliable source possible (for example, a self-published statement from a person as to his or her sexual preference is the most reliable source for that preference). In the case of the National Elecrical Code, the fact that it is self-published does not really matter... I can not think of a situation where we would discuss and cite the code that would not be within the provisions set out in WP:SELFPUB.  So there is no bar to citing it. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Government websites, according to Blueboar's interpretation, are self-published. The policy provides that "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Thus, we can't cite court decisions from an official court web site in a biography of a living person. The claim in the article Eric Holder that he assumed the office of United States Attorney General on February 3, 2009, is improperly sourced because the source, the United States Department of Justice website is not only self-published, but it is officially under the control of Eric Holder. So either the interpretation that websites of large organizations with good editorial control are self-published is incompatible with the existing Wikipedia policy and guidelines, or the Eric Holder article (and probably the articles on most government office-holders) must be rewritten. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, according to my interpretation Government websites are not self-published. I do not consider a government (or a governmental body) to be an organization in the same way that the NFPA is. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well, then, the biography on the living person Tim Berners-Lee is improperly sourced (see footnote 28) when it relies upon the website of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers to support the statement that Mr. Berners-Lee receive the IEEE/RSE Wolfson James Clerk Maxwell Award because the IEEE website is self-published. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, While the IEEE website is a self-published source, because the IEEE gives this award, the statement about who won it is not a claim about a third party, but about themselves. Statements about oneself are allowable under WP:SELFPUB. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. For one thing, claims by self-published sources about the publisher are only acceptable if "it does not involve claims about third parties". It is absurd to claim that an award to Berners-Lee does not involve Berners-Lee. Furthermore, the introduction to the "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" section mentions "without the requirement that they be published experts in the field". This indicates that the "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" section is a waiver of the expertise requirement. But the "Self-published sources (online and paper)" section indicates self-published sources may never be used in biographies of living persons, no matter the expertise of the publisher. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there is some disagreement about whether a large, respected organization's website counts as self-published. But there seems to be no dispute that a small, not widely respected org's website would indeed be self-published. Can I ask an editor with more experience than me to clarify in the article/project page that "self-published" doesn't refer soley to an *individual's* self-published effort? MichaelBluejay (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Self-published" refers to situations where there is no editorial or legal oversight. It's where an individual can decide to publish something, and just do it, as with me and this post. Mostly, "self-published" will refer to material published by one person&mdash;a blog or similar. When multiple people get together to form small publishing groups that take on none of the trappings of a professional organization, their material counts as "self-published" too. It's not size that matters here though, but professionalism, and there is no bright line that you can cross to suddenly stop being "self-published." When a case is ambiguous, we have to use our judgment as to whether we feel the source is professional enough to be trusted.


 * It's worth bearing in mind why we need to use reliable, non-self-published sources. It's because we as a project can't afford to have each claim examined by editors and lawyers to ensure accuracy, fairness, and compliance with the law. Therefore, we have to rely on sources who have done that. If you see a very small group of people producing material, ask yourself how likely it is that they have libel insurance, editors, and other professional publishing staff making sure they don't produce nonsense. That's how you determine where the line should be drawn. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: some editors are saying above that any publication from an organization about itself counts as self-published. That is not how we use the term. When the New York Times publishes editorials, they are not self-published. When it publishes material explaining that it made a mistake, that is not self-published. "Self-published" means someone sitting in his basement typing into his blog, and other situations similar in terms of the ease and immediacy of publication and the lack of professionalism. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * SV, I do understand what you are saying, but you don't address the issue. We all know that some organizational webpages are created, maintained and hosted by a volunteer member of the organization.  Some organizational webpages are created, maintained and hosted by paid employees of the organization.  And some organizational webpages are created, maintained and hosted by professional webhosting services (who will put whatever the client wants on the website).  How are we to know which is which?  If we are not to call all organizational webpages "self-published", then where and how do we draw the line between those that are and those that are not? Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can draw a line. We have to use our own editorial judgement. Any attempt to draw a line without looking at context is going to lead to organizations being included or excluded that shouldn't be. In terms of how to judge, it's usually obvious if an organization has employees, and it's not so much the webpage that's the issue as the organization itself (though some organizations consist of nothing but a webpage). Do we have some concrete examples we could use to discuss this? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Propose rule to define self-published
Items written and published by individuals themselves are obviously self-published, however, it's less clear with items published by organizations (non-profits, companies, associations, etc.) I would like to suggest the following rule for organizations: "Does the publishing body have a direct conflict of interest (WP:COI) with what is being reported on? Is the report essentially about some aspect of themselves?"

If there is a conflict of interest, then the item is self-published. So, a report from mind cult XXX that their devices work is self-published, a report debunking the claims from Consumer Reports is not. An article on the website of a noted psychic organization claiming to have predicted YYY crisis is self-published, a refutation of this claim from James Randi's organization is not. In general, government reports are not self published (since the government presumably has the interest of the public first). However, they may be deemed to be so if there is a direct conflict of interest. For example, a report from the police department of ZZZ, exonerating one of their police officers of a 'wrongful death' claim is self-published, but a court judgment, or a FBI report, is not. LK (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This rule is not acceptable, because it implies that when it comes to organizations, "self-published" is equivalent to "unreliable" or "biased". Judging that something is self-pubished is not about reliability per se, it is about whether there are a substantial number of people controlling what is published, vs. a few people controlling the publication. If a large committee of the American Bar Association were to issue a white paper on the ABA website supporting legislation that would probably create more employment for lawyers, there would be a conflict of interest, but it wouldn't be self-published. Now it's true the reason WP pays attention to self-publication status is that self-published material might be unreliable, but there is a difference between restricting self-published material because it might be unreliable, and saying that material is self-published because WP editors have made a judgement that particular material by a particular organizaiton is unreliable.


 * Alternatively, one could define publishers as organizations which exist primarily to publish, and not to promote any particular cause or point of view, and say that everything published by non-publishers is self-published. However, such a broader definition would require rewriting WP:V and WP:Reliable sources. --Jc3s5h (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I oppose Lawrence's suggestion. We can't define "self-published." We give examples on the policy page; the rest is left to editors' common sense. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 07:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this, I think SV is correct... we simply can not define "self-published". Yes, this will lead to the occasional argument... but those can be dealt with either by consensus at the article talk page or by RfC and raising the specific source and situation on policy talk pages like this one. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So, to clarify, only things published by an individual himself/herself is undeniably self-published? An association of two that publishes material from a third person is not? (Or at least we have to discuss it first?) How about an essay by the sole editor of an established journal published in his own journal, would that be self-published? LK (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Even the sole editor of an established journal is subject to controls, such as being fired by the owners, fired by the president of the society that runs the journal, or loss of advertising revenue. So it probably isn't self-published. --Jc3s5h (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's an example. My website accusing Aesthetic Realism of being a cult has been criticized as a source for being self-published, but what of the cult's website where they say they're not?   Also, I'm realizing that there's no good distinction in the guideline between self-published  and self-written.  While my site is certainly self-published, I'm hardly the only author.  The site also includes the stories by about a dozen former members of their cult experiences, as well as original source documents from the group (scans of newspaper ads, verbatim transcripts of meetings), and reprints of articles from the mainstream media.  I think there's a big difference between a self-published site where the publisher is the only author, and a self-published site with several different contributors, original source docs, and MSM reprints.  I don't know exactly how or even whether the guideline could be clarified though.... MichaelBluejay (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, your website is self-published, even though you quote others. What you call "the cult's website" is less obvious.  It is run by a group known as "Friends of Aesthetic Realism".  I lean towards calling it self-published as well... but to say this definitively I would need to know more about "Friends of Aethetic Realism". Are they speaking for themselves or for Aethetic Realism in some official capacity? Blueboar (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you form an association or a group (not neccesarily a formal group, can be a loose partnership) with some other people (or at least one other person), and have the group publish the site, and then have other people contribute articles to the site as well, I think that would make articles on your site not prima facie self-published. IMO, both your site and the cult site are self-published, or at the least they are 'unreliable sources', but this is something that should be resolved on WP:RS/N. LK (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Under current rules, which I think are appropriate, you couldn't make the claim they're a cult either in your article or theirs, but in your article you could be noted as an opponent/critic of Aesthetic Realism. One could also note in the Aesthetic Realism page that they claim not to be a cult. Fine proposal as to COI. As an Organizations Wikiproject member, I had always treated this so as implicit.


 * By the way, what happened to the clause that said that a self-pub had to be attributable to its source??? Now all our female article subjects ARE 29 instead of merely claiming to be so. Wheeee! ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We should have that in our guidelines, too often people's qualifications, descriptions, etc are sourced to SPS stuff and that needs to be easy to distinguish from a RS source. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Burden of proving a source as reliable/unreliable
I've tried digging through all the relevant policies and guidelines and found nothing - sorry if I missed something. If there is a dispute about whether a specific source is reliable and usable or should be removed, where does the burden of proving the source's reliability lie? If there is no clear-cut policy on whether a very specific source is reliable, and one side is saying "It's reliable, show me where it says it isn't reliable", and the other side is saying "It isn't reliable, in what way is it reliable?" is there more of a burden on one of those two sides? I would expect the side arguing for the source's inclusion would bear the burden, but I thought I'd ask. Some guy (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We very rarely have other sources that say that a particular source is reliable or unreliable. We have to make that determination ourselves, on the talk page, taking into account all the relevant factors in each situation. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to take a look at WP:FRINGE. If it's not renowned pseudo-science, I don't think the reliability of a source is clear cut. WP:NPOV comes into play when there are multiple, conflicting sources.  RJC  TalkContribs 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no burden on proving reliability either way... each side must make the best argument they can for reliability/unreliability. If no consensus can be reached on the article talk page, the issue can be raised at the reliable sources Noticeboard for third party opinions. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As CBM and Blueboar said, we have to discuss it case by case, for a host of reasons. Sometimes we find that a source that was good has been superseded. Some sources that had a reputation for fact-checking etc. can lose it. Some sources are good on only some aspects of a topic, for example top chess-players are usually good commentators and play and players but poor on chess history - and in physics, Stephen Hawking is a top authority on theoretical physics but not on e.g. fluid dynamics. Some popular science mags carry both press releases of discoveries, which tend to hype them (unreliable), and articles by top authorities in a field about well-established and uncontroversial aspects of the field (reliable). And in some political and religious controversies no source is adequate on its own because all have clear POVs. Etc., etc. --Philcha (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Further reading" on verifiability
Too many emphases, both as tags and in their layouts, at the top of the article: I did not observe "Consider discussing potential changes on the talk page first" but I suppose that the suggested further reading is not controversial. I perceived in Talk about Bernard Madoff (July 26-30) that it would be fruitful to expose a deeper and wider conception of verifiability that the one which seems to rely upon a (probably unconscious) problematic doctrine of so called logical positivism. In particular, the interpretation of Wikipedia policy seems to me to trust excessively the supposed reliability of the source and the number of sources while downplaying the importance of diversity in pluralism, and dialectics as conceived since Plato. This is aggravated by the perceived danger of lawsuits against Wikipedia, especially in WP:BLP which may results in the deletion of any controversial data, going for "the majority". It would be interesting, for instance, to check how the page on Bernard Madoff developed up to December 9, 2008 in face of available data from reliable sources on (failed) SEC inquiries up to that date. I claim that the events like Madoff investment scandal may be facilitated by superficial conceptions of verifiability divorced from the quest for truth as seemingly supported by many if not all Wikipedia administrators. To further a possible discussion I adduce a selection from Talk on Bernard Madoff related to verifiability which I think are not always considered:

From Qualifying sources For statements about which reliable sources are in conflict or that are matters of differing opinion, the text should include sufficient context to qualify the statement or attribute its source. For example (from Super-recursive algorithm): Martin Davis has described some of Burgin's claims as "misleading". In a case like this, it is important for the text to attribute this opinion to its source, so it does not appear that Wikipedia is making this criticism of Burgin's claims. See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted to be "the truth". Instead, all of the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, and not just the most popular...Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves... The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article...
 * From Qualifying sources
 * From Neutral point of view
 * From Burden of evidence
 * From Quotations Fringe-Quotations:

Because of other duties I am not sure that I will be able to follow a further possible discussion on this: it should not be interpreted as a lack of interest and commitment. I will be happy if this can contribute to some reflections and possible improvements of this project article. Stefanson (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the links, Stefanson, because I can't see what most of them have to do with the policy. Logical positivism, for example, or audit, seem unrelated. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 08:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, some of them, especially if one does not follow up their references. It could be a matter of discussion which deserves more than a few minutes of availability to reach several users. Nevertheless: you affirm that it does not matter how you define verifiability, the title word of this article in question. If you look for verifiability in the Ecyclopaedia Britannica you will be directed to Verifiability principle. What happens here is what I meant by unconscious commitment to logical positivism: a denial of the relevance of logical positivism despite its import for the definition of verifiability itself. As I wrote: sorry if I cannot follow up as I would liked. Stefanson (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Logical positivism was a philosophical doctrine holding that for a statement to be meaningful it must either be empirically verifiable or a tautology i.e. it must be possible to determine whether it is true or false; statements like "saving lives is a good thing" are meaningless. That's not related to the way we use the word here. Here we mean simply that material in WP must have been published in reliable sources so that our readers can check it for themselves. That's not the normal use of the term "verifiable"; indeed, our use of it is false, but it has caught on and could only be changed now with great difficulty. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 10:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you indeed, for your valuable acknowledgment that Wikipedia's use of the word Verifiability is false. I just gave a "last" glance at what was coming on this page-section and cannot refrain from expressing my satisfaction for your bluntly honest and valuable acknowledgment. It prompts me to add some "last" words while hoping that others will pick up on this. I do so because I think that there are extremely serious potential consequences decurring from this falseness in one main policy of Wikipedia. When some editor claims that an article assumes a  misunderstood "verifiability" divorced from (the quest for) truth, another (neglecting the qualifying word "threshold" in "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" of WP:V) may feel authorized by those false verifiability-premises to rebutt that
 * The great thing about Wikipedia is that we do not need to know - because we are not about truth but rather about verifiability, or:
 * If anyone here is editing any article with the idea of arriving at The Truth,&#0153; now would be a good time to re-read WP:V.

