Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 37

Self-published sources and organisations
The policy currently states -
 * Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources..

Now that corporations have been explictly excluded from WP:BLP may I suggest WP:V is updated to explictly exclude SPS for active organisations? If necessary perhaps just for contentious issues? Wikipedia shouldn't be a haven for gossip and I can't see any real justification for explicitly disallowing it for people but not for organisations --Insider201283 (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example of the kind of situation you have in mind, Insider? SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 22:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Insider201283, your reference to WP:BLP seems to be at odds with your proposal. The BLP policy says corporations don't count as persons, and thus are not afforded the extra care and protection afforded to living human beings. But you are proposing to provide extra protection for corporate persons in this policy. This seems contradictory. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jc3s5h, that was my point. Previously there was no clear guidelines with regards, for example corporations, which are legally "persons". Footnote 7 of WP:BLP quoted Jimmy Wales opinion regards afD where he explictly mentioned living persons and active companies -
 * "...In the meantime, it is my position that MOST AfD pages for living persons or active companies should be courtesy blanked (at a minimum) as a standard process, and deleted in all cases where there was inappropriate commentary. This is not the current policy, but current policy does allow for deletions of material which is potentially hurtful to people."
 * WP:BLP was changed last year and there is now a clear policy that corporations are not covered by the general prohibition on using SPS and I'm not quite sure the thinking behind this. SPS are inherently unreliable and companies (particularly publicly listed ones) can be "hurt" as much or even more so by gossip on a blog being repeated in WP. SlimVirgin - no particular current situation in mind, I'm not actively editing at the moment, just noticed the BLP change. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Self-published sources shouldn't be used as sources unless the writer is an acknowledged expert in the area who has previously been published in that area by independent sources. That stops random blogs from being used. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 03:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but then you get into arguments about what "in the area" is. Say Dr Hillsberg is a geographer and has had a book published about Himalayan geography. On his blog says that Mt Kosciusko is Australia's highest mountain. He may be an expert on the Himalayas, but not Australia - Kosciusko is the highest on the mainland, but there are higher ones such as Mawson Peak on Heard Island. One could argue his blog is WP:RS because he's an expert in geography. --Insider201283 (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Insider201283, before you try to get this policy set up to directly contradict the spirit of BLP, I suggest you get BLP changed first. I'm not in favor of untrue statements about corporations, but I'm not in favor of contradictory policies either.


 * As for "SPS are inherently unreliable" I can't accept that, in part because there is no agreement about what a self-published source is. The regulars on this board will tell you that only natural persons, or a small gang of natural persons, can self-publish, but I maintain that if the publisher is not a recognized publisher with no ax to grid, it could be considered a self-publisher. Thus, Microsoft's programming manuals for their software and supreme court decisions are all self-published, no matter what the regulars think. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem with changing BLP is I think we shouldn't just be considering "legal persons" like corporations, but also other formal organisations. With regards "publishers" I agree with you, and had never encountered the "natural persons" argument for SPS. To me, Supreme Court decisions are clearly SPS, but they're also clearly by a recognised "expert" in the field of law (thought also usually primary sources). More importantly, there's many "boutique" publishers who'll publish anything for a fee - they're self-published works as well. --Insider201283 (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Self-published within the terms of the policy means published by one person or a small group with no employees, no oversight. A personal blog is the typical model. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 03:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we are also using the term in its traditional sense of boutique or vanity press publications... where the editorial oversight rests with the author, even though there may be a company that is listed as the "publisher". Blueboar (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is not part of the policy, so all the expounding by all the regulars don't influence the policy one whit. The policy contains a list of examples that fit in with SlimVirgin's concept, but the policy does not say the list is exhaustive, nor does it say something like "and sources of similar character" or words to that effect, so anything that would be considered self-published in the English-speaking world can be considered self-published in the policy. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My memory is that I wrote all or most of that section originally, and I wrote it with the sole-writer/vanity-press model in mind. A new definition can't be imposed on it now. If we want a new definition that includes the Supreme Court (a primary source, not an SPS), we would need to gain consensus for that&mdash;and I'm fairly sure we wouldn't get it&mdash;and then we would have to rewrite that section. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 04:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin: what you had in your mind when you wrote it never made it from your mind to your fingertips. The policy as written does not exclude large organizations from being considered self-publishers. I don't mind limiting the definition, for policy purposes, to publications where all the editorial decisions are made by one, or a small group, of private individuals. But the policy has no such limitation right now.


 * Any such refinement would have to distinguish between a small group acting as private individuals from a small group who have been placed in an important position by a significant authority. The supreme court would be an example of the latter. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It did make it to my fingertips, JC, if you read the sentence. It would look a little silly if it said, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, decisions passed down by the U.S. Supreme Court are largely not acceptable as sources." SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 05:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The least-reliable of the range of self-published sources is clearly enough defined, but the dividing line between self-published and other sources is not described. Jc3s5h (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a similar discussion at VPP. Should we merge at WP:CENT? Paradoctor (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can take that part of the discussion there, but the topic I raised is the issue of using SPS with active organisations and not just "living persons" as per "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer"--Insider201283 (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mistook "SPS about" for "SPS by". I have never been here. Paradoctor (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A corporate annual report is a SPS. However, it is often very reliable because of the danger of shareholder lawsuits and because annual reports are a requirement of national securities regulatory agencies. This statement is not for or against any side but is just a fact that nobody mentioned. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * An annual report is not an SPS. It is a primary source, not a self-published one. An SPS has no editorial or legal oversight, no established process for checking facts, no professionals on board, no libel insurance. There is no one who can say "No," or "In my professional capacity, I strongly advice against this," or "I'm not going to sign off on this, so it will invalidate your insurance," or "I'm going to call a meeting of the editorial board and they will overrule you," etc. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 21:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Question: I don't know anything about annual reports. The way I understand it, it is produced by employees of the reporting company. The thing that distinguishes them from paradigmatic SPSes would be the risk of legal sanctions for inaccurate reports, is that correct? Paradoctor (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not in my view. Any large organization which publishes an official report of any kind, would not be an SPS. An SPS is generally an individual, or small group of individuals, who have no (or almost no) vetting or editorial oversight. A large organization would always get multiple people to review and vet their publications, and thus not be an SPS. Crum375 (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Paradoctor, that makes it a primary source: one written by people who are involved. It is not self-published by any of them. To use the latter definition of self-published would mean practically everything was self-published. The New York Times is published by its employees, for example. Self-published refers to websites, vanity books, blogs, tweets etc., as the policy says. Things you publish yourself. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 22:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) "self-published by any of them": Right. But they are all paid by the same legal person, which means that, in effect, the legal person  creates the content. This is different from scientific publishing, where  the publisher does not produce the content, and often doesn't even pay  the author. I'm not saying that the NYT is inherently unreliable because  it is an SPS. What I say is that the criterion for SPS appears to be  that the content of the publication is controlled by the author, whereas  in other sources, control of the publication is with the publisher.  Would you trust the NYT when making a statement about its own  journalistic standards after a competitor has made allegations of  misconduct? Paradoctor (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would. Anyone claiming that the NYT, or any similar publisher, is an SPS has not worked in publishing. There are a tremendous number of checks and balances, there are editorial boards, there are lawyers, there are editors, there are publishers, there are writers, there are managing editors. No one gets to write what they want. It is very rare that owners seek to impose their views. When they do, they radically reduce the credibility of the publication; people leave, write about it etc. It can't be compared with you or me posting our blog to blogger. That's an SPS. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Is there somewhere that clarifies this definition of SPS? I agree with it, but in the past I've operated on the assumption that something like an annual report would be considered both self-published and a primary source. How about an example where a publishing company has only published a handful (or fewer) of books, and the authors appear to be the owners of the publishing company? I've encountered that more than once. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the policy makes it pretty clear. It says we're talking about websites, tweets etc. An SPS (e.g. you and me, now, writing these posts and publishing them instantly) has no checks and balances, that's the key difference. Authors owning the company will depend on size, number of employees etc. Usually anything established as a company will have libel insurance, for example, so there you instantly have a big constraint on what you can publish. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 22:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy also mentions "vanity presses", I would think someone setting up a company to publish their own book would fit under that description, but it's not always so clear to establish. I was trying to track one 5yr old book's publisher and it was only after tracking down 5 yr old UK company records I discovered the publisher's sole owner was the author and the "publishing company" existed for just the one year. To my mind that's clearly a SPS and "vanity press", but you'd never know without a deal of sleuthing. Hmm, and interestingly while just googling it now, that book does show up as a reference used on a Wikipedia article! --Insider201283 (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Insider on vanity presses... I see no difference between self-publishing on-line via a personal webpage and self-pubishing in paper via a vanity press. Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The policy covers vanity presses: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable." SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 23:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just making sure. :>) Blueboar (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is or ever has been a real definition of SPS here. Though it could use some work and more references, our article on it - Self-publishing does a reasonable job though, imho.  I inserted a link to it a while ago, but was immediately reverted I now see.  I still think it is appropriate.John Z (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Self-publishing is different from the Wikipedia concept of a self published source. For example, the former excludes vanity press, while the latter includes it. SPS on WP is a source which is typically an individual or a small group which lacks the legal vetting and editorial review mechanisms inherent in a larger organization. Crum375 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Self-publishing has a subsection on vanity presses, it is included as a type of self-publishing in the definition used there, the absence of a traditional publisher.John Z (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Self-publishing states that, "Self-publishing is the publishing of books and other media by the authors of those works, rather than by established, third-party publishers, or by vanity presses." Even if we assume that vanity press is still within their scope (the language is confusing), it is still focused on the lack of a "third-party" publisher. This is clearly at odds with Wikipedia's concept of self published source, which is focused on the editorial oversight and vetting mechanisms, not on the physical publisher or its independence from the author(s). Linking to this article, which is focused on the quality, size and independence of the publisher, would confuse our editors. For example, the New York Times uses itself, not a "third-party" as publisher, yet is clearly not an SPS. So these are apples and oranges. Crum375 (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A clearer sentence in that article is "The key distinguishing characteristic of self-publishing is the absence of a traditional publisher." It can't be clearly at odds with the wikipedia concept, because the wikipedia concept is essentially left undefined - left as "I know it when I see it."  This is not too unreasonable; I meant the link as an obstacle to witty wheel-reinventers, who occasionally come up with "the NYT is self-published." As the New York Times is itself a traditional publisher, it is neither an SPS as you mean it, nor self-published in any way. So imho, it is not at all a case of apples and oranges, but a case of a workable definition whose results are pretty much identical to what we do in reality.John Z (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

