Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 36

Absolutism
It seems that many of the threads on this talk page share a common theme: Users sometimes take WP:V as a blank check to remove uncited material simply because they believe that WP:V mandates it, or automatically justifies it, even if they don't have a real basis to doubt that the material is factual [verifiable]. I suggest we integrate the following sentiment:


 * Challenges to unsourced statements should be based on good-faith doubts about the veracity of [the verifiability of] a statement.

This is already the unwritten policy; if it weren't, we'd delete every statement without a citation. I suggest that we make it part of the written policy. Gigs (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)04:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's totally wrong. "Veracity" is synonous to "truth", and as the first sentence of WP:V says, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. This suggestion would directly violate the fundamental principle of V and of Wikipedia as a whole. Crum375 (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And regarding the point about deleting every unsourced statement, we need to provide a reliable source for every statement which is challenged or likely to be challenged, not for every statement. Crum375 (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood. I can't keep material in simply because I believe it to be true.  Truth is not the threshold for inclusion, like it says.  The threshold for deletion of unsourced material is some minimal good faith doubts about the truth of a statement.  Editors who take excessive license in deleting factual information simply because it lacks an inline citation find this out quickly. Your response makes me even more sure that this needs to be clarified.  Gigs (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point. "Truth", or "veracity", or "factuality" is not a criterion for inclusion or deletion. The only criterion is verifiability, i.e. attributability to a reliable source. As the policy says, if you challenge a statement in good faith (which essentially means you need to have real and rational doubts that a reliable source for it can be found), it should be removed pending the addition of such a source. When you add a statement, if you think it might become challenged you should add a reliable source. We also encourage people not to remove material for which a source can be readily found, but to add such sources themselves. Crum375 (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the current policy doesn't require a "challenge in good faith". It just simply says that material may be challenged.  Some people have taken that very literally to mean that it may be challenged for any capricious reason whatsoever.  My suggestion is to add something that does make it clear that a challenge must be based on good faith doubts.  We could strike the word "veracity" and just leave it as "good faith doubts", if you feel that veracity would imply something inaccurate.  Gigs (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the wording "good faith" is to be assumed about challenging material, in line with policy (WP:AGF). We shouldn't need to always add the words when the assumption around the encyclopedia is that editors act in good faith. --hippo43 (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. We interpret "challenge" as one made in good faith, just as we interpret "edit" as one made in good faith. If someone goes around wanting every single word to be cited, it would be considered disruptive behavior. We can't legislate exactly what constitutes "good faith", so we trust people's common sense to tell apart someone who is there to disrupt, vs. someone else who has real bona-fide doubts about the potential availability of a reliable source. Crum375 (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't about legislating, it's about communicating that there must be some basis for challenging material. The purpose of our policy documents is to communicate our policies.  The current unwritten policy is that challenging material without a good faith doubt about the material is considered disruptive.  Our policy document doesn't reflect this, and some people have taken it to literally mean that they may challenge unsourced material for any reason whatsoever.  Gigs (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm undecided whether the "good faith" threshold requirement should be in the policy, but I would add that the editor marking material as lacking a citation could either personally doubt that the material is verifiable, or sincerely belief that there are others who will not believe the Wikipedia article without a source being provided. Not every bit of marked material has to be removed in due course; depending on how much harm it could do or how likely it is that a source exists somewhere, it might be left as is until a source is found. --Jc3s5h (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If the material is actually common knowledge, sources will be a dime a dozen. If the assertions are not so obvious, it should have a supporting citation. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the information will be easy to source or should have a verifiable reference. In addition, I strongly agree with Crum375. Vassyana (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This assumption that if something s common knowledge sources will be a dime a dozen is simply false. A famous case showing this recently was a study to try and show that jumping out of a plane without a parachute was dangerous. No source could be found for this assertion, and definitely no peer reviewed citation. Unfortunately using 'good faith' as a basis for inclusion or exclusion in debates like evolution, the Israeli-Palestine conflict or suchlike topics is not likely to be very productive. Dmcq (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And here's a citation for that study: Gordon C S Smith and Jill P Pell Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2003; 327: 1459-1461 Dmcq (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have yet to encounter an obvious claim that is difficult to source. This is no exception. I found it quite easy with no more than a couple of online library subscriptions to find reliable sources noting that falling from great heights without a parachute is dangerous. Some rather detailed discussions of the surrounding physics and physiology are also quite easily available. Physics, with Illustrative Examples from Medicine and Biology: Mechanics (Springer, 2000) nicely goes through the math and even explains how people survive such falls in certain circumstances (see pp. 290-96). "Physical parameters of free fall in a child" published in Injury, Volume 27, Issue 10 provides a similarly nice scientific review of the physics (see pp. 739-41). Both sources make explicit connections to falling in the absence of a parachute. It took me a scant few minutes to not only find plenty of references stating the danger, but to also find both sources providing a more detailed view of the associated physics and medicine. Vassyana (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the study you cite, it does not deny the danger of skydiving without a parachute nor the availability of evidence or sources stating the danger. It denies the existence of randomized controlled trials of parachute effectiveness. The lack of placebo-controlled trials for parachutes should be rather obvious. The piece is a criticism of the prevailing model of evidence-based medicine, not a study on the availability of sources about the dangers jumping without a parachute. Vassyana (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really about commonality of knowledge or difficulty of sourcing. The point of this suggestion is that carrying out the policy as it is literally written leads to disruptive behavior.  Also, I think people are focusing too much on the "good faith" part of my suggestion, which isn't really the core.  "Doubts" is a more important word than good faith is.  The point is to offer some minimal guidance instead of implying that people may remove information for whatever arbitrary reason they want, or with a simple reference to "per WP:V" while lacking any other rationale. Gigs (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If the people who remove material rely on WP:V to do so, they must also conform to "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." If they just go around removing every single sentence which is unsourced, without making minimal efforts to try to find sources themselves (e.g. doing a quick Google search), they would be considered disruptive and this will be more of a behavioral than a content issue. Crum375 (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also... removing unsourced information in good faith isn't disruptive... it is an attempt to improve the article. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but "good faith" in this case has to include a minimal effort to find the source themselves, or be reasonably convinced there is no source for it. Otherwise, people could just remove every single unsourced sentence blindly, eliminating perhaps most of WP's content. Crum375 (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we all agree that taken to some extreme, removal of unsourced content becomes disruptive behavior. My main problem with the current caveat is that it doesn't seem to communicate that there should be some basis for removal other than merely being unsourced.  It comments on timing, "how quickly this should happen depends on...", but it does not describe a threshold for removal.  It links to WP:PRESERVE which is also a policy, but I don't think it sufficiently expresses it. Gigs (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a mistake to define a specific "threshold for removal" beyond what we already state ("challenged or likely to be challenged"). On the other hand, people who challenge or remove material must make a good faith effort to find a source themselves, or be reasonably convinced there isn't one. There is no magic formula for this, and like everything else on WP it depends on our collective common sense. Crum375 (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "people who challenge or remove material must make a good faith effort to find a source themselves, or be reasonably convinced there isn't one" -- this is the exactly sort of verbiage I think we should add. I'm not looking to change the policy here or create a bright line test, only to document what you and I already know the de facto policy to be. Gigs (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The removal of unsourced content may be annoying behavior (at least for the author of the content), but I would never call it disruptive behavior.  As for WP:PRESERVE, that is ballanced by WP:HANDLE and you have to read them together.  The problem is that the threshold for removal depends on a host of factors... chief among them being the nature of the article and the nature of the unsourced information.  In other words, the line between when to remove and when to tag isn't something we can spell out in a policy.  It is an editorial determination that will be different in each instance.
 * And no... the burden to make an effort to find a source rests with those who wish to keep the information in the article, not with those who challenge it. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, how would you prevent someone who goes around blindly removing every single unsourced sentence he finds on WP, which could eliminate more than half the present content on the site? Crum375 (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. I would source the material and return it.  But such a wide scale removal is unlikely. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree about single events. My question is about a large scale attempt by someone who believes he'd be improving WP by mass elimination of all unsourced content. To say it's unlikely is not addressing the problem. Crum375 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a realistic problem, so I don't think it needs to be addressed. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that such misguided crusades are happening on a smaller scale all over Wikipedia and are causing plenty of unnecessary disputes and conflict. The extreme case was only raised because your logic that "every challenge is valid, period" serves to justify such extreme behavior, as does the current wording of this policy page. Gigs (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is, I don't think removing unsourced information is a "misguided crusade"... I also question whether this is as big a "problem" as you are making out. I don't see hoards of editors going around deleting information simply because it is unsourced.  There are usually OR or NPOV issues underlying the removal if you examine them in more depth. Blueboar (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that everything which is challenged needs a source, but the user challenging the material must be acting in good faith, which includes his desire to help find such sources himself and/or having a doubt that such sources exist. If they are just doing it as a matter of principle, without even bothering about the specifics, it would be disruptive in my opinion. Crum375 (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And right there is where we seem to disagree... I believe that someone removing unsourced material on principal is acting in good faith, you believe it is disruptive bahavior. Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your position directly contradicts pretty much the entire editing policy. FWIW here is the verbiage from the editing policy regarding verifiability challenges: "Depending on the degree of its suspected inaccuracy or negative impact, the information may be removed either immediately or after sources have been requested and none has been provided for some time." This is in line with my proposed addition here regarding challenges.  Gigs (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, my view is in line with WP:HANDLE which is part of that policy. I'm not saying that removal is always the best option... I am simply saying that it is a legitimate option.  Removing material that is unsourced is not "disruptive behavior".  Blueboar (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I am not disagreeing with you about single events, where I too believe that the source should be supplied, period. I am addressing a scenario where an editor systematically goes from article to article, perhaps even with some automated (but manual) tool, and blindly removes all sentences where there are no cited sources. Let's say he starts doing hundreds of them per day, causing a huge uproar and confusion. I would warn this user that this is disruptive, and block him if he persists. To "challenge" a source in good faith you have to understand the context and what is being said, and if you are reverting large amounts of text blindly, in multiple articles, it doesn't seem like good faith. I think most admins would do the same in this situation. Crum375 (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Crum, I do understand what you are worried about... but as I said, I don't think your worries are realistic. I don't think we should be editing policy based on highly unlikely "what ifs".
 * More to the point, I am concerned that we not restrict the ability of editors to legitimately remove unsourced information just to cover the off chance that someone might do so illigitimately. Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you about single events. I see many cases of editors complaining that someone removed text of something "obvious", and I tell them to find the source, which should be easy to do if it's so obvious. And I do support the current language: "any material which is challenged or likely to be challenged may be removed." But it's also important to impress upon editors that we expect them to act in good faith, and we greatly encourage them to work collaboratively, trying to find sources instead of blindly removing material. Crum375 (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If we had a problem with a hoard of people blindly removing material I might agree with you, but I don't think we do. I think we have a lot of individual legitimate good faith removals.  And I am fine with that. I think the vast majority of our editors do act in good faith, and are working collaboratively, even when they remove unsourced material.  And I also firmly believe that the burden to produce a source rests with those who wish to return removed information and not with those who removed it. Blueboar (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the current wording of the policy, as I stated above. That includes both the requirement to provide sources for material challenged or likely to be challenged, as well as the duty of finding the source falling on those who add the material, not those who remove it. Having said that, I think the issue is the definition of "good faith", where in my interpretation acting in good faith includes trying to understand the context and to help find sources before blindly removing material. Crum375 (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree totally with Blueboar on this. We can't be too prescriptive here about what 'good faith' means in this context, and we shouldn't assume that all unsourced material is equally valuable. If an editor doesn't have the time, knowledge, resources or inclination to look for sources, it can still be a positive step to remove unsourced material. The burden of evidence has to clearly remain on the editor who wants to include material. --hippo43 (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I've given some thought to this one and agree that the burden to produce a source rests with those who wish to return removed material. It would be absurd to have it the other way, ie, the burden resting on those who wish to remove it. Those who wish to remove material may feel it is POV, OR, or mistaken; and if so, they may legitimately remove it if they cannot find V in RS themselves. Otherwise, such offensive or unverifiable (controversial?) material simply remains in and becomes a good faith issue rather than verifiability one. We can't legislate good faith (it is a slippery concept at best) but we can legislate policy and note with whom the burden of evidence lies. I would like to see the policy clear on that issue. Surely there will always be vandalism and erasing every unverified statement in wiki would be bigtime vandalism, but on the whole we are talking about people who really want to do a good job and look for guidelines within policy to help them edit properly. Stellarkid (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Um... I think the policy is clear on this. Blueboar (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

break - Absolutism

 * Hippo43, I notice that you appear to be involved in what - at first glance - appears to be an edit war with multiple editors.      As I requested on that article's talk page, can you please scan and upload a copy of page 61 of the book "Milestones: The Music And Times Of Miles Davis"?  You claimed that this book does not support this content.  I don't own a copy of this book so I would appreciate it if you uploaded a scan of page 61 of your copy of the book. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Quest, this is a strange place for you to raise this. The article talk page or my own talk page would be better. I have replied again at the article talk page. --hippo43 (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue of editors deleting unsourced content on grounds no more sophisticated than "I disagree" has already come before this page.. However, we now appear to be at a new level: editors deleting sourced content without reading the sources.  The outstanding issues remain unresolved.  Are editors allowed to challenge material without providing adequate explanation?  IOW, can you challenge simply for the sake of challenging?  Should editors make good faith attempts to find sources before deleting content?  But now we have a new question: Are editors allowed to delete sourced material without reading the sources?  This is clearly a problem that his policy does not appear to have addressed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Allowed to do so? Yes.  Is it "best practice" to do so?  No.
 * I would certainly say that removing sourced material without an explanation is "poor practice". I would also say that the removal can be freely reverted with a request for an explanation.  I think that the burden of evidence shifts when removing sourced material... The remover should (not "must") at least leave a minimum explanation (a brief edit summary comment such as: "Not RS" or "This is SYNT" qualifies).
 * That said... I think there is a reason why WP:V does not go into all of this... WP:V is a content policy, not a behavioral guideline. Perhaps there should be a statement of best practice as it relates to removing material ... but I don't think this policy page is the right place for it. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Quest, you are clearly referring to our disagreement at Talk:List of common misconceptions. Your stubborn refusal to assume good faith on my part does you no credit - I have checked the sources in question and cannot find any support for the material they are used to reference. This is at least the second time the material has been moved to the talk page (not deleted altogether), and though someone did return the info to the article, nobody, including you, has yet been able to show how the sources are valid. Another editor has checked the source in question online and found it does not support the material. If you check these sources yourself and disagree, please explain why. Otherwise, please quit whining. Comment from other editors here would be useful. --hippo43 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (out of sequence) This discussion between Quest and Hippo seems very much off topic here. This is a policy talkpage. Please find somewhere more appropriate.LeadSongDog come howl  18:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm referring to:
 * Blindly deleting valid content without even bothering trying to find sources and without even bothering to provide a rationale more sophisticated than "I disagree"
 * Blindly deleting content without even bothering to read the sources. How can anyone possibly know that the source doesn't support the material if they haven't read it?


 * These are both serious problems that I would like to see addressed either in this policy, an essay or some plase. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, even though it's a core content policy, it should not mislead editors regarding other policies. It doesn't need to go into detail about the editing process or the WP:editing policy, but it also should not apparently contradict it by providing what appears to be a carte blanche to remove unsourced information for any reason whatsoever. Even a small change such as "Information should be preserved whenever possible, but unsourced information may be challenged and removed" would be an vast improvement in verbiage. Gigs (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Gigs, I disagree with your proposed addition - material should be preserved or removed based on its value, which is dependent on other policies as well as this one. As was pointed out above, unsourced material which is removed often relates to other issues, such as OR and NPOV. If the burden of evidence is with the editor who wants to add/restore material, then it folllows that unsourced material can be removed. I don't think we should be watering this down. --hippo43 (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I am beginning to think that some of you think that any removal of material is automatically a 'bad faith' edit. If I am reading you wrong, I do appologize... but that is the impression I get. I remind you that the default is to assume good faith. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can somehow read my last message and think that, then this conversation is very much pointless. Gigs (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Gigs... we had an edit conflict... my last comment was not in response to your last comment.
 * That said, your stress on WP:PRESERVE is misplaced... for one thing it is ballanced by WP:HANDLE (the section immediately following WP:PRESERVE)... which clearly states: Though many problems can be fixed without removal, in certain cases you may remove problematic material, at least temporarily. For example, material that contradicts our core content policies of verifiability and no original research, or gives undue weight to a particular view may be removed.
 * In other words, WP:Editing policy reinforces and defers to the core policies, including this one. In fact, the HANDLE section goes on to explicitly list: factual claims that cannot be verified as an example of material that should be removed. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Challenging sources
Although Quest is entirely wrong about the specific case in his comments above, he does raise a possibly important point. If Editor A inserts some material and cites a source which he claims supports it, including a page number, then Editor B comes along and decides that the source, though a reliable source, says no such thing, where does the burden of evidence lie? Does Editor A have to supply a quote from the text to support his claim? (Editor B can hardly prove a negative, that the source does not say X.) In most cases, particularly articles with numerous interested editors, discussion and consensus would take care of it fairly quickly, but in cases where the source is difficult to access, is it for Editor A to show that a source says what he says it says, or for Editor B to show that it is a case of synthesis? Is this already covered in policy somewhere? --hippo43 (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The burden is always on the one who wants to include the information. I would say that someone would indeed need to upload at least an excerpt of the work in question in order for dispute resolution processes to be able to address it.  I don't think anyone would challenge such material on NFCC grounds if the only point of the material was to discuss the dispute and it was deleted when the dispute was resolved or had died out.   It would have to be enough of the source to judge the citation... not just a cherry picked quote but a chunk of context as well.  Gigs (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Once something is sourced, WP:BURDEN no longer applies. When it comes to removal/retention of sourced information, I would say that there is an equal burden on all parties involved ... It is up to both parties to discuss the matter, to present the arguments for and against, and for all the editors contributing to the page to reach a consensus.  Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely the burden on an editor inserting material is not just to cite sources, but to cite sources which are accurate and which actually do support the statements in question? Therefore if the sources supplied do not support the material in question, the editor has not done so? --hippo43 (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes... but remember that there may be good faith disagreement over whether the source does or does not actually support the statement. It isn't wrong to remove problematic material... but neither is it wrong to revert if you think the material isn't problematical.  The key is that both sides need to discuss the issue so that a consensus can be reached.  Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with Blueboar about burden being negated after merely providing a source. That said I do agree that both parties need to work together for dispute resolution to have a chance in hell of working.  If someone can type in a few paragraphs and then request a third opinion, then just do it rather than arguing about technicalities, I'd say. Gigs (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that there is no burden once a source is provided... I said that WP:BURDEN no longer applies. WP:BURDEN only discusses unsourced material... it does not discuss sourced material at all.  Nor should it... as far as Verifiability goes, once a reliable source is provided the policy is complied with.  There may be other problems with the material (or the source)... but such problems relate to other policies and not to WP:V. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue here seems to be that some editors think that sources have to be avaialable at the click of a mouse, which, if that was to become policy, would simply make Wikipedia a mirror of Google, and pretty useless as an encyclopedia. There is no requirement that sources should be verifiable with no effort. If a reader wants to check out an offline source then the way to do that is to go to a library, and if necessary get hold of the source on an inter-library loan. Or, in many cases, WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to help. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions re WP:PRESERVE
Since WP:PRESERVE was discussed in some of the above comments... I feel should draw your attention to a new thread at WT:Editing policy that questions its language ... I don't think the thread was inspired by our discussions, but it is only right to make everyone aware of it in any case. See: WT:Editing policy Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about Wrestlemania 23
There is a content dispute taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Essentially, the majority of reliable sources (many of which are almost identical) give the attendance figure for the event as 80,103. The Wrestling Observer Newsletter, accepted as a reliable source per WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide, gives a different figure for the attendance, however. One side would like both number mentioned in a neutral manner ("The majority of sources give the attendance as xx,xxx. Wrestling Observer Newsletter editor Dave Meltzer states that the correct attendance was xx,xxx, however."). The other side wants only the 80,103 figure mentioned, as they believe that having more sources makes the information correct and the opposing viewpoint not worth mentioning.