Such an interpretation of policy, based on falseness and divorced from THE QUEST FOR truth (not the alleged The Truth,&#0153;), risks to turn its editors into second-rate journalists and media folks who feel satisfied with referring to secondary "reliable sources", as a loudspeaker for authorities and reliable, often politicized world press. And disregarding, for instance, my four selected qualifications above from WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:CITE , and WP:VERIFY, or others, like about the legitimate use of the word "Say", as problematized in WP:AVOID.

There is the risk, in principle, of a Wikipedia scandal if this free encyclopedia of ours, at the basis of its main policy, uses a concept which paradoxically does not respect this very same main policy (reference to an external reliable source for its definition). If there would be a public debate claiming that Wikipedia is designed as a participatory effort gathering the wisdom of crowds but neglecting the verifiability, accuracy, precision, and trustworthiness or quality of its information, it would be in trouble. Its only defense would be the number of its articles, and its page-view statistics. Or it would claim verifiability only according to its own private definition of the term, which is possibly akin to the tertiary or quaternary dictionary definitions of some branch among disagreeing logical positivists who equate empirical facts to factual statements (Encyclopaedia Britannica on verifiability). And it would try to dissuade these same critics from consulting Wikipedia's own definitions of, say, accuracy and precision or information quality since they use a public, social and scientific language, not Wikipedia-private definition of verifiability, and therefore cannot be included among the "See also" section of WP:V. Stefanson (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words... you don't like the policy. You have a right to think the Policy is flawed... but given that it has strong consensus in this regard, I can assure you that it isn't going to change anytime soon. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's another rule, WP:IAR. I think it's a great idea for someone who's obviously put as much thought into it as you have. I do however disagree that crowdthink risks a Wikiscandal. The rules are there, for the most part, so as to minimize liability. Far greater is the possibility that someone will read and do something stupid based on inaccurate information that was edited in unimpeachable good faith. The process is key. Those of us who are here searching for some Truth amid all the facts will at least learn to think for ourselves. The friction in the consensus process is every bit as valuable as accord. Is there a specific proposal you wish to advance, Stefanson? ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
There discussion on Israel and the apartheid analogy as to whether this is a usable source, given its promotional nature. Any thoughts?93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We have discussed CAMERA many times at WP:RSN... it is considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia and sources that mirror or source information from Wikipedia
The section currently starts off: I think everyone agrees that articles and posts on Wikipedia and mirrors should not be used as sources (I absolutely do)... but the first sentence: "Wikipedia itself is self-published" is not a valid reason for the prohibition. According to WP:SELFPUB, We allow self-published sources (albeit, under limited circumstances). The problem with citing another Wikipedia article has little to do with the fact that Wikipedia is self-published... the problem with doing so has a lot to do with a host of other reasons, most notibly: a) Wikipeida a Wiki, and Wikis are not reliable sources; b) The cited article can change easily and without warning, and may not support the statment it is being cited for. c) citing another article in the same encyclopedia is a self-reference, which is poor scholarship.
 * Wikipedia itself is self-published. Therefore articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, may not be used as sources.

I propose that the easiest solution is to simply cut the first sentence, and start the section with "Articles and posts on Wikipedia...." This leaves the restriction in place, but omits the non-sensical reason for it. Alternatively, we could list any of the other reasons I have discussed. Blueboar (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this - it would be a sensible clarification. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, except that I'm not sure self references are always poor scholarship. They certainly are in the case of Wikipedia, but I don't know that it would always apply to other encyclopedias. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur. We all agree that wikipedia articles are not reliable source to use in our own articles. But describing the whole wiki process as self-published is probably inaccurate. LK (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a valid objection to the existing text here, but I'd really like to have some explanation of what, exactly, is wrong with internal references so that people reading the policy page can absorb some of the wisdom that informs the policy as well. I reverted this because it seemed to remove from the policy any explanation for why we don't use Wikipedia as a reference. This results in a policy page that reads more like a list of commandments to be followed than like an explanation of best practices and the why of what we do, rather than merely the what. How about something like this (borrowing from Blueboar)?
 * Since Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, it is not a reliable source. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not suitable for use as references in other Wikipedia articles, as this would result in circular referencing.

Seems to cover all the bases (and with less verbiage than the current version!). ⟳ausa کui ×  20:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I agree that Guidelines should be focused on "best practice" and take a more advisory tone, but I prefer our Policy pages to read more like a clear list of commandments. I don't mind a short explanation of why we have a policy statement... but we should start with the statement and then (if needed) explain it.
 * Perhaps something along the lines of:
 * Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, should not be used as sources, as this would result in a self-reference (ie Wikipedia citing itself). Exceptions to this may occur in articles about Wikipedia.  In addition, sources that present material known to have originated in Wikipedia should not subsequently be used to support that material in articles in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing (ie Wikipedia citing something that in turn cites Wikipedia for the same information.)
 * Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You can think of policy as a set of commandments; that's a debate for another day. What I don't like is having a list of commandments that are to be memorized that do nothing to educate people about the philosophy and experience that informs the policy. I don't want people who blindly obey the policy just because it's policy -- I want people who follow the policy because they understand that it's the best practice and the best way to build an encyclopedia. Keeping it simple and giving the rationale behind the policy as we deliver its tenets is the best way I know to accomplish this, and so I think it's essential to delivering the message. We want people who read the policy to understand the ideas behind it and to benefit from the experience that justifies it so that they can go forward and think on their own. That doesn't mean you can't have firm lines in the sand and a prescriptive policy. I happen to think that that is also wrong, but it's not related, and you could have any position on that without being bound to have another position on this.
 * That said, I think your version is very close. I'm going to post a somewhat revised version and I think we can work with that. ⟳ausa کui  ×  22:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree... we are close... but not quite there yet. I think it is much clearer and to the point to have the policy statement come first, followed by explanation of why that statement is part of the policy.  So in this instance, we should start with (to put it in its most simple form): "Don't cite to Wikipedia," then explain: "because this results in a self-reference".  And "Don't cite sources that took their informaion from Wikipedia" followed by "because this results in a circular reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)
 * I don't really view it as a big deal, but usually when policy wording is under discussion or dispute, it's expected that the status quo version will remain until consensus is reached. Again, I don't think of it as a policy "violation" or whatever, but merely good manners; I'm suggesting that it would make this process go more smoothly if you could show good faith by not reverting all my edits back to your preferred version every time. ⟳ausa کui  ×  18:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would also make the process go more smoothly if you could do the same with my edits... It isn't just my preferred version that I am reverting to... three other editors expressed approval of my change and my reasoning for it. While I would agree that four people expressing agreement is not "community consensus", it does indicate that there is some support for the change.  Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If we put back the existing text, I think we would both be well motivated to get this hammered out. Please understand that I'm also in favor of the change you're proposing-- what I'm trying to fix is only some collateral damage. Thanks. causa sui  ×  16:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What collateral damage do you see? Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Blueboar Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I explained above, I wanted to get some information in there about the rationale behind the policy. causa sui  ×  19:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that I had a chance to sleep on it, I think the existing version satisfies my complaints. Thanks! causa sui  ×  20:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I never had a problem with this policy. While other Wikipedia articles are off-limits as a Wikipedia source, any and all RS they use are not of course. :) (Be sure to re-read anything before you cite it though!) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC about policy template
Fresh eyes would be appreciated at Template talk:Policy. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo quote removed
Why was the following Jimbo quote removed? "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons"

The edit summary says 'see talk', but I see no discussion of it here. I really like having that quote there. I strongly argue for it's reinstatement. What say you? LK (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree... put it back. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry! I intended to post my reasoning on talk, but I forgot. My thinking on this is that it's inappropriate to quote any single Wikipedian on a policy page nowadays. We used to quote Jimbo when the policies were still forming, partly to clarify, partly to give them authority. Neither of these things is needed now. The policies are clear and widely accepted, and the project in general is maturing to the point where Jimbo is much less involved. I therefore felt it more appropriate to put his quote in a footnote. It's not something I'll try to revert, so if someone wants to restore it, that's fine, but perhaps you could wait a little to see what others think? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To restate my opinion... I think the quote should be returned. Not only is this a central concept that should not be removed without discussion, but Jimbo isn't just any old Wikipedian. His opinion can make or break policy (as an example of his influence... remember how a few brief words of disfavor from him upset months of colaborative work at WP:ATT).  Blueboar (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that it did then, but I don't think it would happen now. In fact, I'm certain that it wouldn't. Quite a bit has changed in the last couple of years, which is why I feel the quote's not appropriate, except perhaps in a footnote. Also, it was always more appropriate in BLP, because it's not true that non-BLP uncited material should be removed aggressively. The policy in fact says that it should not be, so we're actually contradicting ourselves. Posting the quote below to save people having to look it up. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. &mdash; Jimbo"
 * I don't mind it included as a foot note... as long as it is included. It goes to clarifying the intent of our policies. Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove it entirely. I just moved it to a footnote. Diff here, though I had to tweak it a bit after that, because I messed up the ref tags. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting it back until wording can be agreed that says the same thing. I think there needs to be a lot more than one or two people to agree before it is removed. --PBS (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have SV's replacement did not in include part of the essence of this sentence. "This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." what was distilled afaict was only for information about living persons. --PBS (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um... if you check the footnote, the line you say was missing... is not actually missing. It's there.  SV simply moved the qoute, she didn't edit it.  I have moved it back to being a footnote. Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I know it is in the footnote, but the footnote is being used to emphasise a point in the main text that does not include "all information" but information on biographies of living people. --PBS (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you are getting at now. Question, do you think the quote needs to be in the main text, or would you agree to moving it back to a footnote if we came up with alternative language for the main text that does include "all information"? Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the difs ... Is the issue the addition of the phrase: "see Biographies of living persons." (that seems to be the only substantive difference between the two versions.) Or is it that you simply disagree with moving the quote to a foot note in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Television shows as sources
When adding material to articles about television shows and their characters, is the television show itself a reliable source? For example, if I wanted to add something to the Peter Griffin article, would an episode of Family Guy be a legitimate source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.75.61 (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you want to add... a simple plot discription is fine, character analysis is not (for that you would need a secondary source). Also, please note that trivia is discouraged in Wikipedia, even if it can be sourced (see WP:TRIVIA). Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Relevant info from WP:LINK
Someone suggested (at WT:EL) that WP:LINK might contain information relevant for this page. As we're currently discussing a reduction or cut of that section, please help make sure that anything that fits into this page is covered here. &mdash; Sebastian 21:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you link to sources in Wikisource?
I have seen people remove citations that link to Wikisource on the grounds that it is a wiki and wikis are never good sources. I believe that it is acceptable to cite something that is posted on Wikisource, since that isn't a creation of Wikisource itself (for instance, an essay or book present there), but I can see how people would think otherwise, so I thought I'd ask to make sure. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes and No... you can include a link to materials on Wikisource (what is called a convenience link in Wiki jargon), but you should cite the original (see: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT for more on this).
 * That said... the version of a text on Wikisource can be an issue... Wikisource allows for users to create annotated versions of documents, so long as there is a "clean" version provided... when linking it is important to link to the version that does not have user created annotations ... ie link to the "clean" version with just the original text. Also... remember that being on Wikisource does not in any way change the reliability of the original.  An unreliable source does not suddenly become reliable because someone copied it into Wikisource. In fact, there may be many valid reasons to exclude a specific Wikisource link. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Can material be challenged not for being wrong or inaccurate, but simply for not being sourced?
I have a question about this policy. My understanding is that WP:V does NOT state that all content must be cited to WP:RS. Instead, it says that material challenged or likely to be challenged requires reliable sources. If material is factually accurate but not sourced, that does that mean it should automatically be removed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Editors who make a habit of removing material that is generally known to be factually accurate, with no claim the material is inaccurate, just because there is no citation, should be banned. Editors who habitually make absurd challenges just to be a pain in the ass should be banned. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement that you must remove something you believe is accurate. On the other hand, if anyone else questions it, the statement will need to be sourced.  So best practice says that if you find something that could be sourced, try to find a source for it, if only to protect it from being challenged. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem I'm encountering is an editor is questioning material for no other reason than it not being sourced. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If a statement is obviously (to someone familiar with the subject) factually accurate, it ought to be fairly easy to source. But often what may be clear to one person is less clear to another.  It might seem somewhat dubious, in which case a source is needed.  Or it might be an opinion, which should be properly attributed (and hence a source is essential).  In any event, supplying a source can only improve the article. Jakew (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. But it's not just one sentence.  We have an editor who is gutting an entire article and removing everything that doesn't specifically have a source.  Granted some of it is crap, but some of it is good, and they're not distinguishing between the two.  The article to which I refer is List of common misconceptions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I have removed material which I believe is false, not just because it is unsourced. I have left badly sourced material which I belive is true. WP:V unambiguously says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." and "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed..."