<-Alright, so if someone pays to setup a company to publish their book, they're still paying to have it published, so it falls under WP:SPS. That still leaves the original question - why are SPS currently considered acceptable in articles other than BLP, and in particular articles about active organisations?--Insider201283 (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * They're largely only acceptable in articles or sections of articles about themselves. This was introduced to make sure people and organizations had the right to present their views. Otherwise we could have a situation where a newspaper says something negative about a person or group, and that person or group has no right of reply. By allowing them to use their own website as a source, it means the Wikipedia article can make clear, "The New York Times alleged that X, but group A denied the charge." The only other time an SPS is acceptable is if an expert in the field in question self-publishes something on his blog, for example. But he must be an expert who was previously published in his field by an independent source, and even then it's best to avoid such sources&mdash;we allow them but they're not encouraged. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 09:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the "only other time" part that I'm concerned about. As per the example I gave earlier re Himilaya's vs Australian mountains, where does "expertise" begin and end? Furthermore, why is a blog by say, a published author on a book about Bill Clinton never acceptable as a source on Bill Clinton but a blog by a published author on a book about McDonalds is potentially acceptable as a source on McDonalds? I simply don't see a reason for a difference? Or heck let's take another example that's not even an organisation. Someone is an expert on Vitamin C, having numerous publications on the topic. They're not an expert on autism, having never published on the topic. On their blog they say "excess vitamin C in childhood causes autism" - it can be argued there blog is acceptable source for this claim in the autism article, since they're an acknowledged expert about vitamin C. Or a blog by a solar physicist with no publications in climate science claiming GW is a result of changes in the sun. Shouldn't they at least be an established expert on the topic of the article? And even then - why allow it at all except in the case you gave of a SPS by the topic of the article? What's the justification?


 * A case in favor of self-published-sources is an author publishes a book. The readers report errors, and the author creates an errata sheet on his/her web site, and keeps it available for a number of years. The book publisher either does not provide errata at all, or only for a fairly brief period while the book is in print. This happened in the case of Anchell and Troop's The Film Developing Cookbook. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well at present, as the policy is written, if the book was on Bill Clinton, wouldn't that make the errata sheet unacceptable as a source for the article on Bill Clinton? Yet allowable if the article was on the Clinton Foundation? This makes no sense to me. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is simply that living persons (not legal persons, but human persons) are given extra protection, and the community has never decided to extend that protection to companies, which are perhaps seen as better able to protect themselves. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 23:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting and I must say my first reaction is that's a rather "arrogant" perspective (I mean from a wikipedia viewpoint, not you personally). That assumes that organisations are (a) actively monitoring wikipedia and (b) willing to go through the incredibly tedious and time consuming (and one would think, expensive) process of trying to get things fixed through talk pages and if necessary other dispute resolution processes and/or (c) willing to sue to get stuff changed, which I hope all would want to avoid. In my opinion it makes much more sense to avoid the problem in the first place, I can't see how allowing such SPS contributes more than the editing conflicts and lack of accuracy it likely creates. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't encountered an SPS causing problems for a company, unless it's a very obvious piece of vandalism or a clearly poor source. Do you have any examples? SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 00:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a company... but as an example of where SPSs make all sorts of outlandish claims about an organization... just do a quick web search on Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This would be similar to a religious organization, and we'd need to have the very best reliable sources to review it. We won't generally accept a blog or somebody's website to review the Catholic Church, nor should we accept blogs to review Freemasonry. Clearly there are excellent non-SPS sources to review both organizations. Crum375 (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pick any organisation where there's some controversy. A few years ago I spent way too much of my life trying to get the article on Amway in to some sense of NPOV balance (it's been pretty good since) and was constantly dealing with people wanting to cite certain SPS and claiming the authors were "experts". I've noticed that articles on other companies in the direct selling/MLM industry have suffered from the same problem (often with the same sources pushed by the same people, funnily enough). I've just never understood the justification for the inconsistency between how individuals and how organisations are treated and when I noticed WP:BLP had been changed to be more explicit thought I'd enquire about it. To my mind a poor source is a poor source, doesn't matter what the article is about, and except in very limited examples such as the errata mentioned, SPS should pretty much never be used. I'm sure the "expert" out has been tried by POV pushers in many articles, particularly ones with some opposing POVs.. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in general. The more contentious the issue, and esp. if it's BLP related and about third parties, the less we'd be inclined to use an SPS. In the quality scale of reliable sources, SPS is near the bottom, so it should be used with extreme care if at all, and reliable non-SPS sources are preferable to SPS ones. But if the issue is non-contentious information about the source itself, then it's generally acceptable. Crum375 (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be fine, except as it stands now even contentious information backed by SPS is acceptable in non-BLP articles, the editor just has to come up with some kind of justification the author is an "expert", which leads of course to all sorts of other problems of (lack of) definition. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We already say "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." In other words, we may use it with caution, but non-SPS reliable sources are preferable. If it's a contentious BLP, it's unacceptable. Crum375 (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But it remains acceptable in a contentious non-BLP article through a poorly defined and potentially contentious definition. To be frank I haven't yet heard an even remotely convincing argument for that allowance. "Organisations can defend themselves" isn't really a good argument in my book, particularly given the hoops an organisation has to jump through to contribute to an article about itself. I think it's fine for non-contentious information, but I'm pretty certain wikipedia would be a happier place, with better articles, (and perhaps retain more editors) if the allowance was removed. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have an actual example in mind? This would have to be a previously reliably-published expert (presumably) criticizing an organization, and no better sources are available. An actual example here, where the current policy falls short, would be very helpful. Crum375 (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, not quite what you are asking, but check out the article on Multi-level Marketing. I've just posted a list of self-published sources used on the article in the talk page . A number of them come from some websites run by two well known anti-MLM critics, Jon Taylor & Robert FitzPatrick. I've dealt with the editor (Bruce Grubb) who is using them before, both on WP and elsewhere, and his claim is the SPS are allowable because the website article authors are "experts". One, FitzPatrick, has a book (False Profits) which was published by Herald Press, a "press" which has the same physical address as his "institute" and website - clearly self-published. His other claim to "expertise" is that Taylor and FitzPatrick's web pages have been cited a (very) small number of times in ostensibly peer-reviewed papers. Now this doesn't pass the ill-defined SPS "expert" guideline anyway as they themselves have no peer-reviewed or otherwise WP:RS publications. I've previously put the sites up on RS/N for commentary and they were rejected, but Bruce ignored this at the time and quite frankly I haven't had the energy or time to pursue it. My point is that having to go through all this process shouldn't be necessary at all - there doesn't appear to be any real justification for considering them in the first place. When is an SPS really justified apart from in an article about the author(s) of the SPS? As written it just invites abuse and time and energy wasting. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about the perception of "time and energy wasting", but unfortunately that's par for the course. I don't think the issue you raise is specific to BLP, or even "corporate BLP". It seems to be a classical case of an SPS used to support a claim for which better sources cannot be found. WP:SPS already handles this by requiring the SPS to be an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The policy further states that "caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." If in your example there is no clear indication of the SPS "experts" having been previously published in a reliable source, they cannot be used as a reliable source. Crum375 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I for one, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, have substantially limited my contributions to WP *because* of time wasting such as this, and in this case I don't think it needs to be par for the course as, apart from with regards articles or sources about or by the subject of the article, I can't see a personal blog or other website ever being justified as a reliable source for encyclopedic content. So the question remains - why allow it at all?