The big problem centers on different understandings of WP:V. One side says that since Wikipedia is about verifiability (information supported by reliable sources) rather than a pursuit of truth, information about both numbers should be included. The other side states that one number having more sources to support it makes it the only verifiable figure.

I am hoping that we can get some outside input from people familiar with policies on reliable sources: should it be noted that one attendance figure is supported by the majority of sources and that one source disputes that number, or should the dissenting reliable source simply be dismissed altogether? Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Gary - I said WP:RSN that is the reliable sources noticeboard, not here which is the talk page for discussing the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I had it at RSN and then second-guessed myself and brought it here. Most of the posts at RSN were "is this reliable?", so I thought a talk page about verifiability would be the best option. Since this page is to discuss policy, I took it back to RSN. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks to me like a question about WP:WEIGHT ("Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A brief observation, if I may.

It is quite possible that both attendance figures meet the "verifiability" threshold - or, in general, that two apparently mutually exclusive statements both meet the "verifiability" test. The circle is squared by observing that the statements "A is true" and "B is true" are really shorthand for saying "X says A is true" and "Y says B is true" where X and Y are closely defined sources. In cases such as these, the first obvious thing to do is question more closely the reliability of X and Y as sources for those statements. If, after conducting such an analysis you conclude that X is reliable and Y is reliable, it then becomes a matter of editorial judgment as to whether one of the statements, both of the statements, or, indeed none of the statements should be included in the article. From the description given above it would seem that the Wrestlemania issue falls within the editorial judgment category (both attendance figures having been given by one or more reliable sources). Hibbertson (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Are literary plot summaries in Wikipedia a special case? Do plot summaries NOT need verifiable sources?
There is a discussion going on about this at the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard (initiated 30 Dec 2009). Here is the link to the page Content_noticeboard.

Please consider weighing in if you have a view on the appropriate Wikipedia policy for this class of WP articles. N2e (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Short answer... Yes, plot summaries do need verifiable sources... however, in the context of a plot summary, the book, film, play, etc in question is itself a verifiable reliable primary source. This is so obvious that we usually don't require actual citation... it is assumed.
 * Longer answer... However there is a huge caveat to the above... and it revolves around the question: what you mean by "plot summary"? If you mean a very basic "liniar discription of the action" in a book, play, movie, etc then you can assume a citation to the work.  However, if you include any sort of analysis or conclusion in your "plot summary", then you need to cite a secondary source for that analysis or conclusion (as per WP:NOR). Blueboar (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's a special exception. The work itself is considered a valid source.  There's a guideline on this, but I forget which one.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability vs. truth
The phrase "verifiability, not truth" is clear to me, but the archives show that this view is not universally held. How about a paragraph explaining why? A quote might be helpful: "The term has no single definition about which a majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories and views of truth continue to be debated.". Pointing out that truth is contested, while (our form of) verifiability is not should should help a few of our contributors to see the light. Paradoctor (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The philosophical uncertainty of "truth" is not the reason WP focuses on "verifiability, not truth." The real reason is that truth, or accuracy, or "closeness to reality", requires research and digging which we, as Wikipedians, are not equipped and/or accredited to do. Nobody here has a published verified resume, we have no way of vetting our "staff", and no powerful legal department to verify their work and protect us when they goof.
 * In other words, we are all anonymous users with unknown credentials, but we can at least find and summarize what other reliable publications have said about an issue and provide the references, because this can be verified by anyone. If there are disputes among the references, we present the information weighted by the prevailing views, i.e. neutrally, which again can be verified by anyone. Bottom line: Wikipedia sets as its goal to summarize neutrally what reliable publications have written about an issue, since our editors are have no known credentials or capabilities to do more than that. As a tertiary source, that's all we are expected to do anyway. Crum375 (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The philosophical uncertainty serves as a reminder of the "normal" confusion, and implies that there is no solution. I.e., "truth" seems to be an essentially contested concept.
 * "published verified resume": Not in the sense of being accredited to Wikipedia, but I think at least some contributors do have resumes. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether the issue is reliability or feasibility, the fact is that the page lacks an explanation for the perplexed. Considering that this priciple is a major load-bearing component of Wikipedia, some exposition is necessary, and might even help shortening a discussion or two. Paradoctor (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In what way is "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" perplexing? The second half of the statement seems fairly clear to me. Blueboar (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * An example. It pops up again and again and again. You're an old hand, so you find nothing perplexing about it. But exposition is not for those who already know, but for those who don't, and who usually come in here with a lot of mistaken preconceptions about Wikipedia. Paradoctor (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another paragraph explaining would only obscure I feel. The real problem is that people feel stuff in Wikipedia needs to conform eith their preconceptions. If you can make a better soundbite that expresses the concept better and yet makes it obvious what it means to the people who say 'but this is fact, TRUTH' then please do. For such purposes the paragraph should not be made longer. We need something that puts people on the right road quickly. Dmcq (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * §&%§#"%! Just killed a reply I worked on for 30 minutes. I'll take a break and mull over it some more. Paradoctor (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll be wanting the Lazarus form recovery add-on for Firefox. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That won't avail if some fricken n00b hits CTRL-A CTRL-X split seconds before saving, and then forgets that there is still the clipboard copy. |-< Paradoctor (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We have an essay on the matter that could be edited or expanded:Verifiability, not truth. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Paradoctor that the phrase "verifiability, not truth" is confusing. "Verifiability" is not a philosophical term. It means "able to be verified" and an easy way to prove something is able to be verified is to verify it. If there is a reliable source that makes an assertion, then by quoting that source you can reasonably write that "according to source X such and such is the case".

The problem comes from adding the term "not truth". Paradoctor is right to say that "truth" is not easy to define. And he must also be right to say it would be confusing to add more text discussing the concept of truth.

I have to say that I've never been clear why the "not truth" bit is there - other than as a stick for experienced editors to knock down inexperienced ones by saying "it's against policy to write that, but I won't be clear with you what the policy means". It's also distinctly unhelpful to describe a fundamental policy is terms of what it is not rather than in terms of what it is.

I think the answer is just to delete the term "not truth" from the policy. The only loss would be the confusion it leads to. It would also seem to deal with the very real issue Paradoctor raises. Hibbertson (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the policy is fine just the way it is. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, it would be useful to have your rationale behind your conclusion. Hibbertson (talk)| —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC).


 * Agreed, we aren't voting. I'd like to see a reply to my counterargument to your objection. Paradoctor (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not surprised that it gets questioned by people who are first encountering it. Its a startling concept and it should be stated in a startling manner to attract attention and demand understanding.  I am glad people question it.  It doesn't say "we want to avoid the truth," in fact, I think everyone would agree truth is our aim.  But as a practical matter (including defining truth agreeably and precisely and determining whether certain information is true) we turn to verification as we have defined it, including the assessment of sources.  Making the statement less "shocking" by removing the "not truth" would make this important concept easily missed. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * John, I've thought carefully about what you wrote, and then waited to see if anyone else would comment, but in vain. The question I keep coming back to is "What do I, as a reader of an encyclopedia, expect of it?". My answer, amongst other things such as readability, is that I expect it to be accurate. It should be correct. I don't think I would, on my own account, say that I am looking for truth. Given that I look for accuracy, and anyone can edit Wikipedia to say anything they want, for Wikipedia to meet my expectations of an encyclopedia it must actually demonstrate that it's accurate. Hence the need to provide a reliable source for each fact.


 * An explanation of the need to demonstrate accuracy is a straightforward, easy-to-understand exposition of the verifiability requirement.


 * Once someone mentions "truth", you are back into the startling observation you note, and into the confusion it clearly causes for some users. Given that the natural response to "what do you look for in an encyclopedia?" is not "truth" or "the truth", wouldn't this concept be best avoided? If not, what is actually gained by referring to it (given the downside)? Hibbertson (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * @John: "startling concept": Yes, absolutely. I perfectly understand the value of paradoxical statements as rhetoric devices, and am not opposed to using them, far from it. But you can't go on a date, only to leave right after food is ordered. If we leave the newcomers to their own devices, they'll usually come to the conclusion that Wikipedia policy is confusing. That's a Bad Thing. Paradoctor (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we have to mention "truth"... because too many people conflate "factually accuracy" with "truth". However, I think our short sentence explains the distinction well enough.  Sure, a few people may need further explanation... but they can ask here on the talk page.  The vast majority of our editors seem to get it as soon as they read the policy. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "vast majority of our editors seem to get it": Paradoctor (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "vast majority of our editors seem to get it" Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not an appropriate reply to a request to PROVEIT. You pulled that one out of your ass, and I'm calling your bluff. Paradoctor (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is... I stated my opinion, you posted a citation request so I cited to where that opinion was published... As a citation, it is actually quite valid.  Your correct counter should be to challenge my citation with "Not RS" (pointing out that I am not a reliable source)... I would then counter with "I am a relialbe source for a statement of my opinion, as I am the one who holds that opinion"... where upon you should counter with "but you did not state the material as an opinion, you stated it as a fact"  At which point, I would then resort to wikilawyering, making the argument that content policies (such as the WP:PROVEIT), only apply to material added to article space, not policy space... and that I could have simply ignored your silly citation request but thought it would be more amusing to do it this way.
 * Seriously... it should be obvious that I was simply stating my opinion. But if you would like, I will amend my comment and say: "Based on over five years of experience editing Wikipedia, contributing to various policy pages including this one, and assisting fellow editors by answering questions on various notice boards, my personal observation is that the vast majority of editors do indeed seem to understand our "verifiability not truth" statement, and it is my opinion that we don't need to spell it all out.  Further, it is my opinion that doing so would amount to unneeded instruction creep."
 * You are, of course, free to disagree with my opinion. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * O thank you, my liege and master! Since I've been so generously granted license, I'll partake of it by ... hmmm. Now I can't decide. Is it this one, or this one? Or merely this one? Oh well, I'm still in jolly season mode, just have em all. I could of course just point out that your sample suffers from severe selection bias, but where would be the fun in that? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Resources
A list of reference material for this discussion, please add arguments and comments above, not below. Otherwise, please add as you see fit.
 * essay Verifiability, not truth
 * essay Truth
 * essentially contested concept

On truth

 * "The term has no single definition about which a majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories and views of truth continue to be debated."

Issues

 * Is "verifiability, not truth" really confusing?
 * Should truth be mentioned or discussed in policy? If so, in how much detail?

Previous and non-previous discussions on "verifiability, not truth"

 * Rules_like_this...
 * Horrible_Policy

Options

 * Delete ", not truth" and be done with it
 * Explain ", not truth"
 * Add a paragraph/section on "Why not truth" to the body of the policy. Or
 * Link to non-policy materials dealing with the matter (where?)
 * Don't change anything.

Signpost Policy Report
A summary of your comments on our Verifiability policy will be featured in one of the upcoming Policy Reports in the Signpost. If it helps, monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Content policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009. Any question you want to tackle would be fine, including: Can you summarize the page? How has the page changed over the last few months? Did the changes involve some compromising or negotiation? Would the page work better if it were shorter (or longer)? Is this page "enforced" in some useful and consistent way? Was this page shaped more by people's reactions to day-to-day issues or by exceptional cases, for instance at ArbCom? Does the policy document reality, or present ideal goals for content, or something in between? Does this page contradict or overlap other policies or guidelines?

A paradox of modern democracies is that voters generally have a low opinion of national politicians, but tend to trust and re-elect their own representatives. I think the same thing goes on with policy pages ... some people distrust policy pages in general but like the pages that they keep up with. The weekly Policy Report aims to let people look at policy pages through the eyes of the people who work on the page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about paid subscription only sources
I've seen people link to the Oxford dictionary, which cannot be viewed without having a paid subscription. What is the general rule about giving citations that cannot be viewed without paying for it? --LinkNY (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * They have the same status as books, paper magazines, and paper newspapers, which must usually be paid for: they are allowed. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:PAYWALL. If you live near a university, get a library card. They're usually free or cost very little, and you get access to a whole world of literature you'd have to pay for otherwise. They probably have an OED, too. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See also WP:V. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I said that! ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My bad, I hadn't realised WP:PAYWALL redirected there - guess I should have clicked on it first. All these shortcuts get confusing after a while... -- ChrisO (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't sweat it, for once I'm not on the receiving end. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Horrible Policy
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" - Terrible, Terrible, Terrible. Most sources deemed to be reliable by the editor who inserted them into an article are not actually reliable. There are blogs, self published sources and all manner of dubious sources cited throughout Wikipedia. If we only allowed CNN, New York Times, LA Times etc to be used as sources, maybe this policy would fly (though even then it is questionable). But as is, many of the editors on Wikipedia know more than the supposed RS's quoted in articles. If an editor can prove an "RS" wrong, the editor should be able to remove whatever has been inserted into the article. Call it original research, call it fact checking, call it whatever you want. Truth and accuracy should be the ultimate goal of Wikipedia - not to aggregate as many quotations as we can from any website that can fly under the RS radar. DegenFarang (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a point there. I always had a hard time getting my head around the "not truth" concept.  Although with eyewitnesses, several people can see the same event or person & have different eyewitness accounts, ie perceive different truths.  Since we are second or third hand here we can only go by what others say about the subject.  But we should still be able to understand that there are certain facts of the case which are generally accepted as true. I think we should be able to challenge all sources even CNN, New York Times.  If some new voice in the new media becomes respectable, it should be able to qualify as reliable as well.  Stellarkid (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea is that an encyclopedia is not its own interpretation of events, but a summary of what has already been reported by reliable sources. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 04:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Any source can be challenged by presenting sources that are generally understood to have greater expertise in a subject area. For example if in 2011 CNN reported there would be a leap second, and the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS) reported there would not be, IERS wins. --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But when no other source exists, according to this policy, nothing can be done. This came up over a dispute about ownership of a group of domains. An article cited a source that said a well known company owned the domains. The WHOIS is private so there is no way to tell. However what if the WHOIS clearly showed that the company did not own the domains, and they were owned by another well known company or individual, possibly as a result of them being sold, acquired through legal action or simply dropped. According to this policy, since the RS still states the company owns the domains (no matter how old the article - domains have to be renewed yearly, remember) - we cannot change the article. That is terrible. There clearly should be exceptions to this rule, if not an entire re-thinking of it. DegenFarang (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Under those circumstances - especially if the source was old, and the domain names would have been renewed since then - then the source wouldn't be an RS in regard to the current state of the domains, and, at best, would only be an RS in regard to the state of the domain at the time the source was written. So you wouldn't be obligated to use it to establish the current state. - Bilby (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect according to the two editors and one administrator who disagreed with me. All of them called me verifying who owned the domains, or verifying anything about them, 'original research' and would not allow it. The administrator cited WP:V and the fact that truth was not relevant. DegenFarang (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a common misconception that "not truth" means "not factual accuracy"... this is not the case. We do want our information to be factually accurate.  "Truth" is subjective... "Factual accuracy" is non-subjective.  Take the following sentence: "The angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad and commanded him to recite." Is this "Truth"?... A Muslim will tell you: "Yes, it is".  A non-Muslim will tell you, "No, it isn't".  However, what is "factually accurate" is the statement "According to Islamic belief, the angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad and commanded him to recite."
 * That said the issue here seems to relate more to WP:No original research than it does to WP:V. I suggest you read that policy, and if you still have questions, raise the issue at WP:NORN. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Blueboar's excellent analysis. The true weakness in DegenFarang's argument is exposed when he/she said "Call it original research, call it fact checking, call it whatever you want." That signals the real issue is with "No original research," not the verifiability policy.  And NOR is a core component of WP and is non-negotiable. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Degen, the solution is to use the best sources you can find for any given topic, and when sources of equal quality contradict each other, attribute the various views in the text. I don't agree that "truth" is not the same as "fact." Philosophers define "truth" as "everything that is the case." Therefore, "X said that the angel said" is true (and is a fact) if X said it, even if the angel never existed. That means attribution is the key to getting things right i.e. making clear who said what. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 18:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If two sources exist this is not likely to come up. It would just be a discussion of which source was more reliable, easy fix, this policy holds up. The problem arrises when there is only one source. A reliable source, but one where an editor can unequivocally prove it wrong. Such a situation is exactly what WP:IAR was meant for. If the rules say no original research and we must keep something we know to be false in Wikipedia, the rules are clearly wrong. We should ignore then, change it, and apply this rule when it actually has utility. DegenFarang (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR talks about the impropriety of adding information that is based on an editor's original research ... But the policy says nothing about removing demonstratably incorrect information. Also note that WP:NOR applies to article space... so original research may be discussed on an article's talk page as part of the attempt to demonstrate that the informaion is in fact incorrect. So... raise your concerns on the article talk page and if the consensus is to remove the incorrect info, then do so.  Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While I respect and mostly agree with your interpretation of NOR, and agree that the spirit of NOR is with regard to the insertion of information into an article, not with refuting it - many, many editors do not agree with you and use NOR to cast a wide WP:WIKILAWYERING net to prevent any changes to an article. In my particular recent dispute it was 3:1 against me - nobody agreed with me and everybody said the same exact thing: No original research. I am not allowed to prove a reliable source wrong. WP:IAR and the 5th Pillar (no firm rules), state otherwise - NOR is simply a guidelines-we are to use our common sense when interpreting it. Just as when interpreting WP:V and every other WP:POLICY and WP:GUIDELINE.
 * Also, WP is a tertiary source, which means it essentially acts as a librarian guiding our readers to relevant published sources about any given topic. If you, as an anonymous Wikipedian, decide that some source is "unequivocally wrong", it should provide you with motivation to find a better source. But regardless of your convictions about "right" and "wrong", IAR cannot change WP's core mission, which is to tell our readers about what has already been reliably published by others. Crum375 (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be your interpretation of Wikipedia's core mission, it is not mine. According to the 5 pillars Wikipedia's 'core mission' is to create an encyclopedia, always be free, have a neutral point of view, interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner and that all other rules are not firm and should be ignored whenever they get in our way of achieving these goals. DegenFarang (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For this particular case (the domain ownership), a possible approach is to indicate that the source is no longer reliable. WP allows us to assume 200 year old people are dead without sources.  Renewable domain registrations are of limited scope.  A challenge for a reasonably _current_ source for the registration would seem appropriate. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since raising this issue I have come to a better understanding of how Wikipedia works and this issue is no longer valid and imo we can close it. All WP:POLICIES and WP:GUIDELINES are to be used with common sense and the very first rule of Wikipediate was WP:IAR. I can't think of a more apt use of IAR than the dispute that brought me here. Nor can I think of a more clear cut case of WP:WIKILAWYERING than that done by the editors who disagreed with me. WP:V is not a horrible policy, it is a fine one, so long as we use and interpret it with common sense, and allow for exceptions when the letter of the rule contradicts the spirit of the rule. DegenFarang (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:V is not a horrible proposal. It's just that it's expressed horribly. The "verifiability, not truth" bit confuses people from the start. And much of this confusion is needless. A large part of the problem is that "truth" has two meanings: a philosophical one, and a logical one. "Verifiability, not philosophical truth" is easy to understand. But the phrase can also be read as "verifiability, not accuracy", and that sounds perverse. An encylopedia should not seek some philosophical truth, but it should aim to be accurate. For an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone to be useful, that accuracy must be demonstrated - and that requires the provision of a reliable source for that information that can be checked by the user (possibly after some digging around for a copy of it). If the policy were stated in these less confusing terms, fewer disputes would arise.