 * Quest is obviously an intelligent person, and has done a lot of good work on the article in question. I honestly can't understand why he is trying to protect unsourced material from being removed. This stuff has all been moved to the talk page - all he has to do is find reliable sources, if they exist, which unambiguously support the material. --hippo43 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * One contributor believing/supposing that material added in good faith is false is not sufficient to meet the "likely to be challenged" standard established. Further, for the "[actually] challenged" part, it's silly to think that removing significant amounts of text constitutes a "challenge". That's why fact tags exist. It's very easy to add in tags to encourage material to be sourced without making sweeping regressions to the content of an article. StealthCopyEditor (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course one editor can challenge material. To suggest otherwise is to stand the policy (that the burdon of proof is on the person adding the material) on its head. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say that, first, you should Assume Good Faith unless someone is really going mad across multiple articles repeatedly deleting stuff that is obvious to everyone. What is obvious to you, after all, might not be obvious to everyone.  In general, though, if you're going to gut an article by removing everything uncited, it's best to use fact tags and the like first, giving people warning and a chance to cite them -- then, if there's still no sources after a few days, go ahead and remove them.  But that's more a matter of personal preference, and editors are perfectly entitled to be WP:BOLD and remove things they feel are false (it's easy enough for you to revert; then you can talk things out.) If you have a dispute with someone who is removing a huge amount of stuff that you feel could be easily sourced...  well, source it and put it back in.  That's not a hard dispute to resolve. --Aquillion (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Twenty-one items were deleted in the last mass deletion.. Only 1 out of the 21 even contained a {fact} tag.  Some of these items are a few paragraphs long and I'm not the one who originally added the content.  Unfortunately, I'm pretty much the only editor who is actively working to find reliable sources, so for me to go back and find sources for all this content will take more than a few days.  I'm attempting to reach a compromise.  In any case, there's a larger issue that I would like some clarification on.  Is challenging for the sake of challenging legit or not?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Challenging for the sake of challenging is not legit... but Hippo has just stated that he removed the material because he believes it is false. That is a legit reason to challenge it.  Could he have done so differently (such as addressing each item one at a time, before moving on to the next)?  Of cource.  But having stated a reasoning, he is within his rights. Blueboar (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Blueboar is right, I could, perhaps should, have handled this more diplomatically, by addressing these a few at a time. Two reasons why I didn't - first, I don't have that much time to commit to Wikipedia, and often I'm not able to do much for weeks at a time, so that would be a really slow process. Second, this has been going on for months, if not years, already. The same discussions have been played out in the past, and many of the same entries I removed in April have not been improved since then. --hippo43 (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you should have discussed such massive, sweeping changes to the article with your fellow editors before hand. I repeat - out of the 21 items of the most recent mass deletion, only 1 even had a {fact} tag.  I am attempting to reach some sort of compromise with you, but unfortunately, you don't seem willing to even discuss a compromise.
 * In any case, I would like to get clarification on WP:V: Can material be challenged not for being wrong or inaccurate, but simply for not being sourced? So far, I don't think that we've had a single editor has said yes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Quest, I think you can take it that your question has been asked and answered. No one is going to say "Yes" to your question, because everyone agrees that material should not be challenged simply for not being sourced.  But then we must move on to the next question (the question you have left unspoken): Is this what occured with Hippo's edit at List of common misconceptions.  The answer to that question appears to be "No." because Hippo has stated that he removed the material for reasons other than simply not being sourced.  Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the reason why it's gone unsaid is because I'm trying to be polite and I'm trying not to make any unpleasant accusations. But I guess at this point, it's unavoidable.  So, I'll be a little more blunt: Hippo is being disingenious.  As you can see from this discussion on the article talk page, the sole reason for many of these deletions is "No source for common misconception."  Sorry, Hippo, I know that you're a good editor and a value to Wikipedia, but in this particular case, you are simply not being honest.  If you have a valid concern that something isn't factually accurate, you should list them out.  Simply saying "No source for common misconception" is not a valid reason for deleting content.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

the refs first have to be red and understood. these two minute editors only look if there is a number there or count the words and no. there are some school boys who do not even do that. also if one has nothing worthwhile to contribute they can feel important deleting. it is interesting to note only the english wiki seems to have these problems. draw your own conclusions if you can.

Wdl1961 (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to put Quest for Knowledge's concern in historical context. You may know that many other encyclopedias - EB, World Book, Compton's - do not have footnotes or inline citations.  In the early years of WP we did not either.  There was no cite sources policy, and what "veifiability" meant just that, that one could find support, not that support was required.  Our articles looked like EB and other encyclopedia's articles.


 * Then, after a few years, several editors were concerned that too many of our articles had too many inaccuracies. EB doesn't have footnotes because EB articles are written by graduate students supervised by professors supervised by editors who make sure that there is some level of quality, and we do not have that.  As a result, V was strengthened, cite sources and reliable sources were created (first as guidelines) and NOR was strengthened considerably, and people started putting in citations.  Now you all should be abl to imagine the outcome: lots of articles filled with citations, and lots of articles (the ones written in the first few years) with no citations.  Articles on conroversial topics had the most footnotes, because in a controversy people need to provide sources to support their edits.


 * I think that what I just wrote really ought to regulate the state of affairs here: the more controversial, the greater the need to cite sources.


 * Now, what happens to all those articles written in 2001, 2002, 2003? I think two things are happening, and they appear the same but are not, and this is the crux of the problem Quest brings up.  Wikipedia has attracted many new editors.  Some are real experts in a field.  They read an article and see that a minority view is presented as a majority view, or an important view is represented in the article but inaccurately.  These are the people we created CS and RS for, these are the people who hae read all the cutting-edge or most respected sources and really can recognize well-sourced or poorly sourced articles.  They may read a paragraph lacking cittions but full of views and they may feel that such paragraphs are correct.  So they move on.


 * Others do not know much about most topics - they have had a lecture in high school or college, or have read a text book. But they have really read wikipedia' policies.  They read V and CS and RS and in good faith they believe they can go through all those old articles and put in tags everywhere as if this were a service to the project.  I think ths indiscriminateuse of tags is not a service to the project.


 * I think that adding sources is a good thing if thy direct readers to the bst books or most authoritative articles on a subject. The problem with editor type #2 is that they do not know these peer-reviewed journal articles or academic press books.  So some of them - in good faith! - google and look for websites that might support a claim and if they do they put these in. Well, I know this is good faith work, and I appreciate the effort, but I think it compounds the problem.  Let's say I am a real expert on a topic.  I read a Wikipedia without sources and in my view it really is accurate and verifiable in the sense that I know sources exist for every view.  Now, what is the purpose of Wikipedia?
 * If it is to present accurate information on topics, I will not make any changes to the article because I know it does a good job (I certainly won't put tags in).
 * If it is to help researchers by pointing them in the direction of the most authoritative or cutting edge sources, I might add footnotes with such sources. Someone reading the article who wants to go further knows where to go.  But this mania for adding the first website (often some other on-line encyclopedia, or somoeone's college project) they come to via google as "the source" is not only disingenuous (it was not the source for whover wrote it), it i unhelpful (it is not the source people should go to if they want a higher level of scholarship in their research).
 * In short, we strengthened the CS, RS, V and NOR policies because we wanted to make sure that our articles met scholarly standards. But only a scholar - it doesn't have to be a PhD or a university professor but someone who really does know all the sources (including all of those on paper, in a library) and who knows which sources are most widely cited by other scholars - would know how to apply these policies properly, by rewriting a paragraph based on the best sources and by providing the source.  When people who do not know all the sources try to "enforce" thse policies, we just end up with a mess.


 * And this is the problem. We thought that as Wikipedia expanded, it would attract more scholars in more fields.  Instead it attracted a lot of people who genuinely wanted to help out, even if they did not know a lot about scholarly fields and did not have the skills, time or interest to do the real research it would take for anyone to become an expert.  But these new editors wanted to help and they feel that one way is to help enforce policies.  Well, this is my sense of what has been going on.  I do not know the two editors involved in this specific case so I amnot going to comment on either one of them.  I am not judging either one of them.  But Quest's questions do raise a more general issue, one I think we need to address. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

an operational policy proposal, with explanation

 * In the instant case, misconceptions are, by their nature poorly documented anywhere, and certainly very rarely in some fully outfitted with scholarly apparatus place. They are the 'ground' in contrast to 'positive knowledge' and are therefore not prominent, not the figure. It's in part a perceptual problem.
 * In the more general case, I think we have sprouting, or well into luxuriant growth actually, a sort of blind fanaticism which is, like most such, not the result of any perspective on the relevant subject of an article, but merely the relentless (and thoughtless) application of Wiki policy. Policies which are excellent, and needed, and should be continued, but with some common sense in application. Maybe it needs to be revised a bit to reduce the tendency toward jihadic application against infidel observation sin articles. Given the quality of the source citations these folks find acceptable (due to lack of fact tagging), there should be some thought on the question of quality of citation. Though that will move the absurdist insistence on thoughtless observance of Wiki policies merely a bit farther down the metaphorical road, changing nothing in practice.
 * There is the same problem with notability. It is always possible for someone to argue against the notability of this or that, sometimes on the ground of lack of citations establishing notability. In the case of art (especially art without an associated critical structure, or art which is new and not yet accepted into existing critical structures), this immediately becomes a question of competing tastes. Hardly the sort of thing Wikipedia, or its editors, should be getting involved with. Inherently NPOV.
 * These issues are central to any consideration of Wikipedia quality, and the existing situation is tending toward reducing quality, a most vexing concern. Thoughtless, rote, blindered-perspective application of just about any policy is likely to have unfortunate results. Even perverse effect, or in a negative sense an instance of the tragedy of the commons. The latter is peculiarly critical for the Wikipedia, a 'commons' if there ever were one.
 * In the pre-history of WP, Larry Sanger felt the problem unsolvable and left the project. As I understand it, his concern then (and that of many today -- unfamiliar with Wikipedia, but willing to reach damning conclusions without much familiarity) was that of a proliferation of false, misleading, information throughout a freely edited project. That problem, in my judgement, has proven to be much less an issue than Sanger expected.
 * But the varied problems caused by unthinking application of well-meant, and even necessary, official polices is, I think, larger, if unanticipated in that pre-historical era.
 * Because such damaging application of Wiki polices can be started (and in effect carried to completion) by a single person with what often seems to be a monomania, supported by a very few fellow travelers whether witting or not, resulting in deletion of worthwhile content and of worthwhile articles, the present consensus rules which govern such proposals (ie, deletion of content when there is disagreement about source requirements, and deletion of articles when there is lack of 'notability') should be revised to require more than a few members of a Wiki-lawyering cabal to savage WP content and quality.
 * Just how many votes should be needed to delete articles or disputed unsourced comments is harder. I suggest that an article's non-anonymous serious editors (perhaps those with more than 5 or 10 non-minor edits in the prior 90 days?) be automatically notified (or manually, as the result of the application of this new proposed policy) and that some portion of those editors (1/4?) agree to article deletion or disputed unsourced content deletion, before the deletion is permitted. And that anonymous editors, or those without prior article edits, tagging or deletion suggestions require a second by a non-anonymous editor of that article. Either of these polices would reduce the problem, and each would reinforce the other in effectiveness. They would limit the effects of drive-by fact taggers and wholesale article deletionists, with the likely result of an improved general level of WP quality. Certainly reduced thrashing about. All are goals to which every editor, save those whose 'legal' activities are essentially vandalism, can aspire.
 * This proposal has the additional advantage of still allowing unsourced and non-notable content / articles to be removed, and of correction of simple graffiti vandalism by patrolling editors in just the way they operate now. There are few disputes about juvenile vandalism removal, and not many more about less immediately obvious non-graffiti cases (eg, Hitler was really an American Indian and his policies were intended as revenge against colonial outrages -- not sourceable (I hope!) and not likely to be disputed by other editors on removal either). This proposal is intended only to require a more thoughtful application of Wiki policy.
 * Comment? ww (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This definitely looks excessive. The user should consider using fact more liberally in the future. causa sui  ×  18:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

All of this drama is just a continuation of the list's AfD. The list has two systemic problems:
 * Inadequate quality of sources verifying that a misconception is common and a misconception:When a source that does not focus on misconceptions says that something is a popular misconception, then it almost never gives any details such as "a study found that 2 in 5 Germans believe that paper contains vitamins", and it's usually hard to tell whether the source actually means what it says or just uses "According to a popular misconception, all cows in the Alps are violet" as an attention-grabbing opener. Sometimes (as in "a lot of people believe that herbal tea is a sort of tea") the "misconception" is even true unless one is unusually pedantic. – The dedicated books on misconceptions are not better, because this is an infotainment genre. These books are written for profit and entertainment, not to advance scientific knowledge about the nature of misconceptions. The main criterion for inclusion is that a misconception should be either outrageously stupid or appear correct to most readers. In the first case, it doesn't matter if nobody really believes it ("you can balance an egg on its end on the first day of spring; only!"), and in the second it doesn't matter if it's actually true when interpreted in the intended way ("a mirror switches left and right").
 * Almost no scrutiny by subject matter experts:The problem here is, for every single factoid, a woefully inadequate ratio of potential knowledgeable editors to readers. An article on Danish history attracts readers specifically interested in Danish history. If for two weeks in 1941 Jews in Copenhagen did have to wear a yellow star, after all, then one of the readers of a Danish history article will notice. An article on cooking attracts readers specifically interested in that. If under normal cooking conditions 90 % of any alcohol is gone after 10 minutes and the 3 hours given in the article are for getting below the detection limit, then one of them will notice and make the article less misleading. In an article on astronomy, if metallic meteorites do arrive hot on the earth's surface, then sooner or later the claim that all meteorites are cold will be corrected. If cold weather's failure to cause the common cold (statistically) is due to the positive effect of regular exercise outdoors counterbalancing the effect of hypothermia, then in a medical article, sooner or later the mistake will be corrected. – But if we stuff all these factoids into a single article, neither its readers nor its editors will be knowledgeable about more than a handful of entries.

This is not a battle between deletionist process wonkery and inclusionists who follow the spirit of our policies. This is a battle between editors who try to maintain a minimal level of correctness under the adverse conditions set by an article that narrowly survived an AfD with "no consensus", in spite of its obvious problems. Hans Adler 19:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hans Adler, 100% Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of unsourced/poorly source item
Regarding our article on List of common misconceptions, I've made the following proposal for the deletion of unsourced/poorly source items here:. Does this seem like a fair and reasonable compromise? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your proposal looks like a very reasonable solution to the debate. Blueboar (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable enough. causa sui  ×  12:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

all we need is more two minute editors scanning and deciding what is poorly sourced. look at the record.

try reading and undertanding some material including the above.

Wdl1961 (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess there is some sarcasm or something in what you wrote, but it's extremely hard to tell without any context. Perhaps you want to clarify what you meant. I have no idea whether you are trying to argue for or against the unsourced material. Hans Adler 13:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

QED Wdl1961 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * i just checked the "model theory" article . two in line refs only. needs extensive editing but i do not know what.

the only model i ever cracked was the buchholz wave guide equation on a cdc  at bell labs.Wdl1961 (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying that your initial comment here was not meant to be constructive. Sorry for having wasted my time by responding. Hans Adler 15:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

are you ready to write rules for "anybody" to follow in editing and deletion in "model theory"?? anybody includes people that can barely count to ten. sometimes it is useful to do a little research otherwise try contacting user: Scheinwerfermann. good luck.