 * If Albert Einstein lived today, and had a personal webpage where he described his latest scientific ideas, most people would consider it a reliable source. We would probably want to use in-text attribution in such a case, "According to AE, ...", but otherwise we'd have no problem citing what he thinks about a specific physics issue. In fact, this could be a valuable source if he didn't bother publishing that material elsewhere. But clearly we need to be extra-cautious when using SPS as a source in general, and be sure it is really needed and there is no better source elsewhere. Crum375 (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I for one would argue against use AE's blog as a source for anything other than info on AE. There's a reason for the peer-review and editing process. Now if his published work is cited, and he's clarified something about it in his blog, well ok, it's a comment about the RS by the author of the RS. Direct expertise is pretty much indisputable. As it stands though, AE could have a comment on the physics of global warming, in which he has no expertise, and it could be argued as an expert in physics it should be included. No it shouldn't. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we have to be focused on our readers. The average reader wants to read here only about information which has been well-vetted and reviewed by multiple parties prior to publication, in general (i.e. non-SPS). But in some special cases, where an established expert in his field who has been previously published elsewhere writes new information in his personal webpage or blog, it can shed interesting and useful light on important developing issues, and would be welcome by most readers, as long as the source attribution is clear. Crum375 (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds more the role of a newspaper or magazine columnist than an encyclopedia. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But two points: First, Wikipedia does a pretty good job of following the latest news, and the public relies on it for that, per hit rates following major news event, which dwarf normal levels. And second, if we write about topic X in great breadth and depth, and there is recent development in that area according to a renowned expert on his website, which is not published elsewhere, it's our duty to include it for a "complete picture". Crum375 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's in the news then there *is* already an RS source, it's not a WP editors job to go around digging up commentary from non-RS sources--Insider201283 (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * True. But if we have an article on General relativity and AE has his own website in which he's just added his review of the latest state of the art (which would make him a secondary source to avoid complications), I see no reason for editors of the wiki article to avoid using that as a reliable source (with in-text attribution if it's in any way controversial). Crum375 (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And a week later he changes it, realising he had made a mistake, but there's no press release or publication, as there would be for a journal, and no WP editor notices the change so it stays wrong on WP. That's what editorial review is for and why SPS is dangerous, even for an acknowledged expert like Einstein. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If Einstein lived today, people would call him a fraud. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Insider, Wikipedians could just as easily miss the correction in the newspaper or journal, as on Einstein's website. I would say you're on a hiding to nothing trying to remove that SPS's can sometimes be reliable sources, because it's widely accepted. In fact, there are lots editors who would prefer to remove our "must be an expert previously published in the field" restriction. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 21:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which would turn WP into little more than an official gossip rag, rather than the one it only occasionally is through lack of attention. Ok, how about a little clarification on "expert" then - they should "be an expert previously published on the topic of the article" - so our friend Albert can talk relativity but not climate change. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's already there. The WP:SPS exclusion is for "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."(emphasis added) This would preclude AE from reporting on climate change, unless he changed his career path at some point. Crum375 (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My issue was with the "relevant field" part - AE has published in physics, so therefore he's published in the "relevant field" to talk about physics - a "physics expert", so even if he has no credentials in climate change he may be considered cleared as an SPS source on the physics of climate change. That's not an entirely hypothetical situation, I've encountered this type of argument more than once, for example an SPS source saying "Organisation A is a cult" is allowed from a supposed "cult expert" even if they've done no study at all in to "Organisation A" and their opinion is based on little more than a handful of self-selected hearsay reports. I would think they'd need some recognized expertise on the topic of the article.--Insider201283 (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are saying that some people would consider AE's publications in theoretical physics to be the "relevant field" for climate change, then you should have no problem to get consensus of rational editors agreeing that it isn't. I believe the existing language does a good job of clarifying that the published expertise must be on the right topic and in the right field. If you can suggest tighter language that wouldn't hamper reasonable flexibility (e.g. AE commenting on a new twist in relativity, or other parts of theoretical physics that relate to his expertise), it would be very helpful. Crum375 (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of what I'm talking about. on RS/N. I posted a source I think is clearly not RS. Despite myself and the other editor disputing the source, there's been only two other editors comment in the past 4-5 days, one of which didn't really say anything. The other editor is arguing the source stands because the author is an "expert". There's something like 5 to 10 similar SPS sources this editor has used, some of which I've already had at RS/N on other articles and been rejected. He continues to use them under the "expert" out. Am I going to have the energy to bother, or will he just get his way because it's too damn hard to fix? Heck, even rewording the SPS text a little may not help - if some has stated something in a paper, and that paper has been peer-reviewed, then it can be argued they're a peer-reviewed expert on that statement! Even though it may be something with as wide a gulf as sport psychology and law or math. Frankly I don't know how to address it.--Insider201283 (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Shelling of maidstone
On the night before the first V1,s came over Maidstone was hit by approximatly 50 small shells that came from the south. Could this have been a test firing of the high pressure guns? P Marchese —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.156.239 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Context needed. What article is this about, and what source are you referring to? Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, History of Maidstone mentions this, and this source verifies the shelling, as well as this account from 1948. No speculation about the type of gun used though. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * this may be of interest. yields several other sources.User:LeadSongDog  come howl  23:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Germany's Calais Guns Reported Able to Shell Town 65 Miles Away London, Oct. 3.—(U.P)—German long-range guns at Calais were capable of throwing shells 65 miles, it was revealed Tuesday with the disclosure that the weapons shelled the area of Maidstone, capital of the county of Kent, in the early morning last June 13. Maidstone is 65 miles from Calais. Seven shells fell in and around the city between 1:45 and 3:45 a. m., damaging a number of houses and causing the death of one person, Miss Nora Saltmarsh, 65." Identical story appeared also in the Nevada State Journal the following day.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:41, 18 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)


 * I don't see that. I propose it be straightforward and official policy, SV.  What we have is not clear enough to discourage editors from deleting broken links solely because the URL isn't working any longer.  And I don't think CITE alone even establishes the guideline; I just reread it.   I have to synthesise :CITE, :SOURCE and :LINKROT to get that this is already policy.