 * Looking at the case in hand, from a proper exposition of WP:V we can see that philosophical truth has nothing to do with it, but accuracy is very much in point. The question is whether the source that's been provided properly supports the contention being made. From what you write it sounds doubtful that the source actually supports the statement, and therefore the statement should not be made. Hibbertson (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability of secondary source conferred by notable tertiary source?
There is a dispute among editors in an article in which some wish to include the opinion of a self-published source which seems to be generally accepted as non-notable (though the self-published source has a WP article). Those who wish to have this opinion included in the article propose using a sentence from a notable publication that mentions the self-published source and paraphrases the opinion. A reader can go to the source's web site and read the opinion and there is no dispute as to the fact of the organization's opinion. The dispute is whether the notable publication's mention of the opinion confers notability on the opinion, thereby allowing its inclusion. I would appreciate any help in sorting this out and improving my understanding of WP policy. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What article and what source? Sreed888's summary of the situation might or might not be the way others would summarize it. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am looking more for a general understanding of the policy rather than a judgment in this one case. However, if you prefer dealing with the particulars, you can read the discussion around this in Talk:Landmark Education. It concerns the Cult Awareness and Information Centre's regard of Landmark as a cult. CAIC is basically one person's (Jan Groenveld's) web site. When this was pointed out, the following entry:
 * The Cult Awareness and Information Centre has listed the Landmark Forum among psychotherapy cults, in a collection of "cults and isms".
 * was changed to
 * According to 'Information Week'', the organization Cult Awareness and Information Centre lists the Landmark Forum among groups it refers to as "cults".
 * The argument in favor of this change was that Information Week was a notable "secondary source" that validated the "primary source" (CAIC). Since this article is about Landmark (the primary source?), I considered CAIC to be a secondary source and Information Week as an unnecessary tertiary source that only validated the fact that CAIC had the opinion but did not confer notability on the opinion itself. Jojalozzo (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is not useful to frame this in terms of notability. Notability is used to decide if Wikipedia should have an article on a subject, or if a particular point of view has enough adherents to be represented in an article. This is more a question of evidence for and against the idea that a certain entity is a cult or not. Such evidence should come from a reliable source. A source need not be notable to be reliable.

Let's consider a less contentious example. Markus Kuhn wrote a summary] of a standard, ISO 8601. Ordinarily, an individual's website at a university would not be considered a reliable source. However, that website was cited by at least one paper on the web site of a government agency (United States Geological Survey) that ought to know about that sort of thing. Other similar citations can be found. So the individual's web site is now a reliable source, at least for non-controversial statements about a standard.

The policy states: Similarly, some self-published sources may be acceptable if substantial independent evidence for their reliability is found. For instance, widespread citations without comment by other reputable sources are a good indicator of reliability, while widespread doubts about accuracy weigh against the self-published source. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them.

I would say that a single citation by one reliable source, which does not whole-heartedly endorse the conclusion, is not enough to use a self-published source to support a contentious claim. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That's very helpful. Jojalozzo (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Self published photos
It appears that there is some confusion about the self-published source section. See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818 - the argument is that you can't use self published photos of article subjects. The disputed image is Monckton of brenchley.jpg. Personally, I never thought that the policy had anything to do with self-published photos of people, but what do others think? If this is fine, then perhaps we should consider a small tweak to the section to clarify this point. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. I've modified WP:BLPSPS slightly to note the current long-standing practice of encouraging user-generated photos. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A problem with self-taken and published photos is: how do we know that they are what they purport to be? Even professional photographs are subject to distortion and misrepresentation such as the famous case of The Falling Soldier or the recent case of The Leaping Wolf. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC at WT:Editing policy
I have started an RFC at WP:Editing policy that could use your input and comments. I think the dispute will have an impact on how WP:Burden (and other policy statements that allow for the removal of problematic material) is percieved and enforced. (see: Wikipedia talk:Editing policy) Blueboar (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources
I don't know when the following was added. I only noticed it because Jc3s5h mentioned it above. I find it problematic:

"Similarly, some self-published sources may be acceptable if substantial independent evidence for their reliability is found. For instance, widespread citations without comment by other reputable sources are a good indicator of reliability, while widespread doubts about accuracy weigh against the self-published source. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious claims.  The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them."

This makes the issue very subjective. The paragraph above it sets out much more clearly what's required of an SPS, and I don't think we should do anything to weaken it:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

My preference is to leave that in place, and not add anything to dilute it, because we really shouldn't be encouraging the use of self-published sources. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 01:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It was added here as an import from RS, of all places. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 01:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin's position goes against the concept that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If a source is cited without comment, or favorably mention by numerous reliable sources, there is a good chance the author has written something published by a reliable independent publisher. That does not mean, however, that the typical Wikipedia editor can find it without help from a research librarian at a university library. So if we can't find an independently published work by the guy, we can't use the work that all these other good sources is just fine? --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone can edit WP based on reliable sources. We don't allow people to use questionable sources, because we'd end up with a questionable encyclopedia. If reliable sources cite an SPS, it does not confer reliability on the SPS. We have very specific rules for when we may use SPS, which SV quoted above, and I see no reason to dilute these rules and reduce the quality of our sources. Crum375 (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. When a substantial number of sources cite an SPS, that DOES mean it is a reliable source, and there is no justification for excluding it. --Jc3s5h (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When a substantial number of sources cite an SPS, it may be notable, but not necessarily reliable. We have no reliable and objective way of judging reliability via citation by others. Therefore, we rely on the clear criteria which make up the current policy. Crum375 (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is rather strange to claim that if a person publishes an article in a reliable publication, that makes his self-published works in the same field reliable sources, and yet claim that citation of the specific work in question by scholars does not make the work reliable. The only difference I see between publication in a peer-reviewed journal and citation after publication is the point in time when the approval of other scholars is given. --Jc3s5h (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, Jc. The policy says, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." That covers what you're saying, does it not, or have I misunderstood?  SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 05:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that the expert's expertise may be established because lots of other experts cite his self-published work, even if he never published with a reliable publisher (or maybe he did, but I can't find it). This assumes, of course, that the citations are favorable either because the other sources say nice things about the work, or implicitly trust it by building upon it. --Jc3s5h (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not being able to find a publication would be unlikely, given Amazon, Google Books, and access to public library databases. It would be an odd situation where lots of experts were citing this person's self-published work, but no publisher had seen to publish it. I know there are issues like that in popular culture, but by and large they ignore this policy anyway, because they use self-published websites and blogs as sources that normally wouldn't be allowed. But outside pop culture, can you give an example of the kind of scenario you envisage? SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 06:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, if lots of published experts are citing his self-published work, we can use them as sources instead. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 06:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) As an example, Duncombe wrote a chapter on computational techniques in Seidelmann's Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac (1992, University Science Books). He or she gives as a reference a self-published book by P. Herget, Computation of Orbits (1948). A Google search shows that there are lots of citation to this book. I haven't read it, but if I did, I might like it (all those experts did). I might want to use it in an article. But I have not found any works by Hegert that were published by a reliable publisher.

Another situation that comes up is that some standards organization publishes a standard that is around 10 pages long, and charges $100 for it. Some kind person puts a nice summary of it on his or her web page, and the web page is cited by many experts. If I want to write something about the standard in a Wikipedia article, it would be really nice if I could not only avoid shelling out $100 myself, but help our readers save money as well. --Jc3s5h (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see two references for P. Herget in Seidelmann. One is a paper in the Journal of Astronomy, the other looks like a PhD thesis or similar (see p. 379). So he was a published expert. I take your point that this is just an example, but I don't think I've seen a real example on WP where a genuine expert has self-published work in his field of expertise, but nothing published in that field by a third party. The point of using work produced by publishers is that they have a process of fact-checking and legal checks, and that's not something we should relinquish lightly.


 * Regarding your second example, the website would just be a courtesy link. The standard would be your source. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 06:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A courtesy link is a link to an online copy of a work; a summary is a different matter. Also, the standard would only be my source if I could read it online for free at the nearby college library, or get it through interlibrary loan. I wouldn't pay for the standard unless I was on an expense account. If we use your system, we would just have to avoid covering the standard until an editor with access to it came along. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If the website summary is used by other published experts, we use them as the source. If it isn't, we can't use it. There would be no way of knowing whether it was an accurate summary, and this is the point of the policy. There's no guarantee that if a journalist writes about it, it's an accurate summary either, but at least you know it has gone through an editorial process that is intended to ensure it's accurate, even if the process often fails. But with a self-published source, there is no process. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 22:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I permanently disagree with your position. If it ever comes up, I will ignore all rules and you will have to take me to arbitration to stop me. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you give one real example of a self-published expert source who is being used in violation of this policy (I promise not to turn up and remove it)? It's important to know that we're dealing with a real issue here, and not a misunderstanding. The only examples you've offered so far were (a) where the SPS was indeed a published expert, and (b) where we could have used as sources the experts who were citing the SPS. The reason I ask for an example is that I've never seen a genuine case that this policy couldn't cope with -- not counting some bizarre pop-culture articles e.g. about people who believe they're animals, where the only sources are discussion groups about how they're not really human but are really rabbits and kangaroos. But for all serious articles, the policy is usually able to cope, so I'd be interested to see a real example where it can't. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 00:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hang on here. The addition of the above-mentioned text on Self-Published Sources is contradicted by practice in many areas - and quite rightly so. Following the mantra "some self-published sources may be acceptable if substantial independent evidence for their reliability is found" would lead to absurdity. For example, if there's an article, or set of articles, about a TV programme, then it's quite reasonable for much of the content to be sourced by the relevant broadcaster (eg CBS, NBC, FOX, BBC, ITV) even though there will not be substantial independent evidence of their reliability in many of those cases. Articles about new media, particularly on internet culture, are likely to be sourced (and need to be sourced) extensively from websites - many of which are likely to be self-published. If I tried deleting all such references, and demanding all self-published sources be deleted, I'd soon be accused of vandalism.

All the new(ish) text is doing is putting up a false barrier. The requirement is for a reliable source - that is, a source that can reasonably be regarded as reliable for the information being provided. Just because a source is self-published does not, of itself, say anything about its reliability. It may, quite reasonably, be a cause for taking care - particularly if it is in a subject matter where normally you'd expect peer reviews and quality checks (as would be the case for a science topic) - but in those cases the reason a source may not be acceptable isn't because it is self-published, but more because it cannot be shown to be reliable.

The other point, of course, is that this text says nothing on the verifiability policy - it just repeats what is on the WP:RS guideline page. There's no need to make this policy page longer by keeping it. Hibbertson (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My revert
Hibberston, I reverted your edit in part because self-published sources are not a subsection of questionable sources. The former are often reliable sources published by experts, not questionable at all. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 23:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Hibberston, just because a source is self-published does indeed, of itself, say something about its reliability. Specifically, it says that the material has not had any third party editorial oversight, and thus the material is inherently less reliable. That's why it's a very bad idea to try to water-down this longstanding part of the WP:V policy. Jayjg (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While I agree with Jayjg's intent, I object to the term "third-party". A contract usually exists between the publisher and the author, so the author and publisher would be the first and second party; independent reviewers and those who cite the work would be third parties. Since we consider a work reliable if the publisher is considered reliable, we do not require third-party evaluation. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Second-party too. :-) Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And obviously Hibberston's change re BLP would have been a major change to this and the BLP policy. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 00:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Jayjg's comment appears largely geared towards more scientific and academic subjects, where evidence of quality review or peer review is important in establishing reliability (amongst other things). But WP deals with all subjects - in particular, I've noted new media, internet culture, TV programming - in many cases of which self-published sources are going to be the best sources for some information. The lack of editorial oversight is not necessarily a problem here - in fact, it can be beneficial in some circumstances as an individual's view will not get altered by editorial changes made by someone else. The fact that someone has paid me to write a column on their internet page, rather than me writing the same text on my own internet page, says nothing about reliability. It is wrong to say that the presence of editorial oversight (which might be no more than proofreading a text) makes something more reliable. There are plenty of quack theories on astrology, say, that have third party publishers that have provided editorial oversight.


 * It is not disputed that where a source is self-published that it is sensible to ask the question "is this reliable?" more deliberately, and inquisitively, than one would ask it if it were published in, say, a peer reviewed journal. But that is all. If the lack of oversight is a problem, that is why it is unreliable, not because it is self-published.


 * Incidentally, no-one's commented on the point that this is more an exposition of what a reliable source may be that has derived from WP:RS - there's no need to duplicate text or concepts on lots of different pages. Hibbertson (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * These are major changes, and the BLP change would not fly here or at BLP. No matter what people may have added to RS, this is the policy, so the material has to be here. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 06:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, Hibberston, your last edit summary suggests you may have misunderstood something. Nothing was recently added. Something was recently removed because an editor had imported it here from RS without discussion. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 07:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hibberston, my comments are geared towards all subjects, and editorial oversight is required for all of them. A newspaper has editorial oversight too, even if not a scientific or academic source. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see any problems with self-published sources, provided the policy is assembled properly. I am thinking of things like zines. Nick carson (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read and re-read Slimvirgin's and Jayjg's comments carefully. I think in terms of conclusion they are astonishing. Slimvirgin suggests that the guidance on self-published sources is not a sub-section of "questionable sources". I must say, if a self-published source is not questionable, then I really cannot see what problem anyone should have if it is used. I see no difference here if the unimpeachable self-published source is used to source something on a living person. Jayjg suggests that editorial oversight is important. Maybe it is (but surely it depends on the nature of editorial oversight). However, whether something is a self-published source or not is not directly relevant to this. A self-published source can employ an editor - and certainly much self-published material is very well researched and sourced itself. Similarly, a third-party published source may have undergone very limited editorial oversight - perhaps just copyediting and a read through by a libel lawyer - or perhaps not even that. Any which way, it would be best not to confuse the question as to whether a potential source has had adequate editorial (or other) oversight, with the question as to whether it is self-published.

I remain of the view that whilst a source being self-published may indicate that special care should be taken to ensure it is reliable, the answer as to whether a source is permissible should be determined by reference to its reliability, not by reference to whether it has been self-published or not. Hibbertson (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Parenthetical referencing allowed
I have revised the policy to refer to WP:Citing sources rather than [[WP:Citing sources because only referring to the later falsely implies that using Parenthetical referencing does not provide the verification required by this policy. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

List of suicides
The list of suicides is mostly unsourced, and I started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) This is a highly important discussion about a potentially contentious/controversial article topic, and I request all who read this message to participate. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-English sources
Is it really necessary to have to fill up the ref section with these translations? Where it says in the footnotes or in the body of the article or on the talkpage, does that mean that if you get it verified by a couple of editors on the talkpage that you don't need to have it filling up the ref section with tiny unreadable text? The article in question is Gideon Levy Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks reasonable to me. This is the only convenient way we have to verify that foreign quotes are correct, esp. when translated by a Wikipedian. There is lots of space in the ref section, so that's not an issue. Crum375 (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On that article is seems there is the section of Israeli text in the footnotes and an English translation of the section and then an editor has written a small comment in the article summarizing the text, it seems an excessive requirement and also something that is not in general being complied with. There are more available translators on the web now as for our need to translate any citation is a bit excessive, I know of more than one article completely cited in foreign citations without any translations at all. Not sure what you mean by there lots of space in the ref section, it is as big or as small as its made, so what are they talking about in the policy section about .. in the article or the footnotes or on the talkpage? Off2riorob (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page, as appropriate.