Wdl1961 (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

New proposed guidlines for editing scientific articles
See here Count Iblis (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN at the article level
WP:BURDEN states: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. We have an effective system for dealing with Verification problems when the material being quetioned is a single statment or sentence: Under some (limited) circumstances we can summarily remove the material, otherwise we tag the sentence, wait a reasonable amount of time for someone to supply a source, and then (if no source is provided) remove it.

What we don't seem to have is a similar system for dealing with the same issue written large... ie when articles are completely unsourced. We can tag them with the tag... but then what? If the problem persists, how do we "remove" the unsourced material?

We can nominate the article at AfD, but that does not resolve the issue... WP:BURDEN does not apply at AfD (since AfD is based on WP:Notability and not WP:Verifiability... as long as it can be demonstrated that sources exist, an AfD will result in "Keep"... and there is no burden for any one to actually add those sources to the article.)

So I have to ask... Does WP:BURDEN apply at an article level? When an entire article is unsourced, is there a burden on anyone to provide sources? If so with whom does it lie, and how do we enforce it? Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mercilessly edit the article down to a stub version. The burden of restoring any information from the longer unsourced version would clearly fall on the editor(s) reinstating the claims. --Vassyana (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Vassyana -- This point of view is reasonable, and it is consistent with WP:V. Nevertheless, in a context informed by experiences you don't share, this optimistic formulation is worrisome.  It is incompatible with the complex games which are likely to ensue.  The disjunctive rationale which your short sentence reveals is frustrating, perverse, and unhelpful.


 * I am unable to respond effectively to the issue Blueboar presents, but I feel justified in rejecting this overly tidy response.


 * Vassyana -- Please try again to analayze and respond to Blueboar's query.  There is no question that WP:Burden is a pivotal and easily misunderstood concept.  Perhaps a constructive point will become clearer if you try to express yourself in different words. --Tenmei (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think the response is not all that unreasonable, but maybe too major to start with. Other options:  encourage major editors to provide sources via their talk pages, find sources yourself, tag key sentences/paragraphs with cite tags.  If nothing happens over time - follow Vassyana's advice.  (John User:Jwy talk) 00:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If an editor wants an article to list sources, he or she should add them. The same is true if one wants an article to have images when it has none.


 * Our goal is that articles should, at least, provide general sources where a reader can learn more about the topic at hand. Articles should also give specific references for quotes and material likely to be challenged. If there is no material in an article that would be likely to be challenged (or if one doesn't know enough about the topic at hand to have any idea whether the material is likely to be challenged) then there is no reason to remove the content merely because no reference has already been listed. Doing so is likely to be treated as disruptive. For similar reasons, adding a fact tag after every sentence is often viewed very negatively. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * CBM wrote "If an editor wants an article to list sources, he or she should add them." That's fine if the article contains nothing that could be challenged in good faith. But I see no reason to tolerate an editor creating a dubious article on an obscure topic, which few editors could be expected to have convenient access to relevant sources. The contributing editor is either
 * making it up, in which case the article should eventually be deleted
 * using some obscure source that is sitting right there on the table next to the keyboard, but the editor can't be bothered citing it. I have no stomach for such behavior, and wouldn't hesitate to delete the article after a suitable opportunity to provide sources.
 * Sure, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but the disproportionate effort between the contributing editor who already has the source at hand, and the challenging editor who must conduct a search through the Internet and major libraries, is quite inconsiderate. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a third option: perhaps the editor is writing about a perfectly standard topic, and only writing things that are present in every undergraduate textbook on the topic. For example, reciprocal rule. So one cannot make a hard-and-fast rule about what to do with articles that have no sources. It is certainly better practice to put some source at the end of the article, and new articles on dodgy topics are often deleted if they do not include references. So if an article has made it for a long time with no references, despite editing by several editors, there is a good chance that much of the information really is verifiable. There is no reason why our article have to be perfect right now, and our practice is to tolerate many types of bad articles with the aim of improving them eventually. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK... thanks for your comments so far... I think you are saying that WP:BURDEN does not apply at the article level. That bothers me. I see it cutting into the very heart of what WP:V is trying to say.  Yes, I do understand that articles don't need to be perfect right now... but what is the incentive to ever perfect it?  At the sentence and paragraph level, we can use WP:BURDEN as a final stick... we can (after all the proper taging and resonable waiting periods) turn to other editors and say "source this or I will remove it".  But at the article level we are left saying: "source this or ... or I will not remove this tag.  So there!" Blueboar (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that tags can stay on articles indefinitely long is well known. I view it as evidence that tagging articles in the first place is not as useful as some think.


 * Of course WP:BURDEN does apply in the sense that an article that appears to be entirely unsourceable will probably not be kept at AFD. And WP:BURDEN clearly applies to particular controversial statements. So the only sense in which it doesn't apply to whole articles is that it doesn't provide a stick to force other editors to add general references right away, in the absence of any specific argument that material in the article is unverifiable (again, reciprocal rule is an example of a bad article that could use improvement but is utterly verifiable).


 * This doesn't impact the spirit of WP:V, which is that material in articles must be verifiable in the current literature. The sprit of WP:V is not that all statements in articles must be sourced, which is why WP:V includes a specific provision that quotes and challenged material, in particular, should be sourced. For other material, verifiability in principle is all that is required. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

One thing to remember (as CBM picks up) - WP:V calls for sources on material likely to be challenged. An unsourced article on a rudimentary topic that is rather apparently all true shouldn't come under the same scrutiny for sources as an article that covers a controversial topic. But regardless if you create an article beyond stub-iness without sources, you should be prepared at any time to be challenged to provide them. --M ASEM (t) 04:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Ivory tower rationale this thread has engendered is all very nice; and indeed, the discussion arises from a foundation with which I'm entirely comfortable. However, a problem is likely to develop in the ensuing tit-for-tat game which this thread ignores.  In my experience, any reference to WP:Burden is rejected out-of-hand with escalating indignation as the surest way to end discussion.  At that point, any 3rd-party intervention is likely to assume the contrived interpersonal conflict has merit, the extravagant, aggrieved language succeeds in obscuring anything and everything else.  Feigned offense is accorded priority attention.  All hopes for measured consideration of WP:Burden becomes effectively blocked. --Tenmei (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That might be said of all the guidelines in WP! Changing the wording of WP:Burden is unlikely to change this effect (although I haven't seen it as pervasive as you seem to).  What do YOU suggest be done? (John User:Jwy talk) 16:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Jwy -- Thank you for presuming that I might have a remedy to propose; but that extends beyond my reach. Frankly, it has taken me more than a year to figure out how to express this issue in succinct words.  My words represent only a very small step; but it is none-the-less intended as a constructive contribution.  If you or others have not encountered a counter-intuitive scenario like the ones I describe, I'm encouraged that you simply ascribe plausibility to a reported experience which is unfamiliar. --Tenmei (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tenmei, that is because you tend to apply WP:Burden without at all making it clear which statements you disagree with. And/or to statements that are already sourced. Taemyr (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Taemyr -- The verb "tend" is a dismissive word choice, implying a process of assessment informed by specific instances. Your sentence assumes that your judgment deserves to be credited, but that claim is undercut by the admission which follows.  You have it exactly backwards when you seem to marry WP:Verifiability/WP:Burden with a demand that I find something to complain about; and then you blame me for failing to participate in a needless dispute I'm trying to avoid.


 * If your purpose here is to devalue my contribution, I reject it. If your intent was to clarify, your words miss the mark -- except in the sense your comment illustrates a fundamental presumption. Your unstated axioms do skew analysis of the problem at hand.


 * You seem to equate WP:Burden with disagreement, but this a priori focus presumes to establish a fulcrum at the wrong point. I begin to worry that you misconstrue the fulcrum and the lever and the use to which both are to be applied.  Your unwelcome focus on what I may or may not "tend" to have done in the past denies my ability and willingness to change.  I am unafraid to re-examine alternate ways in which any number of difficulties could have been handled differently, but I wonder if this is the right venue? I feel that the thrust of this thread needs to be more forward-looking. --Tenmei (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm afraid I have trouble understanding your concern and your interpretation of other's input here, but your reaction seems extreme to me. But, as I understand it, you seem to be concerned about articles that have no references but should and most particularly what party should be "burdened" with providing the sources. Am I correct? (John User:Jwy talk) 21:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is in response to the original question... yes. My question was spurred by my growing frustration due to numerous AFD debates I I have seen.  The articles are nominated for deletion because they provide no sources.  Several people over several days opine with "Keep, sources exist" (some with various google searches attached). This is enough to Keep the article...  But no one bothers to actually fix the underlying problem by adding any of those sources.  So, far too often, the article just sits there, unsourced... sometimes for years.  This irks me.  It is a flaw that I see with the AfD criteria... but I do understand it (the sources show there is notability and the potential for adding sources... it's just that no one actually does so). Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do see how this can be annoying. Do you have a sense of whether those AFDs were started with the genuine intent to get the article deleted, or if they were started only with the goal of getting sources to be added? In the few occasions I have seen the latter situation, I did not go out of my way to add sources when commenting on the AFD, because I didn't want to encourage that bad practice from spreading. When the notability of the topic is truly in doubt, I don't hesitate to add sources. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what is wrong with Vassyana's suggestion - if you can't easily find sources, and the stuff is dubious, remove it all. If interested, knowledgeable editors can supply sources, it will quickly be reinserted and referenced. --hippo43 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The only issue with Vassyana's suggestion is that it differs completely from standard practice, and goes beyond what is required in WP:V. There have been proposals before to force all articles to list sources, or to delete articles that are marked as unreferenced for too long; these do not gain widespread agreement. The idea to cut down all unreferenced articles to stubs would no doubt be rejected for similar reasons.


 * In the end, everyone wants our articles to be well-sourced. But the only way for that to happen is for editors to add sources, which is a slow process. We already do a reasonable job of deleting articles for which there are no sources in existence, so there is not a pressing need to immediately add sources to the ones that are left (and there are lots of them, dating back many years). &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It may go beyond what is required by the policy, but it is consistent with what is allowed by it. ("Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed...") I'm not sure what you think is "standard practice" in this situation - leave things as they are without any sources?


 * I'm confused by your take on this. You wrote "everyone wants our articles to be well-sourced" but went on to say "there is not a pressing need to immediately add sources to the ones that are left". So we all want articles to be well-sourced, but there's no hurry? Your last sentence also makes no sense to me - you say we already do a good job of removing such articles, yet there are still lots of them from several years ago?? --hippo43 (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The standard practice for an article that lists no sources at all is to nominate it for deletion if there is a reasonable chance that no sources exist in the real world, and to either fix it, leave it, or tag it unreferenced if no sources are provided but it is clear that they exist. We do a good job of deleting articles for which no sources exist at all, leaving a backlog of articles for which sources exist but where no sources are explicitly listed. See my comments above. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks folks... you have given me a lot to think about. Your answers have not releived my concerns and frustrations, but they have helped me to understand why they exist in the first place.  Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This thread became a teachable moment, not that I learned much; but even a very small step is better than no steps at all. --Tenmei (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Foreign language sources
If a source is in a language other than English, can it be used to support information in English Wikipedia? Asoer (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Um. Yes. Says so on the page here:  Verifiability. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it depends on what the source is though. For example a national newspaper from France would be far more reliable than a blog created in a Frenchman's basement.--70.24.179.9 (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a national newspaper from France would be far more reliable than any blog... including on in English. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oooh, that tastes like a challenge. Most reliable blog, anyone? ;-) LeadSongDog come howl  15:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Or for that matter, least reliable national newspaper?LeadSongDog come howl  15:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on the topic. If it's highly specialized or technical, a blog can easily be more reliable than a mainstream publication.   Brad Abrams's blog is far more reliable than any mainstream or even technical publication regarding .NET development.  This might be one of the areas where Wikipedia's guideline on WP:RS breaks down. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) When an article is about a subject in a non-English speaking country, then often the best sources are not in English and may not have been translated. But beware of non-English language sources for subjects in English-speaking countries or of well known subjects in non-English speaking countries. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles should be based on third-party sources

 * ''Moved from WP:RSN

Verifiability says: There is a general dispute between myself and another editor about the meaning of these policy statements. My view is that they mean that most of an article, including most of each section or entry, should be based on 3rd-party sources, and that primary or self-published sources should be used sparingly for illustrative quotes, factual details, etc. (The self-published materials in question are by the subject of the article). The other editor has written that "There is no 'correct ratio' of primary to secondary sources." In other words, if a 3rd-party source mentions an issue, even very briefly, then it is acceptable to write any amount of text on that issue drawn from primary sources. In addition, the other editor seems to believe that if there are secondary sources in some parts of an article then it's acceptable for other sections to rely exclusively on primary sources. So here's the question: Does "based on" mean "partially based on"? Is it acceptable to use several primary sources to synthesize an overview of an issue instead of relying on secondary sources?  Will Beback   talk    21:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as ... the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * This is probably best discussed on the V or RS talk page. My quick answer is that there is no quick answer.  Some local guidelines (e.g. WP:MEDRS) are really specific about the use of primary sources.  Some local guidelines (e.g. WP:FICT) are too caught up in related battles to offer clear guidance.  WP:PSTS is offered as a solution to the problem, but in my opinion that is a terribly written piece of policy/guidance and it leads us astray on a great many issues. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved.   Will Beback    talk    22:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The term "third-party source" is a legal term and is useless in deciding if an article, or part of an article is verifiable. The term should be expunged from this policy.