 * Consider: For an editor or user who comes around, a dead, unarchived link could still be useful. Such a link indicates that the information was (probably) verifiable in the past, or had been cited elsewhere, and the link might provide another user with enough information to find the reference, even if one user can't.  One could contact the person who originally added he source. One could contact the Yale Computer Science department if, hypothetically, www.cs.yale.edu/~elvey/Defense-in-Depth-PhD-thesis.pdf was dead...--Elvey (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Can a cite be in the history
A prolific editor has been claiming that he can explain his source in the revision comments. Is he violating verifiability, if the actual source is not near the text? Or if it is nowhere on the article page itself? Complicating this is the fact that the article has been moved from another one. I have been removing the content as uncited, as I cannot check the citation without going through all of the history revisions. Am I wrong?Mzk1 (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you are not "wrong", but you are dealing with it the wrong way. Since you have been informed that there is a citation available, you should assume good faith... tag the unsourced information (with ) rather than repeatedly removing it.  Techincally, per WP:BURDEN it is then up to the editor who originally added the information (or another editor who wants to keep it in the article) to comb through the archives, locate the citation, and return it.  Best practice, however, is for you to assist in this process.  You might, for example, ask the other editor if he/she remembers an aproximate date when he/she remembers the citation being in the article... and both of you could look through the history and see if it can be found.
 * Of course it would also help to find when the citation was remvoved... there might be a good reason why it was removed in the first place (perhaps someone determined that the source was not RS, or that it did not actually support the article text). So you should also go through the archives of the talk page and see if anyone left a comment about it.
 * The point being, work with, not against other editors. Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I might observe that the unfortunately named Wikiblame may be of assistance in such efforts.User:LeadSongDog come howl  22:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Great idea. I asked the editor, put he was too busy ponificating over the only possible way to edit wikipedia to answer me.Mzk1 (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I if I put the citation request, then what? If the editor does not add a citation (highly likely), how long do I wait before removing it? The editor does not respond to article talk pages (to me, anyway) unless there is an administrative action involved.Mzk1 (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC WP:REDFLAG, Argumentum ex silentio and WP policy
I have posted an RfC at policy discussion section/query regarding Argumentum ex silentio over on WP:NPOV talk. I am mentioning it here because certain aspects of the argument involve WP:REDFLAG, especially as a strong justification for allowing Argumentum ex silentio. You may be interested. (20040302 (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Further to that, the above editor is now proposing a change to this page there. Peter jackson (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT
This is a misnomer that misleads some editors. It is sometimes applied as a need for truth, rather than a need for verifiability. That is why I inserted an explanatory reminder, and that is why I have tagged the Redirect for speedy deletion. So please consider discussion as "open". &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  15:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not open. That is a long-standing redirect, and you tagged it for speedy deletion with an inappropriate criteria and without providing any justification or rationale for the encyclopedia-improving that would come from such a removal. You've been reverted and speedy has been declined on the redirect. If you'd like to actually start the discussion, please give some details about why you think the redirect is such a problem. Jclemens (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not open? hmm. Okay, what would you like to hear that I have not already noted?  Isn't it enough that some editors persist to use WP:PROVEIT (NOT the other shortcuts, just PROVEIT) to indicate that Wikipedia endorses only claims that can be proved to be true?  Explain it to them and they argue, because the section lacks clarity (the shortcut takes editors directly to the section, bypassing the lede of the policy), hence the NOTE that I included.  The whole idea of WP:PROVEIT is a misnomer el grande.  Wikipedia is concerned with the reliable verification of claims, NOT with "proving" those claims to be true.
 * And not for anything, editors Jclemens and Blueboar, but since when is "longstanding" a character of merit as regards this encyclopedia? It's that kind of thinking that may continue to cause beautiful women to be dragged from their caves after being clubbed over the head. (in my humble opinion)
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  17:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Paine, I suspect that when an editor misconstrues "PROVEIT" as you suggest, he/she has not bothered to actually read what WP:BURDEN or the rest of the WP:V Policy says. The section makes it quite clear that what must be "proved" is verifiability... through citation to a reliable source. It isn't a misnomer once you understand what must be "proved".  Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the possible misuse of a shortcut by editors isn't a reason per WP:R. Note specifically the example "confusion" regards the confusion of one topic with another topic. The solution to the problem seems to be to politely challenge misuse of the redirect. Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if everybody here agrees that WP:PROVEIT can be confusing, then I must ask why we should leave it to editors to have to deal with other editors, mostly new editors, who misunderstand it? PROVEIT is an obvious misnomer that, when taken literally, completetly goes against what WP is all about. It seems to me that it would be so much better to perhaps move it, change its name. Perhaps WP:CHECKIT or WP:AFFIRMIT, WP:CONFIRMIT, WP:SUPPORTIT, anything but WP:PROVEIT. This is a longstanding shortcut that has been confusing for too long. &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  17:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact is, all of our policies can be confusing to new editors, and it is up to those of us who are more familiar with them to clear up the confusions. As a shorcut, "WP:PROVEIT" makes the point of WP:BURDEN very well (ie "It is up to those who want to say something in Wikipedia to prove that what they want to say is verifiable"). Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand that, Blueboar. What I'm attempting to persuade is that if there are ways to make our policies less confusing, if we as editors and administrators can find ways to simplify without oversimplifying so that, over time, policies become less and less confounding, then it seems excellent to do so.  I agree that "PROVEIT" gets the point across, however, the word "prove" is too general.  And because it is too general, it is sometimes taken literally by editors.  Editors who are aware of what PROVEIT actually means take it the way you described.  Editors who take PROVEIT to mean that the claim itself actually must be "proved", are confused by the term and sometimes argue vehemently for this misconstrued cause.
 * All I'm saying is that we have an opportunity right now to see that, from this point on, there will be no (or less) confusion if we take the general word "prove" out of the picture.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You said it yourself— ". . . all of our policies can be confusing to new editors, . . ." The need is to make policies less confusing whenever we can. The need is to make it so editors who understand don't have to try to explain it to someone who sometimes doesn't seem to listen.  Nip it in the bud.  Make it understandable even to new editors, so a lot of time won't be wasted edit warring and filling talk pages with sometimes incivil disagreement.  It's broken and needs fixing.  Fix it right here, that's the need.  On the talk page I linked to above, an editor was blocked due to an argument that escalated largely due to his misunderstanding of WP:PROVEIT.  Had we as editors made WP:BURDEN more clear to him, right here where he originally read it, then maybe it would have turned out differently.  If you don't want to change WP:PROVEIT to something else, we still have an obligation to find a way to keep these things from happening by making WP:BURDEN crystal clear to new editors.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  03:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think PROVEIT is fine. That section is reasonably clear, and any editor with reasonable intelligence can understand it. IMO a lot of the problems stem not from lack of understanding of what the policies say, but from people trying to wikilawyer and twist the words to suit their POV purposes. We can tweak the verbiage until the cows come home, and it will have no effect on those determined to get their way. So it's better to have reasonable language for reasonable people, and deal with the trouble makers as needed. Crum375 (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see two problems with PROVEIT. As Paine notes, the name of the shortcut is unnecessarily confrontational and SHOUTED. WP:CitePlease might have been a better choice, but there are already several quite acceptable shortcuts in place. Why should we encourage good-faith editors to seem rude to each other? The text of the section has been pretty thoroughly debugged, but it could be improved by clarifying what constitutes "reasonable" behaviour, particularly giving some guidance on how long to leave a cn tag in place before assuming it will not be actioned.User:LeadSongDog come howl  05:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A request to WP:PROVEIT is not rude. If an editor is concerned appearing so, one can always pipe, as in "Dear fellow editor, I would greatly appreciate it if you would take it up on it you to provide an explicit citation, which, as I would like to bring to your attention, is required of everyone making a definite claim in an article.". Besides, WP:PROVEIT is not rude, it is confrontational. "WP:PROVEIT aZZh0le!!!", that is rude. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * By rude, I refer primarily to the use of ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, which is widely interpretted on the internet as shouting. When combined with the confrontational nature of the demand "prove it", the initial message to a novice editor is "I don't believe you, and I'm angry that you would say what you said.", irrespective of what the linked guidance says. That emotional impact hits the novice before they've even clicked on the link, and that is a problem that should be resolved. User:LeadSongDog come howl  15:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the "shouting" aspect is a matter of context. If you read an old telegram, where all letters are caps, you don't consider it shouting. Similarly, virtually all WP shortcuts are caps, e.g. WP:SOURCES, or WP:BURDEN, so in that environment, caps are the norm, not "shouting". Crum375 (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Who says you have to use WP:PROVEIT? wp:proveit works just as well. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Have we forgotten that we want to offer a welcoming environment to new editors? I'll clarify. The subjective effect of the shouted imperative is before the novices follow the link to that policy environment. They don't yet know that it is a common format for a policy shortcut name, they just know someone is shouting a command at them on a talkpage. Either the shout or the command by itself would not be taken as overly rude, but the combination is. Most such shortcuts are nouns or adjectives, not imperative verbs, and this takes much of the sting out of the shout. In fact, I'd prefer to see the whole cluster of shortcuts (PROVEIT, BOP, BURDEN, and UNSOURCED) replaced over time by WP:Proof or WP:CitationNeeded, which are presently unassigned and far less likely to cause offence, but WP:UNSOURCED is a reasonably innocuous shortcut to the policy. User:LeadSongDog come howl  17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick check of whatlinkshere shows that none of these shortcuts is used more than 2000 times, so a replacement task would be a fairly quick bot (or AWB) task.User:LeadSongDog come howl  17:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether a bot does 2 edits or 2 million need not concern us. But what will the bot do with talk page comments like "I want you to WP:PROVEIT."? Let's try it the other way around: How often has this shortcut caused problems? Personally, I find it useful, and want to keep it. Paradoctor (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a clear case for a supervised tool, like AWB, instead of an autonomous bot, though I doubt even a bot could create problems by changing it to "I want you to WP:Proveit." I'm not sure just how to conduct such a search, but I'll give it some consideration. How often is too often? User:LeadSongDog  come howl  18:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about WP:TPG. Editing thousands of comments is liable to raise quite a few hackles, even if they don't produce gems like "You need to WP:UNSOURCED".
 * "too often": Hm. Pro: Removing an as yet unspecified risk of keeping fresh meat out. Con: The effort required to do the change. The risk that you will have to fight to keep the shortcut dead. Potential of conflict with an unknown fraction of ~1000 editors.
 * I'd say if it's a significant problem, it should be addressed. Probabilitites of less than 5% are customarily considered insignificant. That means 100 instances where the shortcut has done more harm than good. Show me 42, and I'll support the slaughter. Failing that, I have no problem designating the shortcut as deprecated. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't see a need to depreciate the shortcut. Paine says it is confusing editors... but is it really?  I'd like to see a few examples of situations where someone actually was confused by it. Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see the TPG issues. Even though simply changing the one shortcut from UPPERCASE to Titlecase shouldn't be too bad, it wouldn't serve much point and might be seen as revising history. We can't prevent past disputes, so why worry about old arguments that did or did not occur. Looking forward is another matter. Simply removing the uppercase from the shown list of shortcuts while maintaining the redirect would address the concern without, so far as I can tell, creating any problems. Would that be a reasonable saw-off? User:LeadSongDog come howl  20:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I won't stand in your way. I see a roadhog up ahead, though. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't see a need... but I don't object to simply changing the case. Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Changing the case will not get rid of the problem, Blueboar, all it will do is de-standardize shortcuts, which are all in capital case. You say you don't see the need.  I have provided several reasons why there is a definite need to change PROVEIT.  I have provided an example of a relatively new editor who misused PROVEIT.  If there is one example then you have to know that there are more examples.  If you cannot see the need, then please address the needs that I have shown previously:
 * to make policies less confusing whenever we can
 * to make it so editors who understand don't have to try to explain it to someone who sometimes doesn't seem to listen. Nip it in the bud. Make it understandable even to new editors, so a lot of time won't be wasted edit warring and filling talk pages with sometimes incivil disagreement.
 * On the talk page I linked to above, an editor was blocked due to an argument that escalated largely due to his misunderstanding (or misuse) of WP:PROVEIT. Had we as editors made WP:BURDEN more clear to him, right here where he originally read it, then maybe it would have turned out differently. If you don't want to change WP:PROVEIT to something else, we still have an obligation to find a way to keep these things from happening by making WP:BURDEN crystal clear to new editors.
 * Then there is the argument addressed by editor LeadSongDog that PROVEIT is inherently confrontational. So rather than say that you don't see the need, please address these needs and say what you don't see as important about them or why you think they don't apply.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  17:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To respond point by point:
 * I don't think the policy (or the shortcut) is confusing (yes, one editor, who seems not to have actually read the policy was confused... I see no evidence that there actually are more editors who are confused by this)
 * If someone is not going to read the policy (ie listen), then we are going to have to explain the policy to them in any case... removing the short cut will not solve this problem.
 * I think the case you are pointing to is an isolated incident. At most it is a rare incident.  To put it bluntly, I don't actually believe that we have that many editors who are misusing the phrase: "Prove it" in this way.  But even if we did, I think the benefits of having the phrase as a link outweigh the occasional misuse.  Furthermore, I think WP:BURDEN is "crystal clear" to new editors... if they bother to read it.
 * Yes, WP:PROVEIT is inherently confrontational... in fact, I would go further and say that it is intentionally so. The act of challenging an unsourced statement by asking others to provide a reliable source is itself inherantly confrontational.  We have several ways to link to WP:BURDEN, to fit the circumstances.  If we want to be less confrontational we can choose to use one of the other links.  But when we need to be confrontational, we have the option to be so.  We even have a middle ground... we can tone down the confrontationality by typing the link in lower case (typing: "WP:proveit says you have the burden of providing a source for this" works just as well as "WP:PROVEIT says YOU have the burden of providing a source for this".)  This flexibility is needed.  It makes our policy "crystal clear" to those who are reluctant to add unsorced material to our articles.  Pointing someone to WP:BURDEN by saying "proveit" tells them clearly that they need to find a reliable source if they want their material to remain in the article.
 * So again, I don't see that there is a need to change anything. Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with BlueBoar. Wikipedia is all about finding reliable sources to support anything we say. If you believe something is correct, you need to WP:PROVEIT by supplying reliable sources for it, and it is your WP:BURDEN to do so. If you don't get this crucial point, or some new editor doesn't, they have to read and re-read that linked section and policy, over and over, until they do get it. Removing a useful and informative shortcut because someone may not understand its meaning will move us backward. Crum375 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Blueboar certainly makes very good points, and at first I was inclined to agree. But now, editor Crum375, you just made another valid point for getting rid of PROVEIT.  "If you believe something is correct . . ."  This is precisely why PROVEIT is confusing.  Wikipedia DOES NOT CARE IF A CLAIM IS CORRECT/TRUE!  Wikipedia only cares if a claim can be supported/verified by reliable sources.  So even you seem to confound, or be confounded by, the policy AND the shortcut!
 * Making things clearer so that new editors won't be confused, and so that experienced editors cannot MISUSE a shortcut is a step forward in my book.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  18:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Crum can correct me if I am puting words into his mouth... but from my experience with him, I am sure he knows the difference between "correct/verifiable" and "correct/true". I suspect he was referring to the former. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Correct" in Wikipedia means attributable to a reliable source. If you believe what you say is attributable, and it is being challenged or is likely to be challenged, you must WP:PROVEIT by providing the reliable source(s) to support your claim. The WP:BURDEN of proof is on you. This is the essence of the verifiability policy. Crum375 (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, then, please forgive me if I, a semi-experienced editor, was confounded by your wording and misconstrued your meaning, Crum. And believe me, I, too, completely understand the essence of WP:BURDEN, as well as its ageold and epic struggle with WP:PRESERVE.  Yet if this present conversation does not clearly show both of you the dire need to clarify this section, then I suppose nothing will.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, everything we write (in article space) on WP must be attributable to a reliable source. This means that if you want to add something to an article, and you are challenged, you must prove that it is attributable by providing the source. The burden of proof is on you, as the editor adding the material. That is, in a nutshell, the essence of WP:V. Is it really that difficult to understand? Crum375 (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I noted above, the difficulty in understanding lies in the double-meaning of the PROVEIT shortcut, which makes it a misnomer. It can mean "prove that the claim has a reliable source", or it can mean "prove that the claim is true".  So yes, it can be very difficult to get it right for new editors, and the shortcut can be abused by more experienced editors.  If you want, Crum, we should probably continue this conversation in the RfC section.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  01:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a heated discussion at ANI about how WP:PROVEIT and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies in a particular scenario. The situation is that editors keep citing to a source that they did not bother verifying themselves. Instead they viewed the information on a vendor website that claims to source from Wikipedia and the Adam Gay Video Directory. The problem is they go and cite to the directory where there is evidence that the information is not even in there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC termination
This is in no means meant to "kick a dead horse". It is obvious to me that many are blinded by this shortcut's longevity. My brief experience at MedCab says to me that it would be "quixotic" to pursue formal arbitration. So this issue dies here. But I hope that one thing will continue to exist in the back of every editor's mind: A 15% to 25% potential for incorrect usage of a shortcut can add up to a lot of edit wars, incivility and confusion over time. So maybe outright canning of the shortcut isn't called for. Maybe the shortcut is only the tip of the iceberg, I don't know. I sincerely hope that somebody will eventually arise with a solution that will be amenable to everybody. Best of everything to you and yours! &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  08:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Text vs. other media
The lead on the project page 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."