So would it be ok to move the original language comments and the translations from the footnotes to the talkpage where they will get archived. Off2riorob (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say that if it's in the talk page, it should remain unarchived, so a reader could access it. Otherwise, it would be nearly impossible for a casual reader to access it once the talk page gets archived. where they will get archived. IMO it's much easier (and more convenient to readers) if it's in the footnotes. Crum375 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but why would the casual reader want to read it? We are not supposed to be a link station, we write our own articles and that is what we want people to read, not the links or even the content from the links in small unreadable text in footnotes and in foreign languages. Less is more in my thoughts. So if you are correct and I cant archive it on the talkpage then it should say that on the policy page. Also a lot of talkpages archive automatically? Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that talk pages get archived, and this is why it's much easier to put the original in the article's footnote. Otherwise, even if we ignore the readers, each time an editor wants to verify the quotation, he'd have to search the talk page archive for the original, which can be very difficult on some large talk pages. Crum375 (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, it's a big convenience for readers who want to verify that the Wikipedia editors were faithful to the original, without having to go to the library and dig out some obscure book (assuming it's not online). Crum375 (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are correct it need to be clarified in the policy page. Off2riorob (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would propose to remove the "talk page" option, but would welcome more opinions. Crum375 (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: Content belongs in the article, not in the bullpen. Quotes and translations are essential to verifiability. The example given has a terrible layout, to be sure, but that can be fixed. "Tiny"? Zoom the page. Also, there are lots of ways of restyling pages to any user's preferences. Paradoctor (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I support being able to archive them, their only supposed value is to verify text in a reliable link that is in another language. Off2riorob (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, as we discussed above, once they are archived (as they will likely be in longer talk pages), they will become very difficult to find for editors, and nearly useless for readers. Crum375 (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What I want to know is what did the people that added talk page have in mind, what is the correct way to read the policy as it is now, not to remove it, it must have had consensus when it was written I simply want to know how it is to be interpreted. There is also not a hurry, I would like to see a few editors ideas about this before a vote is started. Off2riorob (talk) Off2riorob (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "vote is started" Who is voting? "not a hurry": Who is hurrying? I made my opinion and my reasons for it known, plain and simple.
 * "people that added talk page have in mind": The "on the talk page" bit was introduced by SlimVirgin. I'd like to know that one, too. Paradoctor (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The "project page" now says When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page, as appropriate. Holy fluke, when was that introduced? A large percentage of what I produce is from Japanese; yet I've never heard this before. One of "my" articles that's almost exclusively from Japanese-language sources is "Good" and already has an interminable stream of notes; do I now have to add the text in two languages to these notes? If so, when I add the Japanese, should I do so in romanized as well as original form? -- Hoary (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is mostly needed if the translation of a quote was done by a Wikipedian. And I would say that when you supply the original text it should be the form actually used in the source, so as not to introduce another layer of translation. The idea is that any speaker of the language should be able to verify for himself that the translation done by Wikipedians is correct. Crum375 (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about a sub-page like Gideon Levy/non-English Sources with a wikilink in the footnote? (John User:Jwy talk) 08:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SUB #3, and while I disagree with that one I don't see any justification to WP:IAR in this case. .... added by Paradoctor.
 * [Smacks hand on forehead] I misread "quoting a source" as "citing a source". Fair enough, yes, it's ridiculous to quote in English from (say) a book that's in Finnish. -- Hoary (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I will ask SlimV to comment, I also think it is a bit much what we have now, and as I said I also support archiving if desired, I know Hoary works a lot on the Brazilian articles with Portuguese citations that are not in compliance, or they weren't last time I looked, here Odette Krempin for example is an article that is cited to German citations and is strongly disputed for some controversial content but the citations do not comply at all and yet no wheels are dropping off and no one has even enquired as to the German original and the translation in the footnotes, there are many similar situations. Off2riorob (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Off2, I can't quite see what the issue is. Is it that people don't want to provide the original when they quote? SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 14:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All the original problem was my desire to remove some translations and the foreign language text from the footnotes as I found them messy and unreadable and of not much value to anyone and I asked and was pointed to here and then it says in the policy that you can use the talkpage and I asked if that was what the policy meant and was suggested not as they would get archived, and it has grown from there, now articles like this one Sergiu_Băhăian that is very controversial about some gangland Bosnian mafia boss were the policy is not implemented at all. Off2riorob (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the text from the policy.. please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page, as appropriate. .. talkpage? Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) It's been standard practice for as long as I can remember that, when quoting non-English sources, you also make the original available. I personally add them to the article, or to a footnote, as in:


 * "Karl Schmidt said the Chancellor had 'made a fool of himself' ('hat such lächerlich gemacht')."


 * Before we had easy-to-use footnotes, people used to leave longer quotations on the talk page, and usually only if people requested them. If people want to remove the talk-page option now that footnotes are in wide use, I'm fine with that. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 14:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to archive them, am I on a loser with that, I just see them as messy and of little true value to anyone, most readers don't even get that far down the page, perhaps a link could be added in the reference section to the archived translations if anyone wanted to read them? Also what is the position for implementation on the two articles I have linked to here? Sergiu_Băhăian and Odette Krempin Do those articles need to comply? Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked at one of the pages you linked to, and I can't see any translated quotes in footnotes or on the talk page, so I'm not sure what you mean. But yes, it would apply to all articles. The point is that if you say X said, "Person Y is an idiot," but then you learn they said it in Arabic, then they didn't in fact say those words at all. Those words are from a Wikipedian, or some other translator. Therefore, we offer the reader the original words. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 14:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked at Gideon Levy. You're getting quoting and citing mixed up. It's not necessary to translate everything you cite, though you should do it if people ask for one. It is necessary to translate when you're quoting. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 14:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those quotes and translations in the footnotes at Gideon, what are they doing there then? No, there not quotes, they are translated sections of text and the original foreign text. One is a quote but the other three are just text from the original article in Israeli and the English translation, is it that the editors there have misinterpreted the policy? Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The requirement of original text only applies to quotes used in the article, and it is optional if the translation was done by a cited reliable source. Otherwise, the original foreign text is optional, and should be provided (IMO) only if the writers feel it adds value. Crum375 (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right thank you all for putting up with me while I worked it out, the writers like it and even though it is not actually required by policy it can get put in the footnotes..I wish they had told me that instead of directing me here..translations and the original text are only needed by policy if you actually use the quote in the article, otherwise its not required by policy. Off2riorob (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as a courtesy, they should still be supplied on the talk page if requested by an editor. Crum375 (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, got it. The only thing I can say in my defense is that once I have understood something I never forget it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely in the footnotes, or at minimum, editors should have the right to demand non-English text be added to the footnote for contentious text or on BLPs. Over and over, on Venezuela-Chavez articles, I find inaccurate statements based on alleged translations of offline or very lengthy online sources, and when asking for the quote, find that a POV translation was made. If the text were on the page, in the footnote, others could easily see it and correct the POV; requesting a quote on talk means it may get lost in archives, and often, if a tendentious group of editors is owning an article, other editors might not see it. Non-English text should be in the footnote on the page where more editors will see and be able to correct POV, particularly for BLPs. In fact, in a recent example of an incorrect translation used to justify POV text, when I requested a quote, the other editor responded that he didn't have to, because WP:V didn't require it, so lose the word "please" and make it required. Only after he finally supplied it was the faulty translation pointed out. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made the change, as there seems to be agreement that if this is done in the talk page, it will get archived and become nearly impossible to find. Also, it's a bit odd referring readers to the talk page to verify our translations. Crum375 (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that it isnt our job to provide EVERY individual reader with the ability to verify ANYTHING on their own, verification is for us to do on each other in the abstract of "AN individual editor somewhere COULD verify this piece of information" it DOESNT mean that "EVERY SINGLE reader who comes across it CAN right now". The fact that it was presented at one time in the talk page and still exists in the archives means SOMEONE verified it and ok'd it at some point (wp:silence). But it seems fait accompli now. But I just wanted to put in my two cents. I just dont like the precendence this puts forth on verifiability of other things. What's next, we dont allow pay sites because it isnt readily available to all readers? Some things arent the concern of our readers, technical things like translations and if they were done correctly isnt their business, nor are most interested in "verifying" Wikipedia; it is a technical aspect for Wikipedian editors and our dirty business should be on the talk page not cluttering the article. Similar discussion happening on Village pump regarding having lots the templates and tags moved off articlespace and put on talk pages where they wont clutter up a reader's view with our maintenance issues; and the push to make an essay regarding overcitation a policy is another example of the push in Wikipedia to make our articles less crowding with technical aspects.Camelbinky (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues here: what to do when quoting, and when merely citing. When quoting, the original must always be added to the text or a footnote. When merely citing, it need only be added when requested, and may sometimes be added to the talk page if the portion of the text being translated is very long. I've therefore edited that section to read:

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, a translation of the relevant text should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians."

Is this okay, or is the talk-page issue still regarded as problematic? SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 02:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is much better, clearly points out everything . Off2riorob (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Paradoctor (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Update for January
One of the unreverted edits from January wasn't included in the monthly Update; see Wikipedia_talk:Update/1 for discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Removed the link, it was meant as an example. I'd be grateful for pointers to previous discussions on the subject of burden of evidence. Paradoctor (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not delete a URL solely because the URL isn't working any longer.
I propose we make this part of WP:LINKROT into official policy:
 * Do not delete a URL solely because the URL isn't working any longer.--Elvey (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Elvey, that's dealt with in WP:CITE, which is the guideline on how to cite sources. If you go to the end, there's a section on how to deal with dead links. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 00:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Policy needs clarification
A person is deleting sentences from numerous articles. This is against the sum of human knowledge but technically within the rules of WP:V. I think removing text (although unsourced) from numerous articles is not the intent of WP:V. The accuracy of the unsourced text was not challeged. Deleting text merely because it is uncited with the edit summary "Uncited claims removed" is not a productive way to build an encyclopedia. QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While a bit draconian (and unfortunate that s/he is not communicating with the community), there seems to be some method here: It appears only 3 year old tags are being addressed.  Tags that old should be taken care of:  the text removed or adjusted  - or the tag removed.  The latter might be appropriate in some of these cases.  But SOMETHING should be done.  (John User:Jwy talk) 18:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) "accuracy of the unsourced text was not challeged": The dozen edits I checked all deleted statement that had been fact tagged for at least several months. Please note that this tag constitutes a challenge. I would have preferred for the statements to stay, as they had been clearly marked, but as far as policy is concerned, anon behaved like a good editor. Paradoctor (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Lest I forget: Why not simply revert the edits you disagree with? Paradoctor (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that if there is a challenge to provide a source, e.g. with a fact template, and several months go by with no source provided, it is legitimate, and arguably beneficial, to remove the unreferenced material. If people care about the removed material, they should find reliable sources and restore it. The burden of providing a source is on the person adding the material. Crum375 (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have commented on this at WT:MED, where it was first brought to my attention. I think it would be better if this editor looked for a source before removing the content, but I disagree with User:QuackGuru that removing uncited claims is not a productive way to build an encyclopedia. These uncited claims have been tagged for a reasonable amount of time, and no editor has stepped forward to fix the issue. I also disagree that the accuracy of the statements was not challenged. Both the tagging and the removal constitute challenges to the accuracy of the statements. DigitalC (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Correct. To reply to Quack, "the sum of human knowledge", as defined on WP, is verifiable reliably sourced knowledge, not random posts by anonymous editors. Crum375 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also a note that Citation_needed says "If you have reason to think that the claim is inaccurate, you may remove it altogether.". DigitalC (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If we take a look at this diff it seems quite clear to me (as a reader unfamiliar with the material) that the information is from the autobiography cited earlier in the same paragraph. I don't think it's necessary to provide a separate citation for every single datum, nor is it appropriate to remove such "uncited" information just because it's had a fact tag for a while. Unsourced contentious material should of course be removed on sight.
 * If an editor does feel the need to remove uncited factoids, it can be useful to mention this on the article's talk page, e.g. as I did with Morten Harket. A claim that he has a 5-octave vocal range had remained unverified for some time and had a tag for months: I removed the claim, since I considered it questionable and it was in a paragraph by itself with no obvious connection to any cited source. As it turns out, the claim was sourcable, and following discussion on the talk page has been reinstated in the article. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If people truly care about the material in articles they have edited, they will ensure that fact gets promptly replaced by an appropriate source. If they don't care, and leave the template languishing there for months, it is better to remove the material. Otherwise, the article appears deserted and causes WP as a whole to lose value. Crum375 (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Crum, you're asserting that our volunteers have a duty to promptly provide an inline citation just because some random reader decided to type after some accurate sentence, like "the sky is usually blue".  By similar logic, any unref'd article should be deleted completely after a couple of months.
 * A fact tag is not always a challenge: it is sometimes a request for information, sometimes a mistaken belief that Wikipedia requires a footnote after every sentence, sometimes a note to oneself (that 'someday, I should actually write down the citation for this'), sometimes a request from students for a source that their teachers will accept -- and, yes, sometimes a request that someone double-check this possibly wrong claim.
 * The editor isn't being thoughtful about these possibilities; s/he's refusing to WP:PRESERVE non-BLP-related information that any brief trip to your FWSE will confirm is correct, simply because no editor has provided a formal citation within his/her arbitrary and uncommunicated deadline. This kind of behavior does not help us improve or maintain Wikipedia.
 * Having said that, I'm not sure that this problem should be resolved in this page. However, if it seems useful, then I'd take the relevant line from the lead ("This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations...") and incorporate a reference to accuracy, e.g., "any material whose accuracy is challenged...".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For this policy, a "challenge" is synonymous to "request for information". It is an editor who feels that some statement made without a source on Wikipedia is not obvious to him, and requires attribution to a reliable source. Unless this is clearly done in bad faith, it is considered "a challenge" and requires sourcing, per WP:V. Crum375 (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "fact tag is not always a challenge": WP:PROVEIT, I have yet to see an instance where the removed fact has been successfully sourced.
 * "WP:PRESERVE": recommends "requesting a citation by adding the fact tag". I submit the following quote from the following section WP:HANDLE: "material that contradicts our core content policies of verifiability" ... "may be removed"
 * "any brief trip": 1) If it's so easy, why has nobody done it in the preceding years? 2) I'm challenging you on that: WP:PROVEIT.


 * "'fact tag is not always a challenge': WP:PROVEIT, I have yet to see an instance where the removed fact has been successfully sourced." Here is an example of a fact that challenged and later was later successfully sourced. Jc3s5h 01:54, 31 January 2010
 * Sorry, no cigar. You only proved that cns sometimes lead to the desired result, which never was in doubt. I was referring to the specific edit you mentioned. Feel free to put my foot in my mouth. Paradoctor (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

break1

 * I've always believed there to be another point to the tag: it is a warning to the reader to treat the unreferenced information with more care than is required for referenced information. By having the information in the article (with a warning to the reader) the hope is that a reader will be able to address the problem (we have a great deal more readers than editors). Of course with the information deleted, that isn't possible. Note that there is no deadline at WP, so the validity of the removal of unreferenced information based on a tag being older than x months is debatable (although such actions clearly increase edit counts). I agree with QuackGuru. HWV258 . 00:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with HWV258. Removing information should be the very last option of any editor. You see something you dont think is right? Put cn or dubious tag on it depending on how much you disagree with it (only difference I can think between the two tags). AND THEN (or better yet FIRST) go look up the information yourself! Yea, YOU have a burden too! Only if you cant find the information and the tag has sat there for a good amount of time, and you have put a comment on the talk page about it, and you have contacted anyone mentioned on the talk page as "someone who can help regarding this article" (I'm listed on many and dont mind if someone has a question about a fact in any of those articles); THEN after nothing has been done feel free to delete the information. (The problem of defamation in a BLP is NOT relevant here and is a different situation and all spurious editing and libel on a BLP must be removed immediately). This isnt a race to tag and remove every non-sourced piece of information for every article, this is a work in progress, one that is done by volunteers with lives who work on this as time permits. SLOW DOWN, do some work yourselves, and DONT create work for others or pawn off work for others to do. YOU have a problem with a sentence not being sourced, YOU source it then. Otherwise, what concern is it of yours?Camelbinky (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with Camelbinky that if "you see something you dont think is right" you should go to great lengths before deleting it. If something seems wrong, I'd do a quick search, tag it, and delete it after about a week. (Exception: if it was in a safety-related article, like Electrical wiring, I'd delete anything that seemed both wrong and hazardous on the spot.) On the other hand, if I thought it was probably right, but there was a small chance it was an urban legend, or a popular corruption of the true information, I'd wait longer, or perhaps just leave it.
 * At least you did a quick search. That makes the you, the unsigner above, better than those that see "citation needed" tags and then they simply remove the information. "Citation needed" means "this information needs a citation", it doesnt mean "this information needs to be removed". If you see a citation needed tag, get a citation for it! How hard can that be? Cant find one, THEN remove it. Instead of removing 300 pieces of information from 20 articles in one day because they had citation needed tags that same editor could instead find citations and keep 100 pieces of information in 12 articles. Yes, its slower, but its better work and it IMPROVES the encyclopedia more than their quick removing actions.Camelbinky (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the impression that tagged statement normally can be sourced. Not my experience. Often, even sourced statements turn out unsupported by the reference upon verification attempts. Citation needed means "prove it or lose it". Paradoctor (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Citation needed means needs a citation. It DOES NOT mean prove it or lose it. And if you wanna throw around unsubstantiated claims like "tagged statements normally cant be sourced" I'm going to request a citation on that. Because my experience is opposite, I personally put citation needed templates on information I know has a citation out there, I just havent got the time to go to google books right now. Often I'll see a wiki-friend tag something and say to myself, I know that's true, let me help out and find a source real quick, and find a source for it. Sometimes my wikifriends will come to directly if something is dubious or uncited and they know that my knowledge of local geography and history can help and I can find a source quicker than them. Look at my talk page and its history (I dont archive), its full of "do you know anything about this?" "can you help find a source for this?"; there's a reason many talk pages have "these editors are actively engaged in improving this article, please contact them if you need assistance or have questions" blah blah, perhaps editors would be wise to start contacting those individuals. I sure wouldnt mind if anyone contacted me requesting help on any Capital District geographical or historical or municipal matter.Camelbinky (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ecx2) It is counter-productive to require the person deleting a challenged statement to show that it can't be sourced. If I see text that seems wrong, I'll tag it with fact; if I'm unsure about the text, I'll start a discussion on the talk page and link to it with a dubious tag – that's the difference between the tags, by the way. In either case, if no sources are forthcoming, then it is a concern of mine, as it should be the concern of anyone building this encyclopedia: content must be verifiable. To try to place the burden of sourcing, discussing, and notifying multiple other parties on a concerned editor is unacceptable. The time would be better spent expanding an article with material that they know is sourced. --RexxS (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The burden of evidence lies with the person who added or restored the material, not the deleter. In the case of tags that have existed for months or even years, the article is clearly neglected, because the person who added the material, or the person who added the tag, should have sourced it or returned to remove the tag and the material. In cases like this, I don't think we can blame the deleter&mdash;though I hope he's using common sense and not deleting material that's obviously uncontentious, or which is sourced at the end of the paragraph. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 03:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn, you beat me to it. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree its a "waste of time", as per my example above. Deleting 300 pieces of unsourced information instead of sourcing 100 isnt a better use of your time nor is it helping the encyclopedia become better because you "did more", sometimes spending more time doing something good is better than doing alot of things quickly. It seems the deleters just want others to say "wow, look at how much you did!" instead of quality of work. Doing alot doesnt mean your doing the right thing. I spend weeks and months researching articles before I make a single edit, and then I create or completely rewrite one article (or a history section of an article), and that one act of increasing the knowledge-base of Wikipedia is more important and better use of my time than if I went to 1,000 articles that week or month and spent my time removing unsourced information. As mentioned many times, I put cn tags myself on things I just dont have time at the moment to deal with but I know are factual. I'd LOVE it if someone wasted my time removing the information because of the tags forcing me to get the sources NOW instead of the work I'd be doing on other articles that are in worse shape and improving them. Now's who's time is being wasted doing unproductive work? So these trollers' time is more precious than mine? I doubt it.