 * In contracts, the first and second parties are the people or organizations that made the contract; third parties did not sign the contract. When the concept is extended beyond the realm of contract law, it becomes a vague concept that is not suitable for making detailed decisions. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a pet peeve of mine, and, despite Jc3s5h's assertion, I think that "third-party" can be well-enough defined to not present a problem. Certainly articles should rely on third-party sourcing, and should not be based primarily on self-published sources and sources that have financial arrangements with the subject (or subject's creators, publishers, or copyright holders in the case of fictional subjects). I think it's reasonable to expect that in normal cases at least half the text of an article should come through independent sourcing, and, if it doesn't there's ample reason to think something is amiss. There's wiggle room, and since I can at least conceive of cases where I could argue that the material from the tainted sources was sufficiently key to the understanding of the independent material I wouldn't want to do it based on word count alone. Still, articles that try to use a passing mention in two reviews as foundation for several thousand words derived from primary sources cannot be said to rely on independent sourcing. They are the logical equivalent of coatrack articles: they aren't trying to actually discuss the notable aspects of a topic, they are using the notable aspects as an excuse to discuss other things.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A further comment on one detail of the original question: since I'm not in favor of strictly applying word counts as a measure, I do oppose trying any measure on a section or subsection basis. The article has to be measured as a whole to make any reasonable judgment about reliance on sources.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In his comment, Kww uses the term "primary source". This term is useless for determining the reliability of a source. Some would consider any work that introduces new results (rather than analyze previously published results) to be a primary source. This would include the National Electrical Code, a U.S. Supreme Court decision, or a national census. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh by the way, the articles about many localities, such as Ira, Vermont, consist mostly of census data. Since they rely mostly on a primary source, all such articles should be deleted. Not only are they based on a primary source, but they lack third-party source information, since such towns are governed by the United States, and the Census Bureau is an agency of the United States. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely articles that rely primarily on census data should be deleted. I've argued that for ages. Can you suggest a wording that you would find acceptable?&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The regular editors of this policy insist on using the useless phrases "third-party source" and "primary source". I have given up trying to fix the policy. While I will follow the spirit of the policy, I will ignore the wording whenever I edit articles. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Aren't the primary sources for census data the completed returns by individual residents/citizens? The census itself is a systematic compilation of this data and so a secondary work. LeadSongDog come howl  13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are narrow and wide concepts of what a primary source is. Suppose a cabal of editors insert restrictions on the use of primary sources (based on a narrow definition of primary source). Next, an editor, W, who does not follow any policy/guideline talk pages reads the policy or guideline. This editor believes in a wide definition of what a primary source is. This editor avoids the use of perfectly good sources because of a badly written policy or guideline.
 * Furthermore, most people accept U.S. census results because the agency over the centuries has developed a reputation for being reasonably fair, competent, and comprehensive. This willingness to rely on their results has nothing to do with it being a primary or secondary source. Any source that has established a similar reputation should be equally acceptable, even if it technically could be described as a primary source. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps my question wasn't well-phrased. The sources in qyuestion are almost entirely self-published, as opposed to published by 3rd-parties. Further, the self-published source is known for having a view of itself that is at odds with the view of the majority. ("Paranoid" is not an uncommon description.) So the sources are not like reliable primary sources such as census data. Maybe the notriceboard is the better place for this after all?   Will Beback    talk    00:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My answers apply to both cases. A person's opinion of himself or his work should never be the primary focus of an article. It sounds like WP:FRINGE is probably going to get involved in your case as well.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Complaints about the wording of "primary source" and "third party source" aren't germane to the question at hand. I agree with Jc3s5h's core complaint that wikipedia has a fundamentally erroneous view of what constitutes a "primary source".  But answering the question (that is, determining what "based on" means) doesn't require that we travel down that path. Protonk (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To answer the original question:

1. It's not correct that, if some parts of the article rely on secondary sources, then other parts may rely exclusively on primary sources.

2. It is correct that there is no "correct ratio" as such. It depends on context and common sense. It also depends on whether the primary-source material is challenged.

3. It's also not correct that, if a secondary has briefly alluded to an issue, it's necessarily okay to discuss that issue in depth using only primary sources. It might be okay, again depending on context and common sense.

One of the problems with relying on primary sources is that it tends to produce original research, in the sense that a Wikipedian is picking and choosing from primary sources to decide what to present in the article. He may focus on material that makes an incident look less serious that it was, or that makes a person look more scholarly than he was, and so on. A secondary source may focus on entirely different issues. Therefore, to avoid original research, it's safer to be guided by secondary sources as to the kinds of issues the article ought to be presenting.

To give an example: if you're writing an article about me based on my diary (primary source), and you like me, you might focus on that time I won first prize at school, or the day I helped an old lady across the road. You might miss out the year I spent in jail, or that time I was found drunk in the gutter by my employer. You would therefore be expected to rely on secondary sources who've written about me to tell you which of the issues in my diary you should be focusing on.

Two useful rules of thumb are (a) the more contentious the issue, the more the article ought to rely on secondary sources; and (b) where the use of primary-source material is challenged, the editor ought to produce secondary sources to back him up. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are "reliable" third-party published sources better (than me)? Any non biased person = lying or stupid. One proof :compare some wiki articles in different languages.Wdl1961 (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate on your proof. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One example. Just compare the English, French , German , Dutch  and Russian articles on the "speed of light". Difference in size does not explain everything . You may draw yuor own conclusions.           Wdl1961 (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm serious. I want a proof that people who claim to be non-biased are either stupid or lying using only different wikipedia articles. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What? Certainly my bias is not yours.Wdl1961 (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Another issue re primary versus secondary sources has been seen in areas relating to evolution. An example would be looking through Darwin's work from the 1860s and finding language which, to a person in 2009, seems offensive (perhaps racist or sexist). There have been several attempts to inject sentences into articles which essentially say "Darwin was racist/sexist because of the following remarks". The sources verify that the words were written by Darwin, but a reliable secondary source is needed to interpret them: we cringe at "savages" now, but what did it mean to a scientist in the 1860s, and what about Darwin's very non-racist attitudes and actions (and more which I'll omit here). Also, Darwin wrote a lot, and one of his techniques was to introduce a topic with flowery language, and then take many pages to dissect that language. Therefore, pulling a few quotes from a primary source can be very misleading, and articles should rely on analysis by secondary sources to verify many types of claims. Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's really a separate, and pretty clear-cut, question of original research. If someone takes a source, wheher it's primary or secondary, and says because author A used word W, and word W is considered offensive in current practice, then author A is racist, that's a leap of logic that creates a new, and possibly untrue fact that is not present in either cited source.  I believe the original question was more along the lines of how much weight we may give to primary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It happens all the time in fiction articles and biographies like Darwin's. Adam Smith's article is periodically plagued with editor conclusions about Smith's writing and its impact on later trains of thought in economics, citing only the original text from smith (which isn't strictly speaking a primary source).  More common we have broad, interpretive (there is some criticism of that term, but it is a little rarefied so I'll ignore it for now) claims about plot points, author intent, etc. on fiction articles and sub-articles. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

While it is necessary for each article to have at least some secondary sources to establish notability, there's no policy on how much of an article can be based on primary sources, and for good reason. It basically comes back to that we don't have notability guidelines for parts of an article, only for the article as a whole.

Decisions about how much of an article should be based on primary sources should come from local consensus, not from policy. Articles about towns, airports, broadcast stations, or automobiles can draw many facts and figures from primary sources without it being undue, while the same level of reliance on primary sources may not be appropriate for more abstract topics. Even in articles about fiction, while we require some secondary sources to establish notability, we don't require a secondary source for each individual Ewok.

I'm going to take a wild guess here and assume that this is from one of the ongoing Larouche debates. My take is that while we cannot allow those articles to become a playground for LLR supporters, we should, in articles such as as Views of Lyndon LaRouche, give at least a Cliff's Notes-style overview and list the historical heroes and villains ( i.e. Plato, Aristotle ), but not require a secondary source for each entry. I've also argued about a year ago, in the AFD for the same article, that because of an ArbCom decision that LLR media outlets couldn't be cited even as primary sources in non-LLR articles, by necessity a lot of material had to be crammed into that one article.

The goal should be something that a reader who picks up a copy of EIR for the first time could use to decipher who the good guys and the bad guys are. Like anything else, if there's an impasse the next step would be an RFC from uninvolved editors, not a change to policy. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * :I am the "other editor" that Will refers to in his initial post, and what Will neglected to mention is that yes, the article in question is Views of Lyndon LaRouche. I understood Will's initial argument in the content dispute to be that LaRouche should not be used as a source for his own views, and that the article should consist exclusively of what various journalists say LaRouche's views are. I think he has modified that stance somewhat. I was concerned about BLP issues in this case, because there is the danger that the views of a controversial person may be misrepresented by his opponents. My opinion, with respect to this particular article, is that once a particular topic has been identified by other sources as significant, then the danger of OR has been averted and LaRouche's own writings may be used to provide a more detailed (and misrepresentation-proof) account of what he has to say about it. In another article, not about the views of a controversial person, I might apply a different standard. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Posting by sock of banned user struck-through.   Will Beback    talk    04:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are numerous sources that describe Larouche's views. If the choice is between using reliable 3rd-party sources and using an unreliable primary source, then the choice seems clear.   Will Beback    talk    20:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree here... the most reilable source for statements as to a person's views is the person himself. The key is to make it clear that their view represents an opinion and clearly attribute it as an opinion.  Now... you do have to be careful... any conclusions about the accuracy of those views must be taken from 3rd party sources. Blueboar (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the point here is not who more accurately conveys what a person has said. The point is simply that, when we decide which parts of a person's life to write about on Wikipedia, we can leave that decision (a) to a Wikipedian, who reads the primary source material and picks out the bits he wants to highlight, or (b) to a published secondary source, such as a biographer or a New York Times reporter, who also reads the primary source material and picks out what's important to mention.


 * The point I've been making here is that, when it comes to contentious biographies (or any contentious subject), we should rely on the secondary sources to decide what to include, not on the Wikipedian, because relying on the Wikipedian amounts to original research. The question is therefore not so much, "are the primary sources reliable?" but more, "are the Wikipedians who decide which parts of the primary source material to write about reliable?" SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, in most cases you'd be correct that a person's own writings would be the best source for their views and accomplishments. However in this case there are several extenuating circumstances:
 * 1. the ideas are complex and aren't contained in a single place. And because of his often convoluted writing style it is hard to find short passages that are cogent and comprehensive. Therefore, substantial intepretation and synthesis are required to create an overview. Picking through LaRouche's writings to decide which views are noteworthy and how to describe them is virtually, if not actually, original research.
 * 2. It is easy to pick through the subjects writings to find seemingly outrageous statements that have never been reported in 3rd-party sources. But doing so would be no more neutral than picking out sentences that seem insightful.
 * 3. The subject is not a reliable source about himself. This subject is famous for having an extremely inflated views of his place in the world. Most recently he has credited himself with blocking the Obama health care reform effort, for example, and in the past he's called himself the most important American economist and the most important economist of the 20th century, as well as the target of a vast conspiracy that seeks his assassination, which could have occured many times except for the protection of powerful but hidden individuals high in the government.
 * 4. The subject's writings are unevenly available. Selected materials are posted on his website, but others are not and proponents tend to oppose using any primary sources that are not posted there.
 * So this is an unusual case.   Will Beback    talk    23:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * SV gets it dead on here. There are hundreds of good examples where the subject of a biography would characterize their actions or motivations in a way which would mislead readers if we presented it primarily.  Our biographies of Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Patton, Friedman, etc. (just sticking to US examples in order to needle the systemic bias crowd) would be woefully inadequate if we assumed that the primary (an unfortunate word given the terms primary and secondary are otherwise being used) font for biographical info would be the subject.  Nixon might even be the best of the bunch, given his habit of recording everything, but they would all be tragically incomplete. Protonk (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what people are saying... and perhaps there are extenuating circumstances in the LaRouche case... but I still think a primary source is still the best for statements of opinion and views ... when discussing what Adolf Hitler's opinions were, there is no better source than Mein Kamph. I completely agree that it is very easy to venture into OR when using such a source, and we must be very very careful not to do so, but... as long as you are careful, when it comes to supporting a statement as to what the opinion of any individual is, a statement by the individual is better source than one by another person. Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I respect that view but I think it's absolutely wrong. The best source on Hilter's view's isn't Mien Kamph (or however you spell it).  The book was a rhetorical argument, a call to arms.  It was written with an audience in mind.  If we (the wikipedia editor) read MK (to avoid further spelling issues) we may assign undue primacy to certain expressed views there.  We may also fail to sample other views expressed more privately or expressed to different audiences.  Let's take a less thread ending example.  There is ample discussion among historians about Lincoln's views regarding slavery.  The purported range includes the possibility that Lincoln hated slavery and felt deeply about equality for black americans and the possibility that lincoln made decisions about slavery in a tactical manner in order to first win election and later save the union (obviously those poles include interior options).  If I were to sample some of lincoln's writings I may come to the first conclusion (indeed, this was taught in many schools for some time and is still basically taught in most american high schools).  If I sample some other writings I may come to the second conclusion (See revisionist histories for extreme examples of this).  In sampling I run the risk of introducing a great deal of selection bias, since lincoln said many different things to many different people and held (presumably, from the evidence) changing beliefs over time.  The avoidance of those errors is one of the reasons we want to rely on trained biographers and historians to compile and explain primary sources.  We serve our function best when we balance those secondary sources against one another (preferably with review articles helping us do the weighting).  We serve our function worst when we short circuit that huge raft of expertise. Protonk (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly concur with Protonk and Will Beback on this one. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another serious problem is appearance of favoritism. While it may seem (and it is) totally reasonable for you and I to give different weight to some normal person and some...more conspiratorially minded person...when we handle SPS statements about the speaker, to an adherent of the marginalized group it looks like we are treating one set of sources differently than others.  Since those people necessarily don't think LaRouche is crazy, they won't agree that LaRouche's statements about himself are suspect but Person XYZ's statements are admissible.  They will feel (very much in line with their prior worries about marginalization) that wikipedia is pushing out his viewpoint due to some nefarious conspiracy.  Now I know there is no reasonable measure that will appease people who feel Obama is Hitler, but we at least have to make is so we have a defensible position to others.  That's one advantage of our reliance on third party sources.  It is a clear and transparent solution. Protonk (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It looks to me as if from about here downwards this discussion has strayed into RS and BLP areas. I haven't placed a link here on the related talk pages, but it seems to me as if that would be appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WT:NOR regarding examples
FYI there is a request for comments on a proposal to replace the examples in RFC - Replace examples in WP:SYNTH with link to examples. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The RFC has evolved into an alternate proposal to keep the examples and move one of the paragraphs within the same section WP:SYNTH. Your participation would be appreciated. See Alternate proposal (only reorganizes within section and keeps examples) --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Question: How to verify unpublished tribal knowledge
Question on verification.