But that seems to be applied only to text, not to images or video. I believe we do not discourage original images and video. The difference would have made more sense 20 years ago, when it was harder to doctor or fake nontext items. Maurreen (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC) "Other media" also includes sound recordings. Maurreen (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The word "material" is specifically used to include all forms of communication media, including audio and video. All of these are covered by the policy. Crum375 (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We do make a special exclusion for user-made media which do not introduce new information and are self-verifying in some way. Crum375 (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I had missed special exclusion. That should probably be at least linked to from WP:V.
 * But not requiring previous publication, "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" could be applied to text also. Maurreen (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For text we have two "exclusions": First, per WP:V, if it's unlikely to be challenged, and is not challenged, it does not require a source. Second, per WP:OR, we are allowed to use our own words to fairly and accurately summarize what the sources say. These effectively provide what you suggest. Crum375 (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For example, let's say an editor adds a sentence of which he has first-hand knowledge. The editor does not have a published source attesting to that information. The editor is unsure whether any such source exists. But no one challenges it, and the editor doesn't expect anyone to challenge it. Are you saying that's OK? Maurreen (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because if "the editor is unsure whether any such source exists", he can't assume in good faith that it's unlikely to be challenged. We allow people to leave out sources for items that are "obvious" to most people, where they know sources would be trivial to find. If they are not sure they can find a source, then the claim is not obvious, is likely to be challenged, and therefore requires a source. Crum375 (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to intrude, but for one thing, that would depend on how controversial the claim is, wouldn't it? The more "juicy" the claim, the more likely it is to be challenged.  Uncontroversial claims often go unchallenged.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No intrusion; I think the topic is worthy of wide discussion.
 * I am thinking about uncontroversial material -- information that is or would be agreed on by people who know about the subject. And people who don't know about the subject would have no cause to doubt it. It's not extraordinary claims; it's just extra detail.
 * For instance, some years ago, I added some information to a couple of articles about the U.S. Marine Corps. The information is still in those articles, the articles have been substantively edited, and I believe no one has challenged the info.
 * But I have no knowledge that this information is published elsewhere. Adherence to WP:V would mean that information should not be included. Maurreen (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But our practices do allow me to include nontext material that would give the same information. Maurreen (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If what you claimed is obvious to most people, it must be published somewhere. If you think it's not, then it's likely to be challenged, and would require sourcing. In the case of non-text, if it's introducing new information not supported by existing sources, it too (or its caption) would require additional sourcing. Crum375 (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For the sake of consistency, I suggest changing special exclusion to add the word "information," as in "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished information, ideas or arguments." Maurreen (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No. We make the special exclusion specifically to encourage uploading of home-made illustrative media, because WP can't include published images due to copyright issues. There is no such issue with text: we are allowed to quote (briefly) and freely summarize published textual material. The current textual "exclusions" which I summarized above seem to do a good job. Can you provide a specific example where you believe more latitude is needed for text? Crum375 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether more latitude is needed for text is subjective.
 * I understand some exemptions related to copyright. My suggestion would not negate that purpose.
 * The exclusion refers to ideas and arguments. I don't see why the treatment of information should be based on whether it is text or not.
 * You said above, "In the case of non-text, if it's introducing new information not supported by existing sources, it too (or its caption) would require additional sourcing." That is what I am suggesting to clarify, and that is what you are disagreeing with. Maurreen (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My position is less a matter of whether it should be A or B, and more a matter of not being both A and B. Maurreen (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is the the current policies seem to work well, and we don't what to fix what ain't broke. Can you provide a specific example where you think the current V and OR policies are too restrictive, or otherwise inadequate? Crum375 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't want to use my own additions as examples. That might result only in my additions being removed because only we're not aware of any published sources.
 * But I don't understand why you say, "In the case of non-text, if it's introducing new information not supported by existing sources, it too (or its caption) would require additional sourcing," but disagree with clarifying that in a policy or guideline.
 * So if I did have nontext material that illustrated the statements I added, the situation would be vague at best. On the one hand, the exclusion policy at least allows the addition. But your statement would not allow it. Maurreen (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we need a concrete example to show where the current policies fall short in your view. If you are worried about your own edits, make one up, along similar lines. Crum375 (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Try this for an example: I walk down the street and take a picture of some public space in a small town.  We'll say the photo shows the playground at the municipal park.  I upload it to Commons and add it as an illustration of the landmark.
 * Do I need to find a published source that verifies that this photo really, truly is the playground at this park in this city? Or are we willing to assume that I'm probably neither a liar nor delusional?
 * If a source other than my own attestation is required, then we pretty much need to ban all user-created images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you shoot and upload a photo of a landmark, and you state the date and location, the image becomes self-verifying, since any reader can go there and verify that the image reflects the landmark. This is similar to a user providing a source in an old book requiring a trip to a special library. As long as there is no special reason to doubt that the information is valid, it is not controversial, and it can be verified in principle by anyone, we extend good faith. Crum375 (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try a couple of hypothetical examples.
 * Let's say that in an article concerning Marine uniforms, I wrote about "blousing boots." (This refers to how certain pants are handled in relationship to the boots.) Let's say that I wrote that some Marines use rubber bands, instead of official blousing bands.
 * Or say that I wrote that sometimes Navy chief petty officers are mistakenly saluted, because their uniform and insignia resembles that of officers.
 * What is the difference between writing these statement or illustrating them with nontext? Maurreen (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take just your second example, if I may. Let's say an editor claims that Navy CPOs are sometimes saluted by mistake, because their uniforms resemble officers. To me personally this sounds fairly obvious, and whether to provide a source or not would depend on the editor. Once someone shows up on the talk page and challenges it, however, it will require a reliable source. I am not sure how this relates to our image policy. If you take and upload an image of a CPO in dress uniform, you could use that presumably to highlight the point, but if the caption made a claim about mistaken saluting, its text would be treated like any other text in the article. Crum375 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In the playground example, what is the difference between showing certain equipment at the playground and writing that the playground has that equipment? Maurreen (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is that if you state where and when you took the photo, and it's a public venue, in principle any interested reader could go there to verify the photo is authentic. As I noted above, this is similar to sourcing a claim to a rare book located in a special library. Crum375 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to WhatamIdoing, I think the playground is a better example.
 * I understand the self-verification aspect, but that could also be applied to text. I could write that as of March 3, 2010, Foo park in Bar City has a teeter-totter. Or I could show it in a photo. Maurreen (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that because of copyright issues, we encourage photo taking to help illustrate our articles, not to create new information. If your photo happens to show a teeter-totter, it won't be very controversial and will be verifiable by anyone visiting that park. If you write some text about a park, you'd need a reliable source, because we have no copyright restriction to paraphrase or even (briefly) quote published sources. Crum375 (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if the fact of the teeter-totter's existence can't be sourced, then it's probably WP:UNDUE to mention it in the text. An image that includes said teeter-totter might be a perfectly accepted and DUE illustration of the playground (since the information communicated to the reader is more like, "Look!  There's a playground!" than "There's a  teeter-totter").  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, in Judaism, you get stuff that does not generally appear in traditional sources because it is obvious to everyone. (Thank heaven for Maimonidies, who wrote a book that includes everything. But if it's later, you can have a problem.)Mzk1 (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Images plus the U.S. Navy...such delightful subjects. One has to be careful, though.  Below is a gallery from a digital restoration I did a year ago of the aftermath at the Wounded Knee Massacre.  The original photograph (at left) had been identified in official Library of Congress records as "scattered debris of camp".  Restoration revealed that this was not merely debris.  The foreground had four human remains partially wrapped in blankets.  What to do about that?