break2

 * And slim, uh, have you met the other Wikipedians? Of course they arent using common sense and yes the ones we are complaining about ARE deleting uncontentious material or is sourced at the end of a paragraph BECAUSE they are in a hurry to just delete everything they see tagged. They arent here to actually help.Camelbinky (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * that is all they can do after a two minute inspection due to a lack of everything else.Wdl1961 (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Cb, Do you have examples of material being deleted where the source was at the end of the paragraph? SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 03:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "I spend weeks and months researching articles before I make a single edit": Then why not spend an extra day on making sure that your effort is sourced? Also, if your claim had anything to do with reality, you would have had time for at most 130 article space edits, instead of the 3417 you racked up in the past 2.5 years. ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (ecx2) @Camelblinky: Strawman argument. Nobody is in favour of some button-masher hastily removing masses of content. But from that you draw the inference that the policy should be to require everybody to be searching, discussing and notifying before removing even text that has remained challenged for considerable time. At least I assume that is what you are saying, since this page is for discussing changes to our verifiability policy.
 * The way we work on wikipedia is to find sources, read them, then add cited text. It is far more efficient for the person adding text to cite the source they used, than it is for others to have to search for a source later. Indeed, if the original author just added text that is merely their opinion, we don't find that out until we have spent considerable effort searching for non-existent sources. Either way, adding unsourced text that may be contentious is a recipe for wasting some other editor's time, and we don't want policy to change to encourage that. In the time it takes to determine beyond any doubt that no sources exist for a statement, any editor could have expanded numerous articles. --RexxS (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent point, footnoted that one. Paradoctor (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * after the material has been red by thousands of people we would like to see the working of the keen insight of the remover .Wdl1961 (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't offer you any examples of 'keen insight', but I can point you to the effort required to convince myself that a challenged statement in Coffee had no sources before I deleted it -> Talk:Coffee. 3,640 Google hits to go through. Fortunately the twelfth hit was to a source that refuted the myth. In the time it took me to do that, I could have checked and tidied half-a-dozen or more references in that article. If the refutation had not been at #12, ask yourself "At what point should I give up?" --RexxS (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * until you find something better to do. look at thirty seven archived preceding pages above going nowhere .fortunately most wiki art. are better than this and as long as they keep this up they will not bother people doing something worthwile.QED below.Wdl1961 (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, if something has been on an article for a while, you'll get numerous hits to unattributed derivates of the article itself, making it even harder to prove lack of sources. Cite or die! Paradoctor (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a good point, and becoming an increasing problem as more and more websites, newspapers, and books copy our material without attribution. I recently found parts of an FA of mine substantially copied by a well-known British journalist. I not only recognized bits of my writing, but she also included an error I had added because I'd misread the source. I found and corrected the mistake before I submitted the article for FA. Now I'm waiting for the day someone arrives to change the article back to the mistake, citing that journalist as a source! :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 11:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It has already happened: See this Register article, diff 1, diff 2 and the last paragraph here. A full account can be found in . Paradoctor (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

break3

 * The anon deleted this sentence: "A practitioner of urine therapy is sometimes called a uropath."
 * Do you really need a source for this? Then see ISBN 9781430328063 p 25, this, this, this... I think these are generally weak sources (but they're handy refs, since we're all online), but even these weak sources leave me with a reasonable conviction that "A practitioner of urine therapy is sometimes called a uropath" -- and has been, since at least 1880 (130 years).
 * Is Wikipedia best served by removing this sentence simply because no one ever bothered to add a citation? Is Wikipedia best served by removing this factually accurate sentence?  I don't think so, and I think that both WP:PRESERVE and WP:HANDLE support retaining non-contentious, factually correct information.
 * To put it more succinctly, the requirement here is that something be verifi able, not "already WP:CITEd". WP:There is no deadline for adding citations to accurate information.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with above. I find citation tags as more of a warning/request than a simple prove-it-or-lose-it tag. Of course information may eventually be deleted should all steps taken to try and keep the information have failed (i.e. requesting help from other editors, personally looking for sources, leaving the article tagged for several months). This anon is, admittedly, doing the last step but I fail to see any requests to others for help with sourcing. We need to try and keep information here and only use deletion as a last resort for contentious claims. I don't believe tagging is proof of contention, instead I find it proof of dubious sourcing. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat  09:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I usually find myself in agreement with WhatamIdoing, but in this case, I really would want a source for "A practitioner of urine therapy is sometimes called a uropath." It's not at all obvious to a lay reader such as myself that the text is true. Without citations how do we know? How would you feel about "A practitioner of urine therapy is sometimes called a Plaut"? Now take a look at this and this (both taken from Wikipedia). I visited the first source WAID offered and clicked a link on that site that I might know something about: Oxygen therapy. It leads to a page which says "Aircraft Insurance Group". So I think I'd probably conclude that that it's not going to be a reliable source. We spend time debating this problem because  wrote Uropath without adding a single citation.
 * I'd actually suggest that the best we could do with that statement is to write something like "Some fields of alternative medicine refer to a practitioner of uropathy as a uropath" and cite it to the Hahnemannian monthly as evidence of their opinion. But I'm not going to criticise the anon for not doing that; I blame Bruglia for creating the problem in the first place. Frankly, I'd rather we said nothing than something that can't be reliably sourced. --RexxS (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * @Cyclonenim: The documentation for citation needed says it is "used to identify questionable claims which lack a citation to a reliable source" (my emphasis). I can't see that identifying a claim as questionable is anything other than proof of contention. For dubious sourcing we have failed verification, verify credibility, primary source claim, etc. depending on what the editor finds dubious about the source. --RexxS (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whilst true that your aforementioned use is the one put forward through the documentation, I highly doubt that in reality that is it's only use. I think "proof of contention" was the wrong term to use. I imagine there are a lot of people who see citation needed as a way to point out unsourced additions, rather than those which they disagree with.


 * As for the 'urologists study urine' discussion, we don't have to find sources for things which can be understood by their name. Looking at the word "uropath", we can break that down into it's literal meaning based on prefixes and suffixes. It literally implies someone who studies diseases relating to the urinary tract, so why would it require a source? This is the English Wikipedia, not the Simple English Wikipedia, and therefore we expect our readers to have a competent level of understanding when it comes to reading. I am all for reliable sourcing, it's great and incredibly necessary for a comprehensive encyclopaedia, but I don't think citation needed is really a claim for deletion, but instead a claim for a source only. I know the template documentation says that such unsourced claims can be deleted, but I find that more applicable to BLPs (i.e. contentious articles) than other mainspace articles. If we remove unsourced content that is tagged as such, we are going to scare off potential editors from making contributions which are correct, but they do not have the resources to find sources for the claims. We are supposed to work as a team here; if someone adds a claim, we try and find a source. If everyone agrees a source is unobtainable, then deletion is the next stage. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 12:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "I imagine": Oh, I use cn in that manner myself, occasionally. But I understand that it will deleted if neither I nor someone else rectifies that situation in a reasonable time span.
 * "uropath": You're confusing that with "uropathologist". Try your method with sociopath and and telepath, please. This method only works with certain classes of words. Paradoctor (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: Is a "uropathologist" someone who studies diseases of the urinary tract, or is it someone who studies uropaths? And shouldn't, by the same reasoning, a urologist be someone who studies urine, rather than a medical doctor? Paradoctor (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it true that "A practitioner of psycho therapy is sometimes called a psychopath"? Hehe.
 * Seriously though, -path Gk. -pathes, from pathos "suffering". I have a slight classical education, so the deconstructed meaning of uropath seemed to me to be someone suffering from urine (problems). Which I why I said it wasn't obvious to a lay reader such as myself. Hope that clarifies it. --RexxS (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why I said "uropath" implies someone who studies diseases, rather than being it's exact interpretation. I took path in this case to be short for pathologist, so uropath would be uropathologist, but this wasn't the point I was trying to make. The crucial point is that I feel citation needed is a template to be used when a statement requires a source, rather than a deletion notice. I know the citation template documentation says otherwise, but I guess this is a personal disagreement; I feel statements shouldn't be removed unless a source cannot be found by yourself and others (which the anon in question didn't make an attempt of doing). Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 15:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't know that the anon didn't make an attempt of searching. I looked for reliable sources that mentioned "uropath". I found several articles talking about "uropath-ogenic" bacteria. I didn't find any sources that I would consider reliable that discussed that a uropath was someone who practices urine therapy (which is different than what a uropathologist would be in my mind). For instance, the book result posted above clearly does not pass RS. If I do a google news/archives search for "uropath", I couldn't come up with a single source talking about urine therapy. I found many instances where it was a bad scan of "nat uropath" (naturopath), or about a labratory called uropath. DigitalC (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that some people unfortunately like to make up stuff and use WP as a vehicle to promote it, relying on WP and Google to "spread the seed" and perhaps cause new memes to form. This is why we must insist on reliable sources for anything that is challenged, with the burden of proof on the editor adding the material, on the one removing it. Crum375 (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please drop the point of urine therapy, that is not what I'm trying to defend. I'm fully aware that urine therapy is pseudoscience and unverifiable. I'm discussing the use of the tag itself and its application to deletion of content. If we can't, as a collective, find a reliable source for a statement then by all means it should be removed (such as the uropath thing). I never said the anon didn't make an attempt at searching; what I did say is that he/she never made an attempt to ask others for help finding a citation. We are human with finite resources, we cannot all have sources for everything, and therefore we need help in finding them sometimes. A statement shouldn't be removed just because you can't find a source for it, it has to be based on consensus--otherwise we're deleting potentially useful information. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 17:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not useful if it's not sourced. Paradoctor (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fantastic opinion, though that's all it is. There are, for example, many unsourced medical stubs on Wikipedia detailing diseases. Are you suggesting all of these deleted? I can attest for a large amount of them being pretty accurate, just unsourced because the stub creator couldn't find time. These are useful to building a comprehensive encyclopaedia, and hopefully someone will be able to find references to make them verifiable. I understand you want proof, and any lay reader would like proof, but when proof isn't available, it's better to have something than nothing. Anyone who trusts an unsourced reference for it's word is a fool, anyway. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 18:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll admit to a bit of polemicism, but I never implied that uncontentious material should be deleted. As stated above, my personal preference is to let clearly marked stuff live indefinitely. As far as building an encyclopedia is concerned, I would like to note that unsourced material is not part of an encyclopedia. I consider it the same way I consider redlinks: markers that indicate gaps. The last I heard, redlinks were considered helpful. But I see no point in getting excited about statements that haven't met a challenge for months, even years. I still haven't seen proof that anon's edits have been harmful. Paradoctor (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

break4
What I am missing is any evidence that anon's edits actually removed verifiable statements, much less that a significant fraction of these edits were harmful. So far, we only have QuackGuru's assertion that cleaning out uncited cruft "is not a productive way to build an encyclopedia". Paradoctor (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Paradoctor I consider your post about the number of edits Ive done and attacking my statement to be uncivil and I ask that you refrain from such personal attacks. That comment had nothing to do with your OPINION on that matter and was personally about me, you may talk what you will about your OPINION but you may not attack me personally and what I do. You know damn well that the edit counts count these I post here and other noticeboards, AN/I, village pumps, talk pages, user page, etc. Ridiculous and spurious and inflamatory designed to humiliate me and was uncalled for. Completely uncivil and unneeded. You think I do weeks and months of research and then do one edit or before I do cleanup or fix grammar or change an infobox to a geobox? Use common sense before you try to make me look like I lie. And for those who want to butt-in and say "Paradoctor wasnt out of line" blah blah blah, dont bother, I've seen it all before, people stick together with those they agree with.Camelbinky (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "consider your post" ... "to be uncivil": I don't.
 * "attacking my statement to be uncivil": Attacking you would be uncivil. Statements are prey.
 * "edit counts count these I post here and other noticeboards, AN/I, village pumps, talk pages, user page, etc": Nope, 3417 edits exclusively to article space. Verification link.
 * "Use common sense": Yours or mine? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have suggested this before, but this is a good time to suggest it again. I think we make a mistake in having both "fact" and "cn" result in  appearing on the page.  We need tags that better communicate why we are tagging. If we are challenging the accuracy of the statement, we need to use a tag that says so clearly.  If we think the statement is accurate, but should have a citation anyway we need to use a tag that indicates that clearly.  etc.
 * I know we have some tag that results in "doubtful" (although I can never remember what it is)... are their others? If not, we should create a range of tags that could be used.  This way, other editors can better know what the problem is. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's all in the documentation of cn. Paradoctor (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah... thanks... but how many editors actually bother to read that documentation? Seriously... I strongly suspect that most editors simply learn from experience that adding  or  to a page will result in  appearing where they want it.  I suspect most editors have never even looked at the template page itself.  So let me rephrase... I think we a wider varitety of premade tags that can be used to tag unsourced statements than we have now... and I think we need a list of these tags someplace where editors can easily find it (a list that could be pointed to in this policy). Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Blueboar. That would be very helpful. Ward20 (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Improving the documentation is always a good idea. Paradoctor (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we need to know about other tags? If a citation is needed, a citation is needed. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 08:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Citation needed lists 31 tags in addition to cn. Of those, the following may apply to unsourced material:


 * citation needed: to identify questionable claims which lack a citation to a reliable source
 * cite quote: for "actual quotations" which need citations to make them proper
 * list fact: request a citation of a source which justifies inclusion of a given entry in a list
 * clarify: request clarification of wording or interpretation
 * reference necessary: wrapper for a portion of a paragraph to highlight it as needing citation
 * nonspecific: flag a general, yet factual statement as needing to be made more specific before it can be verified
 * examples: request examples for clarification
 * dubious: flag something as suspected of being incorrect
 * or: flag something as possibly containing original research
 * POV-statement: dispute the neutrality of a passage
 * weasel-inline: Avoid weasel words
 * peacock_term: Avoid peacock terms too
 * jargon-statement: ...and Jargon
 * who: for placement after descriptions of a group of persons
 * whom: placement after mention of a vague third party claim that is not sourced
 * quantify: flag a statement as being vague regarding the amount of something
 * when: flags a particular time period as being vague or ambiguous
 * timefact: request a source confirming or providing the chronology or timeline of a statement
 * definition: flag a definition as being ambiguous/confusing