For subjects of largely tribal / oral knowledge bases that are rarely Published, i.e. Circus acrobatics terminology, or Collegiate cheer leading stunts. Literally subjects that by their very nature have too small an audience to enjoy formally published or peer reviewed written sources.

Now this is more to do with niche tribal knowledge than controversial subjects where truth is in question. If the underwater basket weaving enthusiasts can't find a link to a verifiable source does that mean they can't have a series of articles on their subject to reference and share?

Simple question. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.126.100 (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "If the underwater basket weaving enthusiasts can't find a link to a verifiable source does that mean they can't have a series of articles on their subject to reference and share?" Yes, that's exactly what this policy means. If it isn't important enough to publish in a reliable source, it isn't important enough to publish in Wikipedia. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That said, there are usually books or articles on such things, albeit often highly obscure. Anthropologists might have covered it, or a circus acrobat wrote a biography or training manual at some point. An obscure (but reliable) source that adds detail to a notable field is almost always welcome, and we do allow self-published sources by notable experts to be used with caution, so if a major flying trapeze artist wrote a short guide, it could be cautiously used to add terminology to the article on flying trapeze. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 05:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So you're saying underground literature or publishers without a URL or ISBN are considered verifiable sources even if there are a minimal number of copies in existence that can not be obtained by public audience due to out of print limited distribution to a niche audience? (i.e. graduate research papers) Logically that would infer I could use my church newsletter as a verifiable source; because it was written down, published and physically exists as a record somewhere, correct?


 * That doesn't allow for a knowledgeable individual to contribute beyond the scope of an obscure and limited source.


 * And Second point - what if those sources are unavailable; but I personally have a great deal (decade or longer ) of experience in the subject as a paid professional. Does that mean I have to self publish to contribute on Wikipedia?  I can't legally reference confidential or proprietary information (i.e. consulting contract deliverables); I.E. if the nature of the business precludes written or public records then according to Wikipedia it doesn't exist?  Some of us are too busy practicing the state of the art to write about it.


 * Or is the exception that perfectly accurate and factual information will just sit with a needs reference tag on it for perpetuity? If that is the exception policy, That would seem reasonable as long as the information is left intact.


 * But wiki thugs deleting information because they don't deem it worthy seems contradictory to the concept of a wiki. "Anyone can edit if the cite a verifiable reference." That's providing incentive for subject matter experts to ignore contributing Wikipedia.


 * The assumption that only knowledge that can be sold in a written format to the general public is the only knowledge that is valid really limits the utility of a wiki. It guarantees that Wikipedia will be a condensed mirror of everything published on the internet or in print (i.e. Pop culture); and will specifically ignore redacted proprietary, niche and subculture content unless it happens to be internet culture accepted by the administrators familiar with it.


 * This is about inclusion of obscure information; not controversial opinions. The verifiable policy is perfectly valid, but would benefit from an exception for obscure subjects. If Wikipedia is to be "the most authoritative source of information in the world" shouldn't it have place for everything?


 * Please respond. Point to point even - please insert as needed. This discussion is not rhetorical.  Rather it is meant to be a conclusive test of the limits and potential of Wikipedia; Is the administrative culture of Wikipedia flexible and able to grow?  Or is the monster of virtually unlimited content so difficult to manage that they delete anything they don't want to deal with?

Disallow or severely restrict foreign language sources
Allowing non-English sources is a bad rule.
 * 1) The great majority of en.wp readers and editors will not be able to read source material that is not in English. For them, there is no way to verify that the source material actually supports the assertion(s) in the WP article. This enables errors and abuse.
 * 2) The editor who cites the source is effectively translating the source, and in many cases, translation involves interpreting the source material in a manner that we would not accept by an editor citing an English-language source. The translation/interpretation effectively makes the use of non-English sources original research.

The only people who will verify the information other than the original editor are people who read the article and can read the source language and are disciplined enough to check the source. (That's a very small subset of people compared to the usual situation and isn't appropriate in an encyclopedia that relies on collaboration.) If such a person actually discovers an issue, he or she also has to care enough to correct it.

The rules covering foreign language sources should be rewritten to exclude them. Perhaps we would need exceptions for fields of study where the vast majority of source material is not in English, but those exceptions ought to be rare and explicit. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This would only serve to increase systemic bias, and paper over any disputes divided along national lines. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 05:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly Disagree Reliable sources of knowledge are found in many languages. Facts should be sourced from the best reliable sources, not from only the most convenient ones. Knowledge should not be censored to only what has been written by English speakers. LK (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely Disagree For all the reasons mentioned so far and I also need to point out that WP's purpose is to strive to present all the notable, verifiable knowlege of the entire world, most of who are not monolingual English speakers. (Just because you don't understand it is not a sufficient reason to delete it.) Roger (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate that none of the comments above address the problems caused by relying on foreign language sources and instead focus on the problems that may arise if we exclude them.
 * I said nothing about "convenience"; the issue is verifiability. For a collaboratively-written encyclopedia, access to the source material is fundamental.
 * I did not say that good sources exist only in English; I said that foreign-language sources can't be verified by the readers of the encyclopedia. There's a huge difference. The first argument is parochial, the second is practical.
 * I agree that restricting sources to English could introduce bias, and there may be specific fields of study where we have to allow them, such as topics related to international disputes.
 * I agree that our goal is to present all the notable, verifiable knowledge of the entire world. Unfortunately, if that knowledge can only be verified by people with specialized skills, that is at odds with the Wikipedia method.
 * If we continue to allow foreign-language sources, how do we avoid mistakes and abuse? &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree. For any language, there are enough Wikipedia editors that comprehend it to deal with disputes.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Our method relies on having many people involved in collaborative editing and there are only a very small subset who will understand a source in some other language and who will be participate in editing any particular article. Also, the issue is not solely the editors, it's the readers. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Monolingual people have made a personal choice to be that way. I can't see tailoring the encyclopedia or its processes to accommodate them. The other day I had an issue with Croatian sources, and the people at WikiProject Croatia were able to help. That's a pretty rare language. Most of our issues come from Spanish, French, German, Japanese, Dutch and other similar languages that have a substantial community of editors to appeal to for help.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As for your real problem: no, Paul McCartney isn't dead, and the use of a Wired article where two forensic scientists dissect old photographs to try to prove that the Paul McCartney we see today isn't the original Paul as a source to claim that he is is unacceptable. That's got nothing to do with whether the forensic scientists in question speak Italian or English. The claim made in Paul is dead is too strong, and needs to be softened.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to your characterization of what my "real problem" is. I don't have a problem; I disagree with the current policy and I am trying to persuade other editors to see my point of view. Please assume good faith.
 * As I described earlier on the Paul Is Dead talk page, I was very surprised to learn via that discussion that foreign-language sources are allowed. I immediately dropped my objection to using a foreign-language source and reverted my edit where I added a dubious tag. I then came here to describe what I see as a wek-point in the policy.
 * I will avoid any discussion of the specifics of the Paul Is Dead issue; they aren't relevant except as an example where the mistakes I described occurred and cannot easily be rectified. Your (Kww) edit today is just the most recent example: the great majority of editors can't verify that you have changed the sourced statement in a manner that is consistent with cited source. Practically speaking, very few editors would hunt down someone who knows the source language, and those very few may or may not care enough about any specific article to ever encounter it in the first place. I think that's a problem for a collaboratively-edited encyclopedia. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend for "real problem" to be taken that way, and I don't think you are misbehaving in any way. Perhaps "as for the problem that prompted this discussion" would have been better.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Our criterion is verifiability, which means any reader should be able to verify our references on their own. We allow using old rare books, sometimes out of print, as reference. Those would be harder to verify for the average reader than a statement in German or Italian, or even Mandarin, where we include the original quote with a translation for convenience. The reader who is concerned about accuracy can go to someone they trust who speaks that language to verify. If they think there is any inaccuracy in a translation, they may point it out. This is an open, transparent and verifiable process, intended to represent all views, not just Anglo-centric ones. Crum375 (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why you disagree with proposal but then say that "any reader should be able to verify our references on their own." That's would seem to be a vote in favor of a change. How can I do something on my own if that requires knowing all the world's languages?
 * Also, the current policy does not require that an editor include a translation of all or part of the source.
 * While I agree that gaining access to rare materials may be difficult or even a hardship for some readers, it is wholly within my control to go to a library or some other repository to access such material. On the other hand, it's simply not practical for me to learn to read all the world's languages, and so I must depend on someone else who may or may not be available. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is wholly within your ability to find someone you trust, perhaps even in your local library, who speaks the language of interest. You can then ask that person to please verify Wikipedia's translation for you. It is not a big hardship at all, certainly much less as compared to hunting down an old obscure copy of a book which is only available in a few select libraries, and may well not be available in your local library in Podunk. Crum375 (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Clearly, the argument is strongly opposed to my suggestion and so I will drop it. I agree with the points about avoiding an Anglo-centric encyclopedia, but I remain convinced that the current policy allows mistakes and abuse because verifiability is a viable option for only a small subset of readers and editors. I also think the current policy is at odds with WP:NOR. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not at all at odds with WP:OR. We provide the original quote from a reliably published source, as we do from a rare offline book. We also provide a translation next to it, for convenience. Both are verifiable by any reader, as per my above reply to you, though both may require some effort. I personally consider hunting down an old obscure copy of an offline publication harder to verify than a translation, but both are verifiable and both are not WP:OR. Crum375 (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're just piling on and I've already given in to consensus, so what do you hope to accomplish? I disagree with your opinion that it's just as easy to find a rare manuscript as it is to find someone who speaks a foreign language. I also disagree about WP:OR: anyone who has done translations knows that they involve interpretation. Your arguments don't convince me, but again, are you wanting me to give in twice? &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If we require that any reader be able to verify a claim using the provided citations, that means that an English-speaking school child who has Internet access at school, and so can read Wikipedia, but has no money to ride the bus to a public library, must be able to verify any citation using only the resources of the Internet and her school library. That would place an unacceptable limitation on the range of material that can be cited. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * :Strongly disagree. I have been working with foreign language sources using Google Translate, and I find that even hard-to-translate languages like Chinese can be rendered intelligible enough to make an evaluation of what the source intends to say. Therefore I disagree with the "original research" argument by John Cardinal. I also strongly agree with Shoemaker's Holiday's comment about systemic bias, which I think is a very big problem at Wikipedia. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Postings by sock of banned user struck-through.   Will Beback    talk    04:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No comment on the general discussion, but using machine translation for even "easily" translated languages (such as French) regularly produces terrible results. See User:Vassyana/badmachine. These flaws are drastically amplified with specialist literature and languages generally consider more difficult to smoothly translate into English. Machine translation tools should not be used for citation or verification. At least a modest working knowledge of the target language is necessary to accurately verify and cite foreign language material. Vassyana (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. Leatherstocking, above, has been a proponent of using foreign sources for articles related to Lyndon LaRouche. One source that he has particularly endorsed turned out to simply be text copied from a LaRouche website. There are at least three problems with foreign-language sources:
 * 1. reliance on translations that may be unreliable either because of machines or because of the biases of the translators,
 * 2. difficulty in judging the reliability of the source. In the U.S., the Philadelphia Inquirer is a well-respected news source while the similarly named National Enquirer is a gossip tabloid. How can we judge Chinese or Ukrainian sources if we're not familiar with the media of those countries?
 * 3. It's harder to track down plagiarism and other circular references in foreign languages, especially if they are using translated sources themselves.
 * There are cirumstances where foreign language sources are the best available, and should be used. But in general foreign sources need to be used with care and only if they are clearly reliable.   Will Beback    talk    22:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think one criterion should be the degree of controversy in the article. If it is about butterflies, and there is a wonderful book about a rare species in Tumbuka, and there are no major disagreements about the issue, then sure, it would be useful if a Wikipedian could translate the material for us (ideally with a full quotation alongside the original, so anyone can verify). If it is about a political race, on the other hand, and there is an obscure publication in Mandarin supporting an allegation of corruption about a candidate, then it should be used as a source only with a reliably sourced translation, assuming all other hurdles for inclusion have been cleared, including a reliable source vouching for the reliability of the foreign source. In other words, we allow Wikipedians to translate only non-controversial material, esp. if the quality of the source itself is in question (or is unknown). Crum375 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps another way of dealing with this is the principle of using the best sources. It's quite possible that the best source for a European insect will be a French guidebook. It's unlikely that the best source for an Americen politician will be a Chinese government website.   Will Beback    talk    23:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think one of the "hurdles" we would have to clear before using a foreign language source would be availability of better sources in English, which would take precedence. Crum375 (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Disagree We've come to many many many many many many consensus's at the RS/N that the criteria for WP:V is that being verifiable does not mean by YOU, right now, this instant, without getting off your butt away from your computer, with no effort, and for free; WP:V only means that SOMEONE can verify it, not EVERYONE. We who on a daily basis have to interpret this policy have come to the same conclusion over and over again, and in fact relatively recently, at my suggestion two editors at RS/N wrote just that decision into an essay and a summary of that essay has been incorporated into WP:V. Being in German, Spanish, or Sumerian doesnt affect its verifiability because SOMEONE can translate it. If it is written in the script of the Indus Valley Civilization or in Elamite then its not WP:V because no one alive can read it, at least not without controversy over whether or not they really can (last I checked). I am only basing my statement here on the verifiability of a source, and will not delve into the reliability of the source as Crum has already done a good job of showing an example above.Camelbinky (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree: It does have sense to use english sources over non-english ones at well-researched topics of universal interest, such as sciences. However, articles that deal with topics specific of non-english countries are likely to have their best sources in that languaje. Those articles are hardly exceptions. Take any more or less well developed country, and start counting: we need articles on all major cities and administrative divisions, all historical heroes or key events, all heads of state, all major cultural artists, all major media, all major political parties, national insignia, natural or artifical landmarks, the complete "topics by country" series of articles (history of country, politics of country, economy of country, religion of country, culture of country, etc.). That's a lot of articles, isn't it? Well, multiply them by the number of non-english speaking countries in the world, and it's even bigger. It may still be a fraction of the total sum of wikipedia articles (the sum of national topics of english speaking countries and universal topics surely outnumber them easily), but it's a very big group anyway, not a "rare and explicit" one.