 * Until the librarians confirmed the find and updated their records, the image appeared in Wikipedia captioned only as being a scene from the aftermath. Afterward the find became a minor news story and has since been incorporated into the official program notes for a historic photography exhibit at the Montréal Museum of Fine Art.


 * Images are not a backdoor to insert original research into article text. Nor should the photography exemption be expanded to text.  If an editor actually has something important to say in that regard, it is much more rewarding to obtain independent verification.  And actual verification isn't so hard to come by.  Durova  412 17:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of "mainstream" and "prevailing view" in REDFLAG
I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian who frequently gives Third Opinions on content disputes and I'd like the community's comment on my a priori understanding of the meaning of "mainstream" and "prevailing view" in WP:REDFLAG. From just an intuitive basis and from the references to exceptional claims and fringe theories in the redflag section, I understand "mainstream" and "prevailing view" to mean "universally accepted or nearly universally accepted by the world community of all human beings or by the relevant worldwide academic community" not just "uniformly or universally accepted by those who have an opinion on the matter or who have cared to look at the matter". My understanding thus causes "exceptional claim" to mean something like "flies in the face of world opinion" not just "contradicts what a few people think, albeit unanimously." For example, consider the following claims: (Note: Neither of the foregoing examples reflects, to my knowledge, a current dispute; the opossum named in the second example is entirely fictitious and was created purely for this example.)
 * A biologist claims that opossums did not originate on Earth, but were instead deposited on Earth by extraterrestrials.
 * Only four biologists have studied Jurnal's Opossum, a very rare opossum that lives in an isolated jungle habitat in New Guinea. The first three completed their studies in the 1960's to the 1980's and all concluded that the adult opossums grow no larger than 15cm in length. In a 2008 study, the fourth biologist says that he believes that the first three biologists saw only juvenile Jurnals and that adult Jurnals grow to 35 cm in length.

My current a priori understanding would say that:
 * the claim in the first example is an exceptional claim because it is universally accepted that opossums originated on Earth, but
 * even though the views of the first three biologists are uniformly opposed to that of the fourth biologist in the second example, the fourth biologist's claim is not an exceptional claim because there just isn't any universally-accepted body of knowledge about Jurnal Opossums; there is, therefore, no mainstream or prevailing view.