What others do you think are needed? --RexxS (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How references that are vague? A real life example I am working with on the article Harvey Whittemore Ref[23], Market Wire (Washington, D.C.). 18 September 2007. Ward20 (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that I wasn't clear above. The tags I listed apply to unsourced material. Take a look at Template:Citation needed for flagging material that is sourced, but has problems with the source given. I think you'll find that in the case of a source that you don't have access to, the tag verify source fits your need (although I would add that the statement it references probably doesn't need four cites). Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation and help. I believe you were clear enough. I was at fault for not realizing a citation problem would not be an unsourced material problem. In my example, I don't find the other citations support some specific claims so I was interested in finding the one I didn't have access to. Ward20 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So which one out of that quite impressive list of tags should we use for "I don't believe this. I'm going to delete it if I don't see a reliable source soon"? Roger (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Rhetorical questions tend to work better if you supply the answer yourself. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @Roger: The most frequent use of 'Citation needed' cn is for that very purpose. --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of Questionable sources
I made this change after reading the comments from other editors. See Verifiability. QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say that the material pertains more to Verifiability, and some of the material is incompatible. For one example, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." and "When the sentence is unsourced try to find a reference to verify the text instead of deleteing it." Ward20 (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That doesn't seem to be the right area of the policy. This isn't a matter of questionable sources, but questionable material with no source. DigitalC (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "not questioned" ... "retaining non-contentious": Sure, but a cn tag is proof that a statement is contentious. Paradoctor (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're trying to write a section properly called "Unsourced questionable content". I'm not sure we actually need clarification of policy on that. See what Jimbo said. --RexxS (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Paradoctor, a tag is not proof that a statement is contentious.  It's proof that someone requested a citation -- possibly because they know that the statement is absolutely accurate, but their teacher won't allow them to cite either "Wikipedia" or "the lecture last Tuesday morning" in the paper they're writing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you What! I'm glad you agree with what I've been saying. I feel better.Camelbinky (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The documented purpose of the cn tag is to identify questionable claims. So, yes, it is proof of contention. I accept that somebody may misuse the tag to request citation for a statement that is not contested, but that is still misuse. There is no need for such a tag. If you see the cn tag misused, remove it, and use "not a questionable claim" in the edit summary. Tag misuse is not grounds to criticise those who assume, in good faith, that the tag was placed for the reasons its documentation states. --RexxS (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This edit added a lot of tags to the article. If editors delete every unsourced sentence Wikipedia would lose a lot of information. QuackGuru (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The example above is a misuse of these tags, though the article would benefit from being better sourced. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 08:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If editors deleted every unsourced sentence that had been identified as questionable for two years, Wikipedia would lose a lot of information that shouldn't be there. --RexxS (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To chime in here, yes, a cn (or fact, same diff) is absolutely a challenge. Moreover, if anyone removes content on the basis of the tag, no longer how long that tag has been there, that itself is a subsequent challenge. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why I have suggested (see above) that we need some sort of tag that effectively says: "I think this is right, but I think it needs a citation anyway". Blueboar (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? If someone wants to delete it as uncited, they still can--so it's just semantics. In fact, if someone believes an uncited fact is unequivocally false, they are permitted--nay, encouraged--to just remove it. Your proposal is entirely redundant, I'm afraid. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the point in any more stating in MULTIPLE policies and guidelines and essays and everywhere else that "Wikipedia is a work in progess" and that we dont have to have things perfect and newbies can contribute without knowing our procedures if those of you out there are going to be anal and not help out by finding sources for things that you challenge? I guess we should go through all our policies and change them to "Do not add anything or help out unless you've read our policies and are going to edit in a perfected version of what you want to add with citations properly formatted and basically do everything the way we want. Otherwise we'll delete your contributions. Because really we dont want added information or your help. We want stale articles getting no help unless its from established users doing things our way".
 * Example- Look at Capital District today and at how it looked prior to me and User:UpstateNYer completely rewriting it and tell me if it was better prior to the additions even though today it has several citation needed templates and before it had none. And along the way we took steps and I did entire sections without a single citation, Upstate would come along anything looking like it might need to be cited would get slapped and if I could find one handy that was reliable I'd put it on and he'd clean-up alot of my grammar and spelling etc. (His sections were already pretty damn good, less for me to do). That's how some of us work. I dont want to do all the work, I do want to leave some for others so they feel like there is something to do; so I frankly dont care if my spelling, grammar, or structure or anything is a bit awkward or needs cleanup; what I like is researching and I'm damn good at it. What others are trying to do is say "put it in complete and perfect or lose it". That drives away good researchers, which is what we desperately need more of.Camelbinky (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're a researcher, you have the sources. Why don't you put them in? Or do you simply use unsourced material you found lying around somewhere?
 * What criterion would have to be satisfied for you to say: "now that challenged unsourced statement can go"? It can't be personal opinion, because then we would permit everyone to add tagged unsourced stuff, without the possibility of deleting it. I can hardly imagine that to be what you want. Paradoctor (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd support Blueboar's suggestion of a "Gosh, a well-written article would have a footnote after this fact" tag, or perhaps simply an expansion of this tag's functionality (e.g., a "|category=wanted", rather than "|category=cite it or delete it" parameter).
 * However, the "documented purpose" argument doesn't move me at all. The fact is that the "documented purpose" is not the only way that Wikipedia's editors actually use this tag, and the actual community consensus -- as determined by how literally thousands of editors have used this tag for years -- is the only real "policy" that Wikipedia cares about.  Compared to the practical facts, the documentation on an underwatched tempate page is remarkably unimportant.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's, for the sake of discussion, presume I follow your line of reasoning that there is significant variant usage. Make a template citation wanted. The way I understand you, this should not be used to justify deletion of tagged statements. Fine. Then why is a citation requested? Since citation wanted does not mark a statement as contentious, there is no reason to provide a source. What other use could the reference have than justifying inclusion of the statement? Paradoctor (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something along the lines of "That's very insightful. I wonder what else that author had to say on the subject that we could use in the article?"LeadSongDog come howl  20:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we're not talking about something that is appropriate for sourcing an uncontentious(!) statement. If you wonder, simply read it. If you want to suggest that other editors read it, then it belongs on the talkpage, section "Potential sources".
 * Let me rephrase my question: What use beside sourcing a given statement could a reference have that requires tagging that statement as citation wanted? Paradoctor (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At the moment the citation needed tag is used to indicates both: "someone is challenging the veracity of this fact" and "someone thinks this fact could use a citation". It would be helpful to know which was intended, as it impacts how long we are willing let the material stand without a citation. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Paradoctor, there is no requirement to tag a statement as "citation wanted". But there could be a desire to read more about it. For example, it is well known that in northern hemisphere winter, the sun is farther from the Earth than in northern hemisphere summer. But if I saw that statement, even though it is uncontentious, I might want to know where the statement was drawn from so I could read more about the subject. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't that what the "Further reading" section is for? Or "Literature"? Or the list of references? Paradoctor (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A citation can be added to any statement if there is some benefit, including helping readers to follow the subject in greater depth (provided the cited work does actually confirm what the article says). Citations need not be limited to statements that otherwise would be in danger of deletion. Also, "Further reading" are works that are related to the topic, but were not used in writing or verifying the article content. "References" were so used. The "Literature" topic is rare, as far as I know. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "A citation can be added to any statement": We are talking about the meaning and usage of citation requests, not about citations themselves.
 * The problem is, if citation needed may be interpreted at leisure not to constitute a challenge, then what do you use if you expressly want to challenge a statement, on the understanding that it is to be deleted if not sourced after an appropriate time? Paradoctor (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see: you could leave an inline, you could use a more expressive tag like dubious, you could explain in an edit summary, there's the talk page... I don't think that there's any shortage of ways for you to be clear about either what your concern is or what you plan to do about it -- ways that allow you to issue an explicit, unambiguous "cite it or lose it" challenge without simultaneously requiring that every single editor who adds fact use this template exclusively in exactly the same way that you are.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's good advice - discussion is the best way to clarify. I assume then that the same recommendation should be applied to all the other (undocumented) uses of cn. Inline notes or talk page notices would allow an editor to ask for a citation (for whatever reason) without challenging. --RexxS (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * HTML comments, edit summaries and talkpage posts suffer from visibility issues, dubious doesn't address the issue of intent, but I see your point: There is significant opposition to using citation needed as an explicit challenge. No problem, I'll cook up something suitable next time I run into this problem. This place is never boring. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that the overwhelming use of citation needed is as a challenge. Take a look at Category:Articles with unsourced statements from February 2010, for example, and click on a number of pages from that list at random. I therefore suggest that the burden of explanation falls on editors using cn when not issuing a challenge. Absent any notes, it is reasonable to assume a challenge was intended, although it never hurts to make clear the intention in either case. --RexxS (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than looking at a random one, I looked at one that I knew a little bit about. The recent edit tags a sentence as "citation needed" that is (1) entirely accurate, (2) in the middle of a paragraph that already contains two footnotes, and (3) is not controversial (Is anyone surprised to hear that businesses are unhappy when a new government regulation increases their expenses in the name of public safety?), and (4) doesn't fall into any category that routinely requires a citation (e.g., direct quotation). If the (experienced) editor who placed the tag didn't happen to remember all the (American) news stories about this issue in 2005, then a quick trip to your FWSE would produce some:.

So my conclusion is that the tag identifies a perfectly acceptable and easily verifiable statement. However, I don't know what the editor's actual goal was: To find out if the statement is accurate? To get three refs into the paragraph? To wonder if corporate complaints about regulation are WP:DUE? An error? Did s/he mean "Citation wanted for aesthetic reasons" or "Citation required by policy" or "Citation requested because I want to copyedit this paragraph and I don't know much about the incident"?

I don't know: The editor doesn't tell me.

And, fundamentally, I don't think that it's possible for the editor to 'tell me' without introducing a undesirable level of complexity. It might be best to muddle along with what we've got, in which if I cared at the affected article (which I basically don't, in this instance), I'd either add a (non-policy-required) source, or remove the tag, or leave a note on the talk page, or take other natural, normal, consensus-oriented steps towards finding out why the tag was applied. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, look at your single example (even though I maintain any random sample will confirm my point). The paragraph has four sentences and does contain two footnotes, one of which is a dead link and relates to Canada. The only source given is the FCC notice, which says nothing about the ISPs' reaction to it. So who says it's "entirely accurate"? That's opinion without a source. It's not surprising providers might be anxious, but that doesn't mean they necessarily were. Without a source, for anybody knows, they could have been well-prepared. As it tuns out, you can show sources in this case. But that doesn't alter the fact that until the sources are found, the article makes a claim that may be right or may be wrong, and we don't know. If it were wrong, surely you would accept that the material should be deleted? Review as many examples as you want, you'll find that statements of fact could be either right or wrong, and we can't decide until until we see sources. The vast majority of cn uses make that challenge, and would lead to deletion if the claim were untrue.
 * Look at it this way: What if the sentence which was challenged did not read The order set off anxiety among many VoIP providers, who felt it will be too expensive and require them to adopt solutions that won't support future VoIP products, but instead said Although the deadline of four months was short, VoIP providers had been expecting it for a considerable time, and were able to meet the order without problems. I could claim that is (1) entirely accurate, (2) in the middle of a paragraph that already contains two footnotes, and (3) is not controversial (Is anyone surprised to hear that businesses are prepared when a new government regulation requires them to make changes for the sake of public safety?), and (4) doesn't fall into any category that routinely requires a citation (e.g., direct quotation). And yet, as soon as one searches for the sources, it is demonstrably untrue and needs to be removed. I maintain that adding a cn tag to the original sentence is identifying it as a questionable statement, and quite properly would lead to its deletion if it were found false. --RexxS (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For your alternative, you could claim that (1) it's entirely accurate -- except that you'd be wrong; remember that I selected this example because I had prior knowledge -- and you could claim that (3) your alternative wasn't controversial -- except that it would be, because the phrasing is inappropriate industry puffery, and the substance of the claim would be truly astonishing claim to anyone that knows much about the VOIP/ISP industry -- but I still wouldn't know what your goal was in tagging it. This tag does not communicate the editor's intent.  I am not a mind reader:  I do not know if the editor placed this tag simply because s/he had less information than I do (and, perhaps, no time to ask Mr Google about it), or because the editor had some other concern.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you know the alternative is wrong, but 99.9% of our readership have no idea of the background to the VoIP industry in the USA, so at first sight would not know which is true. That uncertainty makes either statement 'questionable' until sources are found. It means your example exactly meets the documented purpose of the tag: to identify questionable claims. As you look through examples from the category I mentioned, you'll see that is what has happened in the vast majority of cases. Every time the tagger is saying "I don't know if that's true or not". If you already have sources that show whether it's right or wrong, you don't need the tag.
 * None of us are mind-readers, so we can never be absolutely sure of a tagger's intent, but where do we go wrong if we assume they are identifying a questionable claim? There are no legitimate 'other concerns' that the tag is routinely used for. The purpose of citations is to verify the text, not for 'further reading' or 'a directory of literature on the subject'. If we see a claim we think is possibly wrong, we tag it. If a source is found, the claim gets a citation. If neither we, nor anybody else, can find a source, then I maintain it violates our fundamental principles to leave the claim in place. Doing otherwise would lead to the situation (in your example) that had my alternate been the text which was tagged, it would stay there forever in the hope that a cite might be found. But we know that's not what happens. Almost all of the time, we use the tag to request a citation in order to verify the claim, and any other use of the tag does a disservice to the way we create verifiable content. --RexxS (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "If neither we, nor anybody else, can find a source" is not the same as "If no one has already cited a source". The editor whose actions started this discussion was deleting material on the basis of the second, not the first, situation.  "Nobody has already added the source" does not mean "No source exists".  For example, I haven't edited 9-1-1 for over a year; the fact that I haven't pasted the links above at the end of the tagged sentence does not mean that the sources do not exist.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, something like... "I looked and couldn't find any sources for this... but to be sure, I tagged it. That was months ago... surely someone whould have been able to provide them by now if such sources did in fact exist.  I think it reasonable to assume that they don't."...  is a perfectly valid rational.  It really comes down to: do you have a reason to doubt the material. Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think am now once again in full agreement with WAID. If I have understood correctly, it now boils down to the question: "After what period of time is it safe to assume that no sources are going to be found?" It is possible that the answer is: "It is never safe to make that assumption; we must always check for sources first", or alternatively: "Only after X years". As an idealist, I'd prefer the former; as a pragmatist, the latter (probably with X=2). Have we already established consensus on this? If not, finding that consensus would make a valuable clarification of this section of policy. --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't something we can (or should) make firm rules on... It depends on the topic, the nature of the unsourced statement, and the knowledge of the editor who is dealing with the fact that the statement is unsourced.  An egregiously incorrect statement should not last as long as a potentially correct one. Sometimes an editor knows the reliable sources on a topic well, and has good reason to doubt that any source supports the claim being made.  If so, he can remove both the tag and the material after a fairly short period.... at the other extreme is an editor who knows next to nothing about the topic or the sources... he should probably leave it tagged indefinitely.  There are just too many variables to lock this all down. Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

break again

 * Jc3s5h: However, if we saw the statement "in southern hemisphere summer, the sun is farther from the Earth than in southern hemisphere winter", we might find that contentious and tag it, as it seems counter-intuitive. Yet, the two statements are absolutely equivalent. Paradox? No, the answer is that the first statement actually is not obvious (even if well-known) and ought to be sourced. The source would hopefully give more background and thus satisfy your wish to read more. --RexxS (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Paradoctor last time I'm going to ask you to stop with the personal jabs and insults seriously, next time we go to AN/I. The point is sometimes when we (or maybe its just me) write we dont feel like sourcing every single statement or sentence (and we dont have to, its not required). Sometimes some pieces of information is obvious and well known to an individual or group and they dont realize non-specialists or non-locals arent as well-versed in the knowledge. An example is Albany, NY being established in the very early 1600s and the first white settlement being a French fort on Castle Island in the mid-1500s, well-known among locals but such early dates (being so much earlier than many English settlements of the 13 colonies) may make it contentious and therefore someone may tag it when the original editor didnt think he/she needed a citation. And yes I dont always need references in front of me when I'm editing because I already have quite an encyclopedic knowledge of Capital District geography, history, architecture, geology, etc (most of that article was written free style and as things were questioned I went and found sources and stuck them in to back up my personal information; this is actually how college professors write journal articles except they have grad student TA's like me who do the leg work finding citations to bolster facts they've written in their paper). Those of us who do actual editing and add information cant mind read and know what is going to be questioned. That is why the citation needed template is important to help us know "hey, this isnt obvious to me"; it should NEVER mean "prove it or lose it" that is arrogant and rude and un-wikipedia like and goes against our mantra of "we are a work in progress" and that you dont need to know our way of doing things to contribute.Camelbinky (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "personal jabs": No such thing, none intended. Kindly AGF. If you think something I said is an attack on you, rather than on something you said, please qoute it, and we can talk about it.
 * "my personal information": We regularly delete personal information. The fact that you're an expert doesn't relieve you of the obligation to provide sources on challenged statements you inserted. You might argue about what is an appropriate timeframe, but sooner or later challenged unsourced statements will have to go. If you worry about your edits, then just don't tag them cn yourself.
 * "how college professors write journal articles": Need I really say it? We are not a scientific journal.
 * "we are a work in progress": Does that mean we are not to delete contentious statements at all? Paradoctor (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Snarky comment to Jc3s5h & RexxS: I think you mean "closer to" above when you write "farther from" (or summer<--> winter, or northern <--> southern).  See Earth's orbit. Perhaps a moral is that internal linking, because of its ease, can help accuracy more than external sourcing.John Z (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're exactly right, and I think it proves my point spectacularly. We can't rely on what we think we know to write an encyclopedia. If we write from our sources, rather than off the top of our heads, we're much less likely to make mistakes like that. Thanks, --RexxS (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC on the meaning of contentious.
There's currently an RfC about what constitutes "contentious material" at Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Content. Gigs (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Can a fact be referenced of a secondary page
Can a controversial fact be referenced on a secondary page. For example can Marco Adaggio's nationality on Worcester_City_F.C. be referenced on his page rather than in the squad list at Worcester City F.C. Gnevin (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The source should be wherever the material is that the source is supporting. So his nationality should be sourced on the pages where it's mentioned, if it's an issue that an editor has challenged. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 18:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This goes back to the mistaken idea that list articles do not need sources if the main article is properly sourced. The argument supporting this idea is that the information in the list is verifiable... by clicking on the link to the main article and finding the citations there.  This idea has been rejected by the Wikipedia community.  Every article needs to be properly sourced, and the information should be made verifiable without going to some other article.  If this means the same information needs to be sourced on multiple pages, fine. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "This idea has been rejected by the Wikipedia community": I have to admit I was under this impression until now. Could you point me to the pertaining discussions so I can reference them in case I run into others sharing this misconception? Paradoctor (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to see those discussions too. I can think of several reasons why the same references should not proliferate to every place where a person or thing is mentioned in Wikipedia. It is harder to maintain and keep them all in sync. In cases where it is not obvious how to find the reference, it may be useful to have the reference in more than one place in Wikipedia. However in a case like the nationality of a person who has a bio article, it is ridiculous to suppose that a reader who wants to know that will not or should not look at the immediately wikilinked bio article. --JWB (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "harder to maintain and keep them all in sync": Not really. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That approach doesn't work any better than the cite doi a.k.a. cite pmid approach for the same reason. Looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:BarrowTipler1986 we see that the articles using BarrowTipler1986 adopt different styles of referencing. An editor at Whig history may note that this one ref - unlike all the others - has the author names in inverted order. He may click on "Edit this reference" and correct it to direct order. But in the process that edit will make that template inconsistent with most of the other articles transcluding it, in which the inverted order is expected. The idea of lookup by transclusion is cute, but it just doesn't work. LeadSongDog  come howl  22:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh ye of little faith! ;) This is all brand-new. I'm going to separate content from formatting. Users will then have the ability to select what and how to display according to their own preferences. It's a snap, really. Anyone interested in snapping can start at Category:Wikipedia bibliography. Paradoctor (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a kindness to other editors and readers who want to check up on facts (or just read more) if each claim that might be questioned is cited directly to an external reliable source. Additionally, because of the open nature of editing a wiki, we don't usually consider Wikipedia itself as a reliable source. For both these reasons, it's best to always cite the original source for any controversial fact. --RexxS (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks all this is as I thought Gnevin (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

currency of RSs
There's nothing in the policy that says an RS should be current. A 100-year old work could technically qualify. Will Durant has a terrific 50-year old history, but it's dated now and not always in line with current scholarship. It qualifies as an RS, but these definitions. On the religion pages, defenders of Christian POVs often like to use 30- or 40-year old works that are out of date. The 100-year old Catholic Encyclopedia is commonly cited.