 * Even more, "Verifiable" does not mean "Verifiable by anyone at any time". There are many reasons that could make it difficult to check sources, and languaje is only one of them. Academic research in english is just a fraction of worldwide academic research, and academic research online is an even smaller fraction of all academic research. Yes, it isn't an easy task to find and check sources, but nobody ever told it was. History is a good example, it's an academic field full of such research: historians keep checking, comparing and analyzing both primary and secondary sources. Yes, including foreign sources, sources in non-english languajes, and even sources in antique languajes not fully understood in modern day. And it isn't a job any amateur can do: check the sources mentioned in some good history book, and simply try to locate any of such sources yourself. But would you say the historian is not reliable because you can't check yourself his sources? MBelgrano (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue that Crum375 I are discussing above is about the difficulty of deciding if any particular foreign-language source is reliable. At RSN we routinely look into the matters of whether a source is a biased advocacy source, if it's put out by a reputable organization, and other details that we can discuss because we know the context. Sources from other cultures are much more difficult to judge because it's editors aren't familiar with which organizations have bad reputations, or what the biases are, for example.   Will Beback    talk    23:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect Will, it sounds like what you and Crum are discussing then should be brought to the RS/N and that this may not be the best forum or a new thread needs to be made here on this page; as this thread is about the proposal outlined by the editor who brought it up. In my opinion the problem you outlined is not a problem because in my opinion "if you arent familar with a culture, organization, geographic area, person, historical time, etc; what the hell are you doing editing at that article? Work on something you know about." I know that sounds harsh, but really if an editor doesnt know something, then that's their fault and they should put their opinions second behind those who have more experience and knowledge. We dont at the RS/N all work on the same threads, generally we work on threads we have some pertinent information about; the same would be true about foreign language RS questions, the editors with pertinent info regarding that language and culture and reliability of those sources should and "MUST" be given preferential treatment. If an editor personally isnt familar with which organizations in China are reliable then they probably dont have any reason for speaking up and I for one would ignore them. If we could only use as a source things that EVERYONE has heard of we'd be stuck as simply copy-pasting the Encyclopedia Brittanica because that is probably the ONLY reliable source common to the English speaking language that everyone would know of.Camelbinky (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't an issue of using a foreign source about a foreign topic. The context of the particular problem I have is with the use of Russian and Chinese media in articles about an American politician. I am familiar with American politics and American sources. But which of us are able to judge how reliable an obscure Russian organization or website is when it comes to writing about an obscure American politician?   Will Beback    talk    00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the case you put forth Will I would say that WP:V already covers that as it is clear that a source can be generally reliable but if it strays from its core area it may not be seen as being reliable in that particular instance. In this case an obscure Russian organization writing about an obscure American politician probably has strayed from its core area by writing about an obscure American politician and so even if it is a reliable source in this case we probably shouldnt use it. Of course there is always the use of "attribution" to keep the information in the article until someone with Russian knowledge comes along to help; always best to err on the side of WP:PRESERVE in my opinion so that the information is there in context to be looked over rather than remove it. Unless of course it is libel, dangerous, etc.Camelbinky (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PRESERVE is important, but I don't think that it trumps WP:V, especially in the case of BLPs. The burden on proving that a sourfce is reliable rests with the editor adding the material. If they are not familiar with the lanaguage and the culture then they shouldn't be using the source. We shouldn't retain such material in the hope that someone, someday, will be able to show it's reliable and verifiable.   Will Beback    talk    02:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I've been thinking about this, and here's my conclusion. Topics for which there are no notable sources in English are not notable to English readers, by definition. Can't source it in English? Don't put it in the English Wikipedia, period. As to rare European insects or whatever, if some British scientist has not written about them in a reliable source in English, it's not notable to English readers in the sense that is critical to Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope Born2cycle's post was a joke. Does anyone who isnt as hotheaded as I have a reputation for being want to respond to Born2cycle what is wrong with what he posted?Camelbinky (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer is located at Neutral point of view/FAQ. There is some inevitable bias towards giving more coverage to topics from english countries, or using english countries's perspectives, but it isn't desired to be so. It's just a side-effect of the editors available for the project. Wikipedia aims to have a balanced coverage of topics of all countries in the world and all brands of knowledge, but does not have (in any single project, at least) an equally balanced community of users with expertised knowledge at each brand of knowledge or with personal knowledge of the cultures and related topics of all countries. MBelgrano (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not joking. Wikipedia editors don't decide what is notable; reliable sources in English decide what is notable.  If a topic is not sufficiently notable for someone to create a reliable source in English about it, then it is not notable enough to be in Wikipedia.  Biased or not, it is not our place to be the only English source for anything; there must be reliable English sources outside of Wikipedia to source in order to cover a topic here.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Where in policy is it stated "in English" as you keep stating? I have seen nothing of the sort. Our goal is to be the most complete encyclopedia of human knowledge, period. Not just of what is "interesting" to someone who speaks English. In fact many of our own editors on en:wp dont have English as their primary language, perhaps the next step is to ban them from contributing? This idea of "English only" sounds to me xenophobic, jingoistic, chauvenistic, and just a tad bit bigoted. Oh, and yes Wikipedians do decide what is notable; its what we do at noticeboards and AfD's everyday, the consensus of the Community is what matters, a "reliable source" never states "this is notable put it in Wikipedia". Your claim about "if it isnt sufficiently notable for someon to create a reliable source in English about it, then it is not notable enough to be in Wikipedia" sounds alot like those who say "I couldnt find it on Google so it isnt notable". Just as very little of human knowledge is on the Internet, and an even smaller percentage can be found using Google (Google doesnt even cover 1/3 of the Internet btw), not all of human knowledge can be found in the English language. To do a correct and accurate article on several topics in anthropology, archeaology, philosophy, psychology, history, political science, among many other, concerning things discovered between the 1880s and late 1930s you need sources that are in German and just havent been translated over to English, yet; they are working on it. That doesnt mean that the information in those German articles are of no notability or reliability for en:wp. We are simply Wikipedia written in the English language, we are not just the Wikipedia articles that interest those who speak English.Camelbinky (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking your example to illustrate a point... If some theory was presented only in German in the 1800s in an area of anthropology, archeaology, philosophy, psychology, history, political science, etc., but has not been deemed sufficiently important or relevant for any secondary source to write about in other languages, including English, then I would contend it is not sufficiently notable to be in any encyclopedia. You're misunderstanding me with the focus on English; perhaps I should have stated it differently. Any topic for which there are not reliable third-party sources in all widely used languages (say English, German, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, French) is arguably not notable enough to be in any encyclopedia, except for special cases which should require special justification.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to start a discussion about a closely related topic -- whether a topic with no sources in English is "notable" from the perspective of an English encyclopedia -- at WT:N. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree. If we allow this then what happens to Einstein's original papers? Out. Discussion of French philosophy in French? Out. Spanish coverage of the Madrid train bombings? Out. Spanish-language newspapers in the US? Out. Er, no.
 * Vassayna's concerns about machine translation don't seem warranted. Naive use of these tools can give poor result, i.e. just accepting the translation without question, but I've found that careful use can give more than a gist of the source, with any confusion or ambiguity dealt with by looking up the meanings of specific words and phrases.
 * "If some theory was presented only in German in the 1800s ... but has not been deemed sufficiently important or relevant for any secondary source to write about in other languages, including English, then I would contend it is not sufficiently notable to be in any encyclopedia." We'll be unlikely to know about it as English speakers, making this somewhat of a moot point, but the hypothetical example might have problems with NPOV and reliability if it relied solely on sources from the 1800s. Let's take each case as they come rather than creating policy to disallow unlikely occurrences. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we need some common sense in dealing with this since some forien sources are better than others. Obviously we should should think twice if an obsuce Indonesian blog posted accusations about Obama. However, the Japanese magazine Famitsu is usually a very reliable source for video game related news and there are defently people from WP:VG that can read Japanese. If for example they announced Metal Gear Solid 5 I see little reason to doubt them. In short, it is true that forein language sources can be misused but a complete ban is easily overkill.
 * I'll close by mentioning this comment from a MFD for the episode citing template that I think sums up this argument quite well. "Just because someone can and has committed a bad 'crime' with a tool does not mean the tool should be banned -- it means the 'crime' should be dealt with". Not quite the same case but I think it applies--76.69.170.72 (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In the case of Obama or other topic of top importance for an english-speaking country, it is less likely to find relevant information that wasn't already covered by sources in that country. This whole issue can be clearly noted at topics whose importance is higher for non-english speaking countries: english coverage may be trivial or superficial, while non-english coverage may be much more detailed and comprehensive.
 * By the way, "common sense" shouldn't be mentioned in a manner like this, stating the own viewpoint to be common sense, as that would indirectly imply that the other ones aren't. Same for the quote: even if correct at the analogy level, comparing wikipedia actions with crimes (even actions to be corrected, such as giving undue weight to viewpoints or making original research in the form of novel synthesis) is hardly productive. MBelgrano (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree. As per the reasons stated in previous posts. Particularly when certain topics lack reliable English coverage even when they are known in the English speaking world, like most topics related to Asia. It's not as if there were a lack of polyglot editors or as if online translators tools were not enough to discover bad sources. Jfgslo (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. This would cut off such a wide array of excellent sources. I'd rather see that the editing of people who are not fluent in English be restricted. Geschichte (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. Undermines (or rather: nukes) Wikipedia's purpose, turning "sum of all human knowledge" into "sum of all English knowledge" which will greatly reduce its usefulness. Wikipedia should be for the about stuff from the entire world, not restricted to 10% of the world. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. Sjakkalle sums it up pretty neatly: Wikipedia is not about only stuff that is only of interest to English speaking readers, it's about everything that is notable - no matter where. If there are problems with sources, they can be assessed and dealt with individually but there is no reason to disallow all foreign-language sources. That would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. Regards  So Why  09:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. Most readers will be unable to verify any source on an advanced topic, regardless of language. What's next, no article on Lefschetz fixed-point theorem or Superposition calculus or M-theory because the average editor does not speak enough Maths? If you really need to verify a foreign language source, learn the language, or pay for an translation, or ask for assitance via our very own Translators available service. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. Such a rule would simply speaking cripple Wikipedia. This is a horrible idea. I'm coming temporarily out of a long Wikibreak just to have my say in this vital matter. Manxruler (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know Wikipedia isnt ruled by "votes", but in my opinion we've had more than a fair share of editors comment in disagreement with this proposal and no new reasons are coming up on either side pro or con; so I believe it may be time to encourage a passing administrator to close out the discussion so it can be archived instead of leaving it here for more to passby and post "disagree" which then keeps it going.Camelbinky (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine
Due to the current legal action relating to this article, could people who have expertise in dealing with difficult WP:V and NPOV issues please review this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In particular, additional reliable sources that discuss this organization and which would help verify the facts under dispute more thoroughly would be very welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well now
There's certainly been some editing of this policy since the last time I read it, and I think it's jumped the shark in the last three months. Jimbo's quote urgently needs to be restored to WP:BURDEN, and the business about the person who adds material having sole responsibility for citing sources is nonsense (and if followed, would lead to deletion of most of Wikipedia's older content on grounds of not being sourced). The burden of evidence is on everyone. Not just content creators, everyone. Finding sources and checking them is the basic job of an encyclopaedist.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  22:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it says "adds or restores". If material is removed due to being unsourced, the person that wants to restore it must demonstrate the existence of a source. The person removing it has obligation to look for a source, but does not bear the burden of demonstrating non-existence.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that someone who removes unsourced material has to prove a negative. What I'm saying is that looking for sources is everyone's job. The present phrasing of WP:BURDEN is disastrous, because it's a licence for editors to remove material without checking for sources themselves.  That's immensely destructive and it cannot remain as presently phrased.  The current wording directly contradicts the much older and more established WP:BEFORE. Further, Jimbo's quote explains the purpose of WP:BURDEN in context, and removing it to a footnote was a bad idea.  Jimbo's quote needs to go back in its proper place. I don't often use wording this emphatic on Wikipedia, but I strongly feel that the present version of WP:BURDEN should not have been implemented without a full RFC.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The language you object to has been in the policy for at least a year. (I stopped searching once I got back that far) I'd say that it has consensus and was not the result of some ninja-editing.  And since it has been there for over a year, I think predictions of disaster are a bit extreme.  The Jimbo quotation was removed recently, but I don't see how it would modify the language you object to.   RJC  TalkContribs 00:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The language has been in the policy for a lot longer than a year... in its present form, it goes back to August of 2006... and, in very similar language, long before that. As policy statements go, WP:BURDEN is probably one of the most stable on Wikipedia.  S Marshal is going to have to demonstrate that a significant change of consensus has occured if he wants to change it.  As for the Jimbo Quote... we discuss this above... the quote has not been removed, it has simply been moved to a footnote. Blueboar (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The person adding or restoring material has an obligation to provide a source, unless it isn't a direct quote, isn't controversial, and isn't likely to be challenged. It would be nice if people removing material would look for a source, but the degree of niceness varies with the nature of the material being removed. The nicest people look up material that is reasonably easy to find on-line or in the would-be remover's personal library. A person who searches for sources for absurd allegations (Elvis bought a pink Cadillac on January 1, 2009) isn't nice, he/she is a sucker. People who go to the ends of the earth to find a source for something that is plausible but uncertain are being more than nice; that borders on heroism. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're correct about the person adding material in the first place, but if it has been removed for being unsourced, it's too controversial to restore without sources pretty much by definition.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good Lord. Well, I'm completely wrong, and that language has been in there since forever.  (wipes egg from face) The emphasis has certainly changed (italics, removal of Jimbo quote, addition of "unambiguously") and it reads much more strongly than I remember. The point is that WP:BURDEN directly contradicts what we say elsewhere (in WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, for example).  I think it's well established that everywhere on Wikipedia except in WP:BURDEN, the onus is on everyone to search for sources. I think it's a good thing that there's a creative tension between WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN but they should not contradict one another so flatly.  I remain of the opinion that my edit was a good idea, and it brings WP:BURDEN into line with what we say everywhere else. I also remain of the opinion that Jimbo's quote should go back where it was.  I understand the temptation some editors feel to remove Jimbo's fingermarks from Wikipedia's clay before they get baked in, but I think it's misguided.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  08:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no-one now objects, but I'll leave it another 24 hours or so before re-implementing my proposed change. :)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  07:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't. Just because no one responds does not give you leave to reinsert a change that was disputed. Anyway, I object. LK (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I object. It is up to the person adding material to provide a reliable source, and instant deletion is always an acceptable response to an editor who can't be bothered to tell us why we should believe something. Please consider this objection to be in force unless I strike it out. --Jc3s5h (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with "I object" where a basis for objection is provided, because that's a discussion. "I object" without giving a reason is not consensus-seeking behaviour.  BRD means "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, perpetual stasis". Jc3s5h's objection is reasonable, and entails some modification.  I propose the following revised wording: "When new material is added to the encyclopaedia, there is a burden of evidence on the person seeking to add the material.  The presumption is that any material that is challenged should be removed unless verified.  This does not extend to longer-standing content, particularly material that may have been added before WP:BURDEN was implemented.  In the case of longstanding content, WP:PRESERVE should prevail." This seems to me to resolve Jc3s5h's objection but it also enables us to bring WP:BURDEN into line with WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  12:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with the general concept of WP:PRESERVE for long-standing information. Bearing in mind that a search for sources isn't necessary for long-standing material that has not been challenged, the degree of effort expended in looking for sources should be in proportion to the likelihood that the information is true. --Jc3s5h (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the wording should remain as it is. Unverified material should not be grandfathered into the encyclopedia because of oversight or laxer policies when it was first added.  All material should have to pass the same standard of verifiability regardless of when it was written; all material should conform to the same high standard.  WP:BURDEN as worded is appropriate.  (I'll also say that the bare existence of an objection means that WP:SILENCE no longer applies, however reasonable that objection might be to you.  This subject has been discussed before; it seems entirely appropriate for some to say that they object to a change without rehashing their reasons when some proposes, "since there is no objection.")  RJC  TalkContribs 13:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that we should leave WP:BURDEN as it is and edit WP:PRESERVE instead, then, RJC? Or do you see no conflict between the two? The fact that it's been discussed before doesn't stop me discussing it again.  If you'd like to refer to a previous discussion, simply link it.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * S Mashall... I think that you see a conflict between WP:BURDEN and WP:PRESERVE that does not exist. For one thing WP:PRESERVE does not stand alone... it is immediately followed by WP:HANDLE, which discusses removing problematic material... including material that is unsourced.  There is a balance between preservation and removal.  Both have their place.
 * That said, if there were a conflict between these statements, I would say that WP:PRESERVE should be the one to be edited and not WP:BURDEN, as WP:V is a core policy with solid community consensus, while WP:Editing policy is not (It is actually somewhat controvercial, and has frequently, allbeit so far unsuscessfully, had its status as a Policy questioned.) Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PRESERVE is hardly controversial. The last person to make significant revisions to it was, er, me, in June; I think that's the only major edit that's stuck for rather a long time; WP:PRESERVE is jealously-guarded, and rightly so. I like WP:HANDLE, and think it a much superior policy to the present wording of WP:BURDEN.  WP:HANDLE supports the basic view that looking for sources is everyone's job.  It does not pretend that it's okay to revert content creators' good faith edits without searching for sources, and the basic problem with WP:BURDEN as presently phrased is that it can be read like that.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it certainly is more controversial than WP:BURDEN (prior to your June edit, WP:PRESERVE pops up farely often on the talk page... and WP:Editing policy as a whole, continues to be controvercial).
 * I will also note that, as a policy statement, WP:PRESERVE is a lot newer than WP:BURDEN.  WP:PRESERVE was created on 26 Sept, 2007 with this edit... In its current wording WP:BURDEN had been in place for a full year prior to the creation of WP:PRESERVE, and in substance for longer than that. If I saw a conflict, I could argue that this means that PRESERVE never actually reflected consensus, even when it was first introduced (I don't argue this... because I don't see a conflict). Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.... looking back through the archives ... there was a lot of discussion about the intent of WP:BURDEN just before WP:PRESERVE was written. Worth looking at. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the moment when WP:PRESERVE got its own link and its own subheading, but the core words ("So, whatever you do, preserve information") date back to 2002. The "verifiability" page wasn't even created until 2003, and WP:BURDEN basically dates back to Jimbo's words in 2006.  WP:PRESERVE is by far the senior policy, with its roots in real old-school Wikipedian thought—not that I consider that particularly relevant now.  I agree that it's right to look for sources. Blueboar, I recognise that you don't think there's a conflict between WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN, but can you understand why some people do?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, I don't. I understand that they do... but I don't understand why. Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you believe the current wording implies a licence to remove content without checking for sources first?— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  19:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and no... One of the ambiguities of the section is that the wording "may be removed" can be taken in two ways... 1) it can be seen a warning to those who are adding material that it might be removed (and if you want to avoid this, provide a source)... and 2) it can be permission for editors to remove material that should be removed.
 * As for what material should be removed, what sorts of steps you need to take before it actually is removed.... that really depends on the nature of the material under discussion. The more harmful it is, the fewer steps need to be taken.  An unsourced accusation in a BLP, for example, should be removed immediately, without discussion or tagging.  An uncontrovercial statement that seems likely to be accurate should probably never be removed (it probably is not worth tagging)...  And there is a wide range between these two extremes.  Most unsourced material should be tagged, and discussed on the talk page.
 * That said, BURDEN is definitely not a licence to rush around removing things purely because they are not cited. You do need to explain why you are challenging the information.  And once a challenge has been issued, you need to give other editors a reasonable amount of time to locate sources before you do remove material.
 * In short... this isn't something that we can make hard and fast rules about... both PRESERVE and BURDEN can be abused... but in intent, they work in harmony. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we agree on what the intent should be. If WP:BURDEN contains exactly the language you just used, I'd be perfectly happy with it.  Why can't we add: "WP:BURDEN is definitely not a licence to rush around removing things purely because they are not cited.  You do need to explain why you are challenging the information.  And once a challenge has been issued, you need to give other editors a reasonable amount of time to locate sources before you do remove material" to the policy?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because sometimes the material should be removed immediately. It depends on the material in question. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does. Maybe "WP:BURDEN is a licence to remove uncited material, but unless the material is a copyvio, disparagement of a living person, or a breach of personal privacy, there is also a burden on the remover to search for sources first."— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just one can abuse BURDEN... so one can abuse PRESERVE ... Again, it really depends on the material in question. If someone comes across an unsorced statement that they think is accurate, or likely to be accurate, they definitely should try to source it (tagging it with a  if they can not). On the other hand, if they are reasonably certain that the unsourced information is inaccurate or flawed in some way, they should not be (and, per BURDEN, are not) required to go through the effort of looking for sources that they do not think exist... They are going to challenge the information (removing or tagging it with  tag depending on the severity) and make anyone who wants to keep the information do the hard work of providing a source.  Blueboar (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We could say "...there is also a burden on the remover to search for sources first, unless they are certain the information is inaccurate." But the trouble with that is that it enables semi-informed teenagers to remove experts' contributions without looking for sources themselves.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  07:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no way to enforce a burden on the challenger... the challenger can simply say "yeah I looked, and I could not find anything"... we have no way to know if they actually looked or not, but assuming good faith we would have to take them at their word. However, we do have some degree of enforsement on WP:BURDEN... find sources or the information you want included will be removed. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a policy statement is a description of how the community feels editors should behave, not a description of how we can force them to behave. And I think policy statements should be in more harmony with each other than is presently the case (I've said that some degree of tension between WP:BURDEN and WP:PRESERVE is good, but not this much).— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What's going on here
What change, precisely are we discussing? There is a sea of WP:BLUEPOLICYLINKS (lol, please be red) but I can't 100% tell what the dispute is about. Feel free to let me know if that stems more from my habit of skimming than from any inscrutability in the above discussion. Protonk (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is who's responsible for looking for sources, basically. My answer was "everyone is responsible for looking for sources". But the verifiability policy as presently written suggests that only the content creator needs to look.  I changed it, and then all that text above happened. Essentially the outcome is that I still think "everyone is responsible for looking for sources", and I think our verifiability policy should say that, but the consensus is against me.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * S Marshall -- Your proposed words are not wrong nor is your intention ungenerous; however, this is impractical. More to the point, it is entirely unworkable. Your point-of-view renders WP:Burden even more of a nullity than it is currently.  If your proposal were less innocent or idealistic, it would be infuriating. In like circumstances, I might have embraced this notion before I actually found myself learning lessons the hard way during interactions which could not become teachable moments. In short, this causes me to recall: Above all, do no harm.--Tenmei (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not only perfectly workable, but it's a principle that's been enshrined in Wikipedian policy for years, as I have exhaustively demonstrated above. I've also shown that WP:BURDEN is the only rule that's out of step with it. Characterising me as "innocent and idealistic" is not a substitute for a reasoned argument as to why WP:BURDEN must remain phrased as it is.  It is, however, typical of the responses I've received in this matter.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  07:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference as I see it is this: Yes, everyone should look for sources (and add them if they can find them)... but, to prevent challenged material from being removed, it is up to those who wish to keep material to actually find sources (and add them if they can).  In other words... when it comes to sourcing unsourced material, while there is a burden on everyone, there is a significantly greater burden on those who wish to keep information. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. All I want is for the policy to reflect the first part of your answer, Blueboar, as well as the second.  The bit where you say "everyone should look for sources" is conspicuously absent at the moment.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * S Marshall -- In no way do I diminish the validity of my comments by characterizing you (although flattery does have its place in argument). Rather, I offer succinct adjectives which are intended to clarify flaws in your proposal.
 * Blueboar -- The conceptual notion that "everyone should look for sources" is conspicuously absent from my experience with those who seem to enjoy disputing in ways I do not.
 * In practical, everyday editing, this proposal is generous and collegial, but unworkable. Lest S Marshall mistake the intent of these new adjectives, please allow me to re-focus.  Instead, construe my purpose as spot-lighting significant flaws in this "tweaking" exercise.
 * In my view, S Marshall selects the wrong fulcrum. I'm not missing the point; but I wonder if the proposed change doesn't serve to marginalize WP:BURDEN? Is it timely at this stage in the evolution of our multi-language wiki-projects? --Tenmei (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tenmei, I'm conscious that last time you were before Arbcom, you asked me to help you write more effectively. I think you've made some progress since then, but what you say sometimes remains confusing. You said "I offer succinct adjectives which are intended to clarify flaws in your proposal".  The actual adjectives you used were "impractical" and "unworkable", and while those are certainly succinct adjectives, in what way do they clarify a flaw?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Restatement : "How to enhance the marginal utility of an important wiki-fulcrum?"
 * The thrust of S Marshall's proposal is impractical and unworkable because it is generous and collegial. In my comments above, the married adjectives offer succinct rebuttal by shifting emphasis. The word choice brings to the fore those situations in which editors are strategically ungenerous and the fiction of collegial activity is only words. I worry that this calm discussion blurs the wrong lines, that it functions to undercut the effectiveness of the fulcrum WP:Burden is designed to be.  S Marshall's argument has implicit axioms which cause us to consider re-positioning a fulcrum in the wrong place.