Can we add something like "contemporary" or "current" to the description of an RS? Leadwind (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If a source is outdated, surely you can find current sources saying so? Paradoctor (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This often depends on what you are citing the outdated source for... the 100 year old Catholic Encyclopedia is 100% reliable for a statement as to what Catholic scholarship and views were 100 years ago, but not for a statement as to what Catholic scholarship and views are today. Blueboar (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with this is that many older sources are freely available on the internet, while up-to-date sources can be expensive and inaccessible to those with limited means, or not living near a university library. So if something about "current sources" were put in the policy, it could mean that except by invoking WP:IAR, the underprivileged would not even be able to begin an article on some topics. (Of course, I hope that if an article were begun with old sources, someone with access to better ones would come along and improve it.)


 * Another problem is that some old topics might not have any current sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's the kind of discussion that could usefully take place at Identifying reliable sources, Leadwind. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 20:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or at WP:RSN... and I see that it is already being discussed there. Blueboar (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I work mostly with municipalities and communities (see my user page for a list of the ones I've made), I have found that older sources tend to be more accurate on the history of communities than contemporary ones. Sometimes communities lose their identity and older sources are all that remains of their history (see Lisha Kill, New York and Mannsville, New York, two I created as examples). Age of a source should not be a factor. The accuracy of the work should be the only determining factor on what is reliable and what isnt. If a work is correct it is correct.Camelbinky (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that age is a poor indicator of reliability. I'd like to point out, though, that "correctness", like truth, is often a matter of opinion, and subject to change. Newton was a reliable source for theories of gravitation, until Einstein made a mess of it. It works both ways, that's why age is of very little concern to the question of reliability. Paradoctor (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On a related note, I've wondered whether elderly sources should count for notability claims. We would normally accept two articles in a major newspaper as a strong argument in favor of notability for a politician, but if those two sources were published in the 17th century, and are the only two (extant) publications mentioning the name... then is that really a notable politician?  I really don't believe that it would pass muster at an AfD, but we don't say anything about the issue.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * By that reasoning, the deletionists will have a ball in 100 years or so. ^_^ Seriously, I'd rather relax notability criteria for older  topics. We're talking history, which means that less notable stuff has  already been eroded away. Though I'll admit that I  redirected the father of a Pict king, "Drust  filius Erp" is not enough even for the father of a king. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If the only sources about the politician are several centuries old, then IMO the politician is "less notable" and has "eroded away". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As you said, this is a "related note," but probably more "notability" focussed than "Verifiability" focussed - which would be a different policy. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 01:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarcastic Easily misunderstood phrase should go
Verifiability, not truth should go.

This means that a reliably sourced fact, even if wrong, may be used. This is bad. Even if there is an explanation later, the "not truth" makes Wikipedia look bad.

Please suggest possible replacements. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Verifiability, not unverified truth (preferred version for now) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Verifiability above all other criteria. (need to make sure this is true) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) "Truth is as important as verifiability, but much harder to prove." --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Verifiability first, but truth is an important component also. (see comments below for why an additional replacement is suggested as a compromise) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Verifiability first, but truth is an important component also. (see comments below for why an additional replacement is suggested as a compromise) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You might want to peruse Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive_36. Paradoctor (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Suomi... if a "wrong" fact is reliably sourced, how do we know it is "wrong"? Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this phrase is sarcastic. It has proven helpful to many inexperienced editors, especially those that want to write about their personal, unpublished experiences.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Truth", "Facts", are theological/philosophical concepts. Wikipedia contains a neutral description of information which was verifiably published by reliable sources. It does not attempt to get to "facts", or "truth", but only to what others have written. This is the essence of Wikipedia, and it is succinctly expressed by "verifiability, not truth". Crum375 (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources have mistakes all the time. See the errata section of newspapers.  What the phrase seeks to overcome is the theories that are often unaccepted but for which some people may insist is the real truth.


 * What I don't want to promote is that we just collect references with no regard for accuracy. So, I've come up with another phrase based on someone's phrase directly above it.  See numbered list. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a widely accepted phrase that sums up the policy and has been in it for years. It reflects that we simply repeat what reliable sources say, and that we try to be as accurate as possible within that framework. But the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 18:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * One trouble with the current usage is the phrase is often used when the truth and accuracy of information is questionable and someone wants to force the edit. What the whole sentence says is that verifiability is the primary criteria.  What some use the phrase is that "fuck you that the idea is incorrect, I have a reference."  This is not what the entire WP:V says.  The problem is isolating the phrase "verifiability, not truth".  What we should be emphasizing is that "verifiability is the most important criteria".


 * I know that tradition is sacred but we should try to improve things and not let misinterpretation of slogans happen. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It says V is "the threshold for inclusion". It needs to be read carefully. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 21:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We agree! We all agree on the policy.  It's just that the slogan is so sexy that people misquote it.  See this  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability_first for proposed changes to the 1st two paragraphs.  It's marked as an essay but could replace the policy if desired. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the proposal you mentioned would seriously alter policy, rather than clarify it. Verifiability is not just a more important criteria than truth, "truth" is not a criteria at all. If a statement is true but unattributable, it's inadmissible. If, however, a statement is false but reliably sourced and neutral, it's not up to us to disagree with it's inclusion. Now, if we find a different source that disagrees with such a statement, then a debate of course ensues over which source should be given preference, and so forth. But that's a different situation, in that case it's a question of neutrality (which reliable sources do we include?), and not verifiability. If we altered this policy to say that it is not sufficient that material is sourced, it has to be true as well, that would seriously disrupt the project. It's nearly impossible to find a consensus over what the truth is, but we can (sometimes) agree on what the reliable sources say. Wikipedia has no ambition to present the truth, it has the much more humble ambition to present what notable experts in their respective fields consider the truth to be. That's why the policy is formulated the way it is. Gabbe (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If we find a source that disagrees with the source used to substantiate a statement the issue becomes deciding which source is more reliable for that specific statement. No source is ever in and of itself reliable. It is nonsense to say that the "XYZ Newspaper" is always a reliable source for any and all quoted statements. The reliability of any and all sources are always subject to falsification for any citation. Perfect infallable sources do not exist. Roger (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So if one prominent academic writes a widely accepted textbook published by Cambridge University Press saying on thing, and another prominent academic writes a widely accepted textbook published by Oxford University Press contradicting this, you're saying it's up to us to decide which source is more reliable? I would say that in such a case, we typically would include both opinions. In some cases, if what is held by one reliable source to be the truth is held to be false by a wide consensus of experts in the field, we could omit the lone dissenting source by virtue of WP:Undue weight. That's not a question of sources being "subject to falsification". Gabbe (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that is not what I mean. To use your example - we cannot say that every single word that flows from the presses at Oxford Unversity is reliable because it is the Oxford University Press. We can however acknowlege that the OUP is a usually reliable source. The identity of the source/publisher is not inherent proof of reliability. Some sources are more reliable than others but none is absolutely perfect. I hope my point is clearer now.
 * In the case of the conflicting prominent academics, we should see what other prominent academics have to say about the disagreement and be guided by the "academic consensus" as to how much weight we give each side of the conflict. Roger (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've discussed another Wikipedia rule and someone said to write a draft rather than describe it in theory. So that's what I did.

We must report the truth! 2+2=4, not 5. We need both. Sometimes, truth won't be clear but if it is, let's report only 2+2=4, not 2+2=5. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If The New York Times says 2+2=5, we report that, even if the majority of sources agree that 2+2=4. By picking something as simple and obvious as arithmetic, you're essentially making a straw man argument. There's really no support for your objection to the wording as it's stated now, and picking statements that trivialize the difference between verifiability and truth is not helping to convince folks that there is a legitimate issue here. Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Suomi, as I replied above, "truth" is a theological/philosophical concept, which has no place on WP except in its own article(s). Some editors here believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that God created the world, and that this is the absolute truth. Other editors feel that it's patent nonsense, and absolutely false. But where we all find a solid common ground is in "verifiability". We would all agree that the Bible (as a reliable primary source) and many theological secondary sources state that Jesus and God are whatever, and as long as it's properly attributed, with other sources added for balance, all WP editors are happy with the results, and this is what our readers expect. They expect WP to present information published by verifiable reliable sources, and attribute it to its sources, not to discover an ultimate truth. Crum375 (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * More to the point, if a reliable source tells us that 2+2=5, how do you know that 2+2 does not equal 5? (obviously I am using the simple math simply to make a broader point).  Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2+2 can equal five... for sufficiently large values of two. Otherwise, we'd never see warnings that "numbers may not total 100% due to rounding."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bertrand Russell needed hundreds of pages in his Principia Mathematica just to formulate something as simple as $$1+1=2$$, and completed the proof only in the second volume of the work.

The common sense goal is to write only accurate information. So the 2+2=4 is subject to argument and hundreds of pages of text in a book? If so the example is not a good example. How about former Finnish Prime Minister Esko Aho is the Secretary General of the United Nations? If there is a source, common sense would be that this is a factual error so it is not included.

I have seen the cry "verifiability, not truth" when someone wants a factual error in Wikipedia. This is because the person is not quoting the policy correctly and is taking it out of context. This is what I wish to avoid.

That is why I have come up with clear slogans that do not allow this type of quoting out of context. These new slogans include "verifiability is the primary requirement for inclusion into Wikipedia" or "All information should have a reliable source citation (verifiability)".

If you are opposed to these slogans or similar slogans that you create, what is an alternate solution? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Again... how do we know that Former Finnish Prime Minister Esko Aho isn't the Secretary General of the United Nations? How do we know that the source is incorrect? We don't... unless we have other verifiable sources that tell us differently. Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Common sense should apply. We try to edit the best possible.  If we question that level of depth, we can't even know that Esko Aho was Finnish or that the UN even exists.  If we are requiring two or more sources for each fact, this is a legitimate policy proposal.  We should always strive to report the truth.  Sometimes, it is not clear so we can edit like this..."The BBC reports that --- did [3][4]."  The main purpose of this discussion is how to minimize taking the slogan out of context for factual errors. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Common sense" may be an illusion. If there is any credibility to the concept of essentially contested concept, common sense does not exist for these, at least in the sense alluded to by you. What words are contained in a given source is something we can agree about, regardless of our opinion about their meaning and interpretation. Paradoctor (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the "slogan" serves a purpose as a rhetorical device to jolt people out of "I KNOW this, so it can go in" to "Oh, I should find reliable sources." Its an important transformation in the editor learning curve.  People basing their arguments only on a slogan should be politely requested to read the rest of the policy in detail to understand more clearly - and be presented with sources to contradict the questionable data they are trying to introduce.  (John User:Jwy talk) 17:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. The problem with the polite request is, where on the page is an explanation of why truth is not a good tool for Wikipedia? Paradoctor (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternate solution 1?
Some don't want to clarify the "verifiability, not truth" slogan to prevent it from being taken out of context. The slogan has been used to justify putting anything that has a reference.

There is another problem. The policy's lead/lede does not reflect the policy. The lead has such broad slogan as "verifiability, not truth" but no where does it explain it below. This is poor writing according to the Manual of Style.

Please help me write a neutral, short text to support the lead/lede summary at the top.

Here is the first draft that tries to reflect the lead/lede (acutally, the text should come first, then the lead/lede summarizes it, but this is a way to fix the mistake):

(New section at the top)Threshold for inclusion Policy shortcut:VTI

The verifiability requirement for Wikipedia is a policy. All material added to Wikipedia should be accurate and no false information should be intentionally included. Verifiability is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below). The phrase "verifiability, not truth" should not be abused but this policy should place verifiability as higher on the editor's priority.

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Remember, this is a friendly attempt to clarify policy! It is just trying to make Wikipedia a better place!  Smile and let's help each other out! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a friendly response ... I think the attempt is made in good faith but is misguided... I think the current language is best. It makes the point we are trying to make perfectly and succincly and should not be changed.  I thing changing it would open the door to more abuse and confusion than leaving it alone would, and thus would not make Wikipedia a better place.  Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "no false information should be intentionally included": How do I determine whether a statement is false? How do I determine that Aho is not whatever at the UN? If you don't like the Russell example (he has been compared to Aristotle), try one of these:
 * O. J. Simpson did it
 * oxocarbons generally have a higher electronegativity than carbenes
 * the moon landing was a hoax
 * Flinx lost his virginity on Longtunnel
 * How do I determine any of these to be false? The phrase needs more exposition for the confused, but these reformulations are worse than the problem.
 * BTW, am I permitted to frown and help out? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please make a suggestion to fix the problem that you describe as "The phrase needs more exposition for the confused, but these reformulations are worse than the problem." Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "more exposition" simply means additional text on how to interpret and understand the slogan. I though that was clear from the proposal I linked above. Paradoctor (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternate solution 2
If it is exceeding difficult to even insert one word into a policy, then consider the following, which doesn't contradict the manual of style, is actually better, and changes not a single word!

current version
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether we think it is true.

This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace&mdash;articles, lists, and sections of articles&mdash;without exception, and in particular to information about living persons: unsourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately.

Because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred, although non-English sources are allowed.

Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three.

Proposed version - alternate solution 2
Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace&mdash;articles, lists, and sections of articles&mdash;without exception, and in particular to information about living persons: unsourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether we think it is true.

Because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred, although non-English sources are allowed.

This new way orders the paragraphs in order of importance, namely core policy, when to use citation, slogan as far as need for citation, non-English citation. Not one word is added nor deleted!

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The English paragraph should be at the end, yes. The slogan should be first, because it gives a concise statement of what the policy is about. It's place within Wikipedia policy second, citation requirement third, as it describes the most important requirement to prove verifiability. Paradoctor (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. A revised alternate solution 2 is below.  It establishes that it is a policy, says the policy slogan, citation requirements, then non-English.  The proposed first paragraph is written just like the articles...Elizabeth II (1926) is the Queen.., Wikipedia Verfiability is one of Wikpedia's core content policies, same style.   It also follows typical Wikipedia style which is to mention the title of the page in the very beginning (except for the word "The" or similar word).  The American president Richard Nixon article says Richard Nixon was the president.  It doesn't give a summary first, like "Nixon was the first to resign. He was President of America...."Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether we think it is true.

This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace&mdash;articles, lists, and sections of articles&mdash;without exception, and in particular to information about living persons: unsourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately.

Because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred, although non-English sources are allowed. -

Side by side comparison
It may help if we put these side by side...

Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Isn't this just change for the sake of change? The only difference between the two is that a paragraph has been moved from the end of the section to the beginning.  How does moving this paragraph improve the policy? Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is change for improvement sake. With a better organization, it will be easier to add to later.  But there is no secret plan to add stuff later.  Believe me, I have written articles that got some Wikipedia recognition and making the articles (or in this case policy), the best they can be in terms of minor details is very important. Also see WP:NPOV, which is suppose to be the other basic policy.  It says as a first sentence: Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia.  So we are harmonizing things by simply moving the most important paragraph higher up.


 * Another point is that with the new proposal, the first paragraph will never change, at least not the basics of it. That shows stability.  The verifiability not truth paragraph may someday change if there were suddenly an everyday problem on ANI by people saying "I can put in obviously false information just because I found a reference".  Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's pure speculation. I like speculation. Please provide a plausible example of how that could happen. I'm willing to be convinced. Paradoctor (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The "threshold" paragraph is the equivalent of saying that Nixon was a POTUS. It states the most important knowledge about this policy. That there is little else that is equally important is only a secondary property. Paradoctor (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt anyone will ever argue "I can put in obviously false information just because I found a source" at ANI. If that did happen, the good folks at ANI would resoundingly tell the editor that he misunderstands our policies.
 * What is quite likely to happen (in fact it does happen) is that someone will argue "I can put this fact that I think is true, but another editor thinks is false, in the article because I have a source for it". Where upon the good folks at ANI will say "This is a content dispute and not a behavioural problem... go work it out on the talk page and stop edit warring over it". Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's an edit war in a politician's article which I saw but am not involved in. Basically, in real life, there was a controversy.  The politician then gave his response.  The edit warriors are fighting over whether to put in the article just the facts of the response and not even mention the controversy versus mentioning the controversy and the two sides.


 * The side that only wants to put the facts favorable to the politician and not mention the controversy uses WP:V. "That is not what he was described as though according to reliable sources.... Verifiability, Not Truth, remember."  In other words, they don't care about the truth, only that they have a footnote.  I have no opinion on what happens in this case but was just surprised that the WP:V was being cited.  In essence, the person might be hinting that "I don't have to care about the truth, I just need a citation".  The problem is the slogan.  But I am not involved in this, which is why I think just a reordering of paragraphs is good so that some time in the future, if this is ever a problem, our basic first paragraph will remain untouched because it is completely free of controversy. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You should provide a diff if you add examples to the discussion. And I don't care about what they care about. It's quite simple: There are a couple of statements. Are they relevant? Are they sourced? Both? Include them. Not both? Thank you, we'll call you. As I said, simple. Paradoctor (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In the political example above, I would expect the fact that there was a controversy and some detail of the supposed allegations to have reliable sources - otherwise why would the politician bother? And again, if someone is arguing based on just the slogan, they need to read further.  (John User:Jwy talk) 22:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Throwing the bible at them is one thing, but letting them look for something that isn't there is cruel. Paradoctor (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't think this is a case where someone does not "care about the truth"... what it sounds like a situation where people care very much about "the truth"... but dissagree on what "the truth" actually is. This is exactly why we say the threshold is "Verifiability not Truth". Blueboar (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Joking - don't care what the truth is, what people care about. / / / Let's just ok this very simple proposal to move up a paragraph.  No change in wording.  Nothing added or deleted.  Maybe the examples given were bad examples.  But let's just ok this change in bringing one important paragraph a little higher.  This is not an Israel/West Bank or Northern Ireland article! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would help if you addressed the points raised (by me, for example). ;) Paradoctor (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That article is so explosive that I'm not touching it with a 10 metre pole! People there are likely to follow you around so if you post there, you will get infected and they may infect me.  The move of paragraphs is just good writing but if there are those who insist on a little less than the best writing, it is not worth arguing over. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Another solution
Really, all that "needs" (for the sake of argument) clarification is the phrase "not whether we think it is true". Here are a couple of revised clauses that could be dropped in: "Think" refers to intellectual conclusion, "believe" speaks more to axiomatic (e.g., philosophical or religious) statements. Jclemens (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "not whether we believe it to be true."
 * "not whether we think or believe it to be true"


 * People tend to believe that their prejudices are totally rational. Believers usually are aware that not everybody shares their convictions. Thinkers too, but they believe that is because the others are irrational. "Think" is the proper expression. Paradoctor (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to omit the words "we think" from the current version, so that the first sentence reads:

At present the policy implies that "it doesn't matter if you think something is true. On the other hand if you know it to be true, then it's OK." I think the two words "we think" is what's causing all this confusion, remove them entirely and the policy becomes more clear. Gabbe (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But that is the entire point of the statement... an editor might think (or believe) something is True, but Wikipedia does not care what the editor thinks... what Wikipedia cares about is whether a reliable source says it is true. That is the heart of Verifiability.  Blueboar (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I wanted to say that! ;) Paradoctor (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great minds think alike (but I beat you to it) :>p Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This proposal is too ambitious. We can't even get a quick agreement on a logical reordering of one paragraph so a change of meaning is out of the question for now.  We should agree on a simply moving up of the paragraph, the one that states that this is a policy.  I don't understand why there is so much opposition. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is so much opposition because nobody agrees with the change. Either:
 * the proposed change does not change the meaning, in which case, the proposed change is a waste of time and energy and should not be made, or
 * it changes the meaning (perhaps subtly), in which case, opposition indicates that the proposed change does not reflect what the editors support, and should not be made.
 * The fact that the change seems "better" to you personally, is not enough; you have to convince other editors that it really is an improvement. Personally, I think that the proposed reordering makes this important point less visible, and therefore seem less important, to the reader.  I think the proposed de-valuing of this line makes this section worse, not better.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose... I simply don't see the need. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be an improvement if we put an emphasis on we, so to make clear that it's "we" and not "think" that is the emphasized word in the final part of the first sentence? The problem, as I see it, is when someone comes along thinking "Well, it's not so much that I think this is true, this is true!" The editors best served by reading this policy are often the ones that are unable to imagine a distinction between what is true and what they think is true. Gabbe (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's essentially the same issue I was proposing to solve with the "believe" wording, but I really don't see any consensus for any change whatsoever at this point. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with adding "or believe"... Lots of people believe that "Jesus is the Son of God" or that "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammed is his Prophet"... For those believers, both statements are "True"... but it would be impropper to add either statement based on that belief. Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Writing *about* a statement vs. asserting truth of that statement
Something that nobody seems to have mentioned is that history includes beliefs that were widespread or at least acceptable at one time but less so today. Mentioning or quoting such statements to explain their context is good coverage that should not be removed. On the other hand, if you doubt a statement in Wikipedia is true, the best course of action is not necessarily removing it or demanding proof. It may be better to add alternate views, or simply rephrase the passage so that it is mentioning the statement but less assertive of the truth of that statement. --JWB (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you're trying to say, I'm afraid. Could you provide an actual example of a statement that, in your opinion, does not need citation to a reliable source?
 * "rephrase the passage so that it is" ... "less assertive of the truth": That would no longer be the same statement. Paradoctor (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Consider the difference between: "Jesus is the Son of God" versus "Many people believe that Jesus is the Son of God." There are no acceptable Reliable Sources for the first but the second statement is very easy to refrence to a Reliable Source. Roger (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Many" is a typical WP:WEASEL word. There are also many who believe that Jesus was a messenger of God. The example needs to be deweaseled before we can begin discussing sources. Paradoctor (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I often use examples, but that example is getting into a very touchy subject. Some people murder in the name of religion. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some murder for candy. So what? Paradoctor (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some may claim that someone is asserting that the Bible is unreliable, that's all. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So? Let it be known: Paradoctor says: The Bible is not a reliable source. Neither ar the Qur'an, the Vedas, the Torah, the Smritis, the sutras, the Tao Te Ching, the writings of Confucius, and the myriads of other religious texts.
 * If I cease to edit after this one, feed my goldfish. Paradoctor (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source? As if such a sweeping statement can be made without considering a "reliable source -- for what purpose"?  Religious texts are certainly reliable sources for their own contents.  If someone says "The following words are present in this religious text", then the religious text itself is certainly a reliable source.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WhatamI is quite correct... religious texts are reliable sources for statements as to their own contents. However, a word of caution is needed. Religious texts used in this way are primary sources... citing or quoting from primary sources can easily result (either intentionally or unintentionally) in original research. Blueboar (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "reliable sources for statements as to their own contents": That is trivially true for every source. The Bible is basically a collection of SPS which have been endlessly edited, redacted, amended, reinterpreted and retranslated. No a single statement in the Bible can be trusted on its own. No religious text I know of has been subjected to scientific peer review before publication. For encyclopedic purposes, the Bible is just as reliable as some Internutter's Usenet rant. Paradoctor (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are perfectly acceptable, and entirely encyclopedic, ways to use religious texts on Wikipedia. Don't let an anti-religious bias blind you to common sense.  The Psalms are a reliable source for a statement like "the Psalms is a collection of religious poetry", just like Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine is a reliable source for a statement like "Harrison's is a medical textbook."  The contents are also perfectly acceptable for making assertions:  The Book of Genesis makes a perfectly fine source for the statement that Abraham's wife was named Sarah, or that he had a son named Isaac, and so forth.  (It is not, however, a perfectly fine source for saying that a single human, Abraham, definitely existed and experienced certain events at the stated ages.)
 * Relatively few of Wikipedia's reliable sources have been subjected to scientific peer review before publication. For example, practically none of the sources that we use to write about law, society, popular culture, art, history, language, businesses, or people can claim to have been subjected to scientific peer review.  Reliable sources are not required to be peer-reviewed.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "There are perfectly" ..."encyclopedic, ways to use religious texts": Agreed.
 * "let an anti-religious bias blind you to common sense": Errm, common sense is the cause of my anti-religious bias.
 * 'Psalms are a reliable source for a statement like "the Psalms is a  collection of religious poetry"': That is already a borderline case. I  don't know how large they are, but to verify that statement, you'd have  to scan most of the text of psalms to ensure that they are indeed a)  poetry and b) religious in nature. Some readers might balk at the idea.  To give you an illustative example: The King James bible available from  Project Gutenberg contains
 * "devil": 117 times
 * "gates": 145 times
 * "windows": 30 times
 * "X": not once
 * But to verify that, a reader would have to repeat my analysis. That is no longer what verifiability  is about. A more extreme example would be to state that "Andrew Wiles  proved Fermat's last theorem", and citing Wiles' paper for verification.  There may be a few dozen mathematicians in the world who can verify  this statement from this source, but for everybody else, this won't  work.
 * "Reliable sources are not required to be peer-reviewed": Maybe, but we need some criteria by which to judge a source reliable, and  (non-scientific) peer review is the only practically applied criterion I'm aware of. Expert review is an indirect form of peer  review, where someone is accepted as expert if s/he is accepted by other experts as an expert. Paradoctor (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's generally said that there are 150 psalms, although I understand that the numbering varies a bit. They run rather less than one page per poem, so scanning the contents wouldn't take very long, although it wouldn't matter:  Wikipedia does not require that it be convenient, free, or quick for the reader to obtain the source's contents.  Identifying it as being poetry might be somewhat harder if you're not reading the original, but, again, Wikipedia does not require sources to be in English.
 * The fact is that Wikipedia would normally cite the Psalms themselves to support a claim that they are religious poems, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone itself to support a claim that Rowling wrote a fictional novel about a young wizard, and Harrison's itself to support a claim that it is an internal medicine textbook. The advice at WP:PLOTSUM is accurate and widely accepted, and can be applied even to strictly non-fictional works.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "150 psalms": As I said, a borderline case. As long as nobody complains, I see no problem.
 * My point is, you can't use texts as sources for every claim based solely on their contents. There are claims that require replication of unreasonable amounts of analysis, or specialist knowledge not available to the typical reader. Such claims cannot be sourced to the text, they need secondary sources. In the psalms example, even when considering the Bible itself sufficient, secondary sources (which surely exist in this case) are clearly preferable. Paradoctor (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Related but different idea about false information
Verifiability not truth is being discussed. There was an idea discussed that some try to excuse false information just because it has a citation. This is not permitted by another WP policy, WP:Civility.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility

"including deliberately asserting false information"

How about adding this to the first paragraph.

Old version:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think or believe it is true.

Proposed version:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think or believe it is true. However, note that the civility policy prohibits "deliberately asserting false information".

Making a reference to another policy is fine, even this policy WP:V does it! Hope we can agree on this simple sentence! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please consider that I'm saying this with the utmost respect for your person and your motives: Now you've gone off the deep end. Seriously. Nonplussed, Paradoctor (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 99% of us are ok. But the verifiability, not truth has been misused as an excuse to put anything in as long as there is a source.  This minor addition just reminds people that obviously false information is not permitted.  If it is borderline, there can always be discussion.  Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "verifiability, not truth has been misused as an excuse to put anything in as long as there is a source": Kindly provide examples. I have my doubts that the problem you claim is really traceable to this formulation. Paradoctor (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Suomi, you're trying to reinvent the wheel to some extent here. You might want to take some time to look through our archives, as this has all been thrashed out, except for the civility thing which is a new one. But while I like the idea that it's simply uncivil to edit badly, it's unlikely to gain traction. :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 20:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Suomi... the problem with your concept is: who defines whether the information is "obviously false"? Consider the following: I read some bit of information in a reliable source... I assume it is correct (since the source is reliable)... so I add it to an article and cite the source. Later you come along and say the information is "obviously false" ...  did I misuse "verifiability, not truth"?   I don't think so.  Blueboar (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reasonable people will interpret things reasonably. It's just like "reliable source".  Who defines it?  The same with "obviously false".  I did not make up that term.  It was in the policy.  There are some things that are obviously false without doubt.  For example, "I won every Olympic medal in 2006 and 2010".  That is obviously false.


 * As far as being uncivil to intentionally put in obviously false information, this is not my idea. It is established policy.  The fact that SlimVirgin saying "it's a new one" is very revealing.  It shows that a well informed editor like Slim did not know an important policy.  Having a brief mention here therefore helps inform.  Because of the new revelation with Slim, I must strongly proposed that this minor addition and linkage to a related policy is very important, more important than many of the other things I have mentioned.


 * Please, strongly consider a very brief mention of the WP:CIV policy that I mentioned, i.e., note that the civility policy prohibits "deliberately asserting false information". The question now becomes, why are you opposed to such a brief addition of policy?  It is policy so if you oppose that policy, go to that other policy to oppose it but opposition here is inappropriate.  It seems helpful as we just saw.  See, I am not dumb as I have good ideas! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is a separate section because I am close to abandoning moving a paragraph up but think that a brief mention of another policy is a better idea. Actually, discussion is good but since the other policy is established, addition of a brief mention does not change policy and opposition should be tempered.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The civility policy is about behavior towards other editors, not about article content. If that escaped your notice, I'm pretty sure trying to change policy is going to be a very frustrating experience for you. Paradoctor (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We also must Assume good faith... which means that we should assume that the editor who is inserting the information did so in good faith (remember, in the situation we have been discussing there is a reliable source for the "false" information). Also, what WP:CIV is really talking about here is vandalism. Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, a lot of the really heated edit wars lack good faith, at least in part. Snippy comments and non-neutral comments are common.  Are we rejecting Wikipedia policy?  If so, the false information policy shouldn't be mentioned.  If we are not rejecting Wikipedia policy then we shouldn't worry about including just a brief mention of the policy. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is "rejecting" any Wikipeida policy... We are ensuring that they work in harmony. We are accounting for the fact that there may be disagreement as to whether the information is in fact "true" or "false"... we are also accounting for the fact that the editor who added the information may not know that the information is "false" (since they took the information from a reliable source)... in either case, the editor who added the objectionable information is not "deliberately asserting false information".  Again, WP:CIV is talking about acts of WP:Vandalism... not the addition of statements that are based upon a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * An encylopedia is crap is it has wrong information. That's why we should discourage wrong information.  Sometimes, we don't know the correct information.  That is ok if the question is difficult. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "rejecting Wikipedia policy"? Paradoctor (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By essentially saying "I don't want to include a mention of that other WP Policy here" Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The two are not related. What you propose amounts to mentioning that the Clintons had a cat named Socks in Hellas Planitia, it simply makes no sense. Paradoctor (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See this sentence in the lead. "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."  Also not directly related.  They are related in that they are policies just as the WP:CIV is policy.


 * I have reviewed WP:Consensus and there is a flow diagram. Consensus Flowchart.svg  If you disagree, please suggest alternate wording.  Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ...and in an edit war where the key concept of good faith is being ignored, an extra line in a policy is going to garner attention enough to convert the lost? (John User:Jwy talk) 16:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We can do our best to write policies clearly. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it is necessary to deliberately assert false information, e.g., when describing pseudoscience. I can't think of an encyclopedic description of Time Cube that doesn't relate the "false information" to the reader.  We don't, in those instances, want to assert that the information is correct -- in fact, we want to quite clearly indicate that it is widely derided as nonsense -- but we do need to "assert false information" to the point of saying that the idea exists.
 * Additionally, for better or worse, we have chosen to rely on published sources. It's no good saying, "This is wrong, and I have a private e-mail message to prove it".  Wikipedia doesn't operate from pre-publication drafts and personal experiences, even if the result is that the article asserts false information as being absolute truth for the time being.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Sometimes it is necessary to deliberately assert false information": No, no, no, no, NOOOOOH! Arrrrgh! We never, never, never, EVER deliberately assert false information. We do not assert any of the statements in Time Cube, we report on them. If Joe says F, we say "Joe said F". This is not the same as asserting "F". Completely different things. What are you doing, WhatamIdoing? Paradoctor (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Major error in writing this policy
The first sentence says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true."

This is not entirely correct. One of the thresholds and an important threshold is verifiability. But it is only one of the thresholds. All of the thresholds need to be followed. Later it says "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." So it must be neutral and it must be verifiable.

I do not propose a change at this point but I seek confirmation, sort of consensus, that this exact wording is not accurate. In Wikipedia, we often accept less than accurate wording. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you aware that the definition of WP:Neutral is essentially "whatever is verifiable"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Suomi Finland 2009 contacted me about commenting on this policy. I think WP:CIVIL does not apply directly, but WP:NPOV does apply, and could be added.  Civility is a metaphor for veracity, but neutrality is like a simile for verifiability.  Bearian (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a little more than that. Neutral is that it must be neutral. Verifiability is that it must be verified but doesn't have to be neutral. But it does say later that all 3 have to be followed so there's no excuse for verified, biased information. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * From the first paragraph of WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Which means that in some cases we must include verifiable information that some people will consider "not true"... for no other reason than because other people believe that verifiable information is "true".  This is in sync with our Verifiability, not truth statement... What matters is that the information is verifiable... not whether it is or is not "true".
 * Suomi... multiple experienced editors are all telling you the same thing... that your take on this is flawed. Continuing to bang a broken drum is pointless.  You are not going to convince people to change the phrase.  Please, accept this and move on. Blueboar (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you are in error. Bearian, a law professor, has made a comment pointing out a flaw.  Besides, I am no longer trying to change the phrase but am trying to point out that we may have a consensus for flawed writing. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Drama lovers must love this. I tried to remove my comments before there were responses but this is not allowed by some.  Of course, now the genie is out of the bottle.  Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * One man's "flaw" can be another's perfection. Crum375 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope not! We shouldn't think this policy is written perfectly.  We may not be able to improve it because of resistance, however.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

REQUEST CLOSURE of this subsection Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Granted with pleasure... REQUEST CLOSURE of the entire thread. Blueboar (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Collapsing as a box per agreement of another editor. I am the one who started the sub-section.  This appears acceptible.  This is different from someone trying to close a discussion that someone else started because that may cause hard feelings, may create a suspicion of censorship, may prematurely end discussion.  This is not the case here. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Guidance for V, not truth
I seek guidance from experts of this policy. One of the 3 major train stations is called Gare de Bruxelles-Midi.

A very reliable source is Belgian Rail. http://www.b-rail.be/php/news/index.php?lang=E&task=view&id=826 It's English page calls it that.

Doing some original thinking, the station signs say Bruxelles-Midi and Brussel Zuid. I have never seen a sign saying Brussels South.

Someone from Spain insists on Brussels South. Someone from Belgium says that French should not be used with the exclusion of Dutch. RS in English use the French name. KentOnline (UK) uses the French name.

Without deciding on Dutch or French, does WP:V support the use of something other than an English translation that the primary source doesn't use. The primary source has English webpages but the name of the station is in French. Part of the reason might be that Midi does not quite translate into South.

I seek not a definitive ruling but what the WP:V policy would point to. Is this a case of veriability? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Truth through Verifiability
As I see it, the whole goal of any verifiability proposal, is to increase the amount of truth (* to whatever measure this term has any meaning) that Wikipedia contains. The only reason we care about verifiability is that without verifiability we will either 1) allow all kinds of junk into Wikipedia, or 2) spend too much time arguing about what is in Wikipedia. Jrincayc (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)