 * As I see it, S Marshall's constructive suggestions seem intended as a modest "tweaking" exercise. As context and despite WP:Burden, we witness the expanding effects of those who construe Wikipedia in the service of non-neutral objectives. There is no cynicism in this, only a recognition of the way things are.


 * I do understand how statements of wiki-policy serve an hortatory function, but is that all there is to it? --Tenmei (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I can understand that. My response is that Wikipedian policies and guidelines assume good faith and are, correctly, aimed at good faith editors. Dealing with bad faith editors is an entirely different matter, and there is no point writing policies and guidelines to deal with them, because bad faith editors will disregard rules that don't suit them in any case.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But good faith editors need directions to help combat other editors who add (or restore) random stuff. Sure, the current BURDEN wording could be misused to remove half the text from many articles – but no policy/guideline can avoid misguided application. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * S Marshall -- I find myself wondering if it's helpful to encompass something beyond hortatory objectives? I had not recognized nor investigated the assumptions which inform my personal approach to wiki-policies.  I had construed core policies – WP:V, WP:Burden, et al. – as generally practical, flexible templates which were crafted to help me and others find ways
 * (a) to escape conflict and
 * (b) to move towards areas of identified agreement.
 * As you know, this strategy hasn't worked well for me thus far; but I rationalized this with a hypothesis that novel circumstances required a different kind of agility. Clearly, this thread now becomes fodder for further thought.  Thank you for initiating it.  --Tenmei (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Policy pages need to be simple. The shorter and simpler they are, the more likely people will read them and apply them.  As an overriding consideration, any change to the policy must be very succinct. Policies should also be consistent with one another.  They should not give conflicting messages.  The problem at the moment is that WP:BURDEN needs to be brought into conformity with WP:PRESERVE (and I've already made edits to WP:PRESERVE to bring it closer to WP:BURDEN).— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As I see it... WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN discuss different stages in the sourcing process. WP:PRESERVE talks about what should happen before somone challenges an unsourced statement... while BURDEN talks about what must happen after someone has challenged an unsourced statement.  This is why I do not see any conflict.  In any case... I would object to any wording that diminishes the clear intent of WP:BURDEN. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)