I've seen some comments in the archives here that would seem to suggest that I'm wrong. Am I? Please take into consideration that though the foregoing examples concern science, my inquiry is not just about science, but is also about all the different areas we write about here. Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you have it right. Although I would add an important qualification... As far as wikipedia is concerned, the "universally-accepted body of knowledge" that we term "mainstream" is determined by looking at reliable sources and not unreliable ones.  Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, here's an interesting issue, that occurs on in the Judaism pages. There are a lot of sources within rabbinical scholarship itself, but not a lot of easily accessible (there's the rub!) scholarship about the aforementioned scholarship. The latter sometimes takes a form akin to Biblical criticism, as if someone were to reinterpret a physics text differently than any known physicist ever has. There are really only two encyclopedias, the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Judaica. The former was written in 1902 and follows a particular German school, but since it is online and public domain, a lot of the entries are turned right into articles.
 * OK, so far, no problem. However, occasionally you get a real whopper in the JE, something that completely contradicts the entire field as well as everything in the sources. (They also tend to be somewhat unclear and sloppy.) They appear to be claiming that the sources orginally meant something that is contradicted by the entire field they are studying and the later sources that are available. Furthermore, the JE itself has no source for the statement.
 * I therefore tend to treat this as an "extraordinary" statement, that needs more than an unsourced opinion in a single 1092 encyclopedia - and I remove it, usually with a lot of other speculation that goes beyond what the JE actually says. Is this so far off? (Example on request.)Mzk1 (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see WP:REDFLAG slightly differently: in "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources" I interpret "mainstream" as the view of the relevant authority (normally a body of academic research, but could be, say, a series of reliable polls on some question of public opinion, or a religious body on a question regarding the particular religion). In some cases (like global warming), the debate is too recent (and hysterical) for a confident statement regarding what "mainstream" means, although we could agree that fringe groups and their views are not mainstream. It would be hard to evaluate what is the world opinion on any topic, so "mainstream" cannot usefully be defined in terms of world opinion. I understand WP:V and WP:NPOV to imply that in order to have an opinion that counts in an encyclopedia, you would generally need relevant academic study (for example, public opinion on whether all living organisms are descended from a common ancestor does not establish the "mainstream" view). I totally agree about the Jurnal's Opossum: in that scenario the claim is not exceptional, and there is no solid mainstream view. In fact, the relevant article would simply describe the situation (a more recent study reports that larger animals exist). Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should shortcut WP:PROVEIT be changed/deleted
Should the shortcut, WP:PROVEIT, be moved to a different shortcut name or deleted altogether? &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Move or Delete. (as nominator of this Rfc) Please reference a previous discussion on this Talk page here. A consensus apparently cannot be reached on this issue.  This is a longstanding shortcut that may have been causing confusion and incivil confrontations among Wikipedia editors for a long, long time.  A most recent example of either misunderstanding or misuse by a relatively new editor can be found on the Talk page of a sometimes very controversial article.  It is my contention that this shortcut should be deleted/moved in order to eliminate future confusion and/or misuse.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * oppose I can see a clear consensus already against any change, i.e. only one editor for it. FWIW I also cannot see a reason to change anything.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 00:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Consensus most clearly has been reached.  While I don't mind you seeking more input in such an approved manner, there's a clear feeling that the misuse you allege is simply not enough reason to delete a long-standing redirect. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, then I must be totally misunderstanding WP:CONSENSUS!
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  02:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe Jclemens means to say that there is a general feeling that you have not adequately addressed the concerns raised. Consensus does not necessarily mean that everyone is happy with the result, but it does mean that all rational arguments have been duly considered. Paradoctor (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. Consensus is not unanimity.  It allows for good faith (yet hopelessly minority) objections.  We're not the UN here--there's no particular holdout veto power. :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * JC, don't you think the UN thing is a little strong?  Consensus, by definition, actually does infer a unanimity of sorts. This unanimity automatically requires giving a little here, taking a little there, until all parties either agree to what usually turns out to be a compromise, or they just get tired and hang up.  At any rate, even if you end up with a small minority that still feels strongly about their position, then instead of a consensus, there is the potential for "majority rule - stomp all over the minority".  And on Wikipedia, I've found that this is often mistaken for a "consensus".  Let's not let that be the case here, okay?
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you're missing my point: Your argument (the proposal doesn't give a reason, BTW) is that WP:PROVEIT is harmful. Several opposers have stated their belief that the problem is not big enough to warrant removing the shortcut. So far, you can point to only one example, and that one has been challenged. This means you haven't addressed a reasonable objection to your proposal. Paradoctor (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My argument (the proposal itself has to be neutral with no reason; the reason can be given in a later comment) is that WP:PROVEIT is two-faced. It has two possible meanings in the context of this argument.  It can mean what it is supposed to mean, i.e., "prove the verifiability of the claim", or it can confusingly and/or misusingly mean what it is not supposed to mean, i.e., "prove that the claim is true".  The one example I used in the above conversation cannot be seriously challenged because, as you know from first hand experience with editor Steaphen, he was misusing the shortcut.  Either he was confused about its meaning or he knowingly misused it.  Either way, the shortcut was being misused.  I've provided three more examples below.  Reasonable objections?  Let's see, there are four "opposes" so far:  One and two speak of a "clear consensus" that just does not exist yet, not if I read WP:CONSENSUS correctly.  And one just says he sees no reason to change it, while the other cites that it is a longstanding shortcut.  I don't see a valid objection from either editor.  The third "oppose" just brings out that an editor must prove that a claim is verified, and that removing the shortcut would mean that the editor no longer has to do so, which is clearly wrong, because the removal of this Janus-faced shortcut would in no way alter the WP:V policy itself.  The fourth "oppose" is, essentially, just a determined "NO", which is not an objection.  So far there is no specific challenge that I haven't already adequately covered that I can see.  If you see an objection that I haven't covered, then please point it out to me.  And how about you, Paradoc?  I don't see precisely what your stand on this issue is yet.  You appear to be leaning toward the "oppose" side and arguing against my proposition, but you have not "officially" stated your position.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  11:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * comment looking at that link the user asked to PROVIT has been blocked for his behaviour, including refusing to provide sources, so I doubt it's a problem of simply misunderstanding.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 00:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case you're probably correct, Mr. B. However either way, whether the editor misunderstood WP:PROVEIT or misused it, this calls for, at the very least, more clarification in the section of this policy to which the SHORTCUT points, and at most the moving of the SHORTCUT to a better name that cannot be confounding nor abused.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  02:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "a better name that cannot be confounding nor abused": A challenge! Provide one, give it your very best shot. I'll show to you that it is totally confounding, and then I'll abuse it. A shiny new € coin in my pocket says I can. Paradoctor (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already suggested some, but just for you, Paradoc, I'll repeat 'em: WP:CHECKIT— WP:AFFIRMIT— WP:CONFIRMIT— WP:SUPPORTIT, and one more... WP:VERIFYIT.  I suppose with a little effort, you would be able to do as you say, however I don't see how anybody would be able to challenge the fact that all of these are SO much LESS confusing and have SO little possible abuse potential than the two-faced misnomer, PROVEIT.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "you would be able to do as you say": That means my money is safe with you, I take it? ... Ah, what the hell: "WP:CONFIRMIT? But I can't, I can only provide sources!" and "You can easily WP:CONFIRMIT, just try it for yourself, and you'll see that it is better than the real thing.".
 * "abuse potential": Erm, kitchen knives? Earbuds? Love letters? Paradoctor (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Clear consensus over time is to use this very informative shortcut. Removing it would imply that the editor adding material to an article does not need to prove that it's properly sourced, which is clearly wrong. Crum375 (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I noted in the other section above, the difficulty in understanding lies in the double-meaning of the PROVEIT shortcut, which makes it a misnomer. It can mean "prove that the claim has a reliable source", or it can mean "prove that the claim is true".  So yes, it can be very difficult to get it right for new editors, and the shortcut can be abused by more experienced editors.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  01:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything and everything, including every single shortcut on WP, can be misunderstood by novices. This is why we have a link from WP:PROVEIT to the actual words of the policy, which they can read at their leisure. Crum375 (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If we can, over time, make improvements that make all that "anything and everything" less misunderstood by novices, then aren't we obligated to do so? Don't we have a responsibility as "editors" to improve every aspect of this encyclopedia in every way we can in order to make it less and less confusing, more and more clear, concise and helpful, both to readers and to other editors?
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  02:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly, we are always open to improvements. But you say that something which is very straightforward and linked to the complete explanation may be confusing for a novice. I believe that there is nothing on this planet which can't be confusing for a novice. We need to focus on the big picture: does it convey a clear message as a useful reminder to someone who has read the linked text (and an invitation to read to someone who hasn't)? I think it does, and apparently the other Opposers here feel the same. Crum375 (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not so very straightforward, editor Crum, for in this context, the PROVEIT shortcut can easily be construed in the manner you describe, and just as easily be misconstrued as the imperative need to prove the statement itself rather than just to prove that the statement is verifiable. PROVEIT is therefore a misnomer that we all would be better off without.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  06:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No the shortcut should not be changed/deleted - there is no need (see above for further disucssion). Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Remove from displayed list in WP:V - No need to break any existing or even future usage, let's just not encourage its usage. Even a cursory review of WP:List of shortcuts makes it obvious that this shortcut name, an imperative verb, is absolutely not consistent with the other shortcuts. User:LeadSongDog come howl  04:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So we should remove WP:IAR and WP:LETGO too ? Most shortcuts are nouns as most pages are concepts ("verifiability") or things (noticeboard, project, portal). But if a page name is an action like "ignore all rules", or can be handily abbreviated using a verb such as "let (it) go", then they're fine. I know WP:LETGO is not official policy but the page is referenced far more than many policy pages, including already here. Another example that is also appropriate here is WP:GETOVERIT.


 * ✅. Thank you, LSD, it's not so lonely at the top anymore! 
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  06:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a hint: when you're arguing as a lone voice in the face of reasoned and polite opposition, such that one editor who halfway agrees with the RfC you started is an encouragement, you might just want to read and consider WP:STICK. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, JC, for that vote of confidence! I shall be dead certain the horse is dead when, at the very least, the opposition begins to understand my position enough so that I don't feel like a stomped-all-over minority.  The PROVEIT shortcut is a Janus-faced misnomer that must be dealt with in some way.  As editors we should all feel better off without it.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  06:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

random break in RFC

 * Comment. In the conversation previous to this RfC, editor Blueboar asked for examples of what I'm on about. So I went to the "What links here" page of the WP:PROVEIT Redirect.  I went through the first 21 links and found the following facts:
 * In this Talk page section an editor is clearly misusing the shortcut to get an editor to WP:PROVEIT that a claim is true.
 * In this Talk page section an editor is clearly misusing the shortcut to get an editor to WP:PROVEIT that a claim is true.
 * In this Talk page section an editor is clearly misusing the shortcut to get an editor to WP:PROVEIT using Wikilawyering techniques and making straw-man arguments.


 * Three out of the first twenty-one. That is almost 15% or 1 out of 7 (that's not as good as I'm doing votewise, but it does seem to be a significant number).  So is anyone ready to at least concede that I might have a strong and valid point? valid, at least?
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  10:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The first one is "Now kindly stop stalling and just quote from the papers where Blench and Bender in particular have "cited seriously" Bernal's Kenyan Urheimat theory for AA as you've claimed above. I'm not bossing you around here; I'm simply invoking WP:PROVEIT." I.e. asking for citations with an appropriate shortcut. Both editors understand it exactly. I.e. in that case you really do not have a point.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 10:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are other instances in that section where the editor who imposes WP:PROVEIT asks that the claims be proved.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  10:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, then WP:PROVEIT. ;) Sorry, but that's the whole point of it. Without evidence, everything said is just an assertion.
 * The second is a misuse? 'User:62.56.53.218 said in an edit summary of 09.48 on 5 October 2008 "Just added her ttles in full they are all  factual go check". One should not have to "go check"; if you know  she was styled Queen Regent at that time then the onus is on you to  provide evidence for it. See WP:PROVEIT.', that looks entirely appropriate to me.
 * In the third example, an editor was accused of wikilawyering after demanding that citations have page numbers added to them. Again, this looks like an entirely valid use. The idea of evidence is to present evidence, not to say "oh, you can find the evidence out there, just go look".
 * That's the problem with evidence, sometimes people pick it apart. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the second example is clear misuse, though I cannot tell whether it is accidental or purposeful. "if you know she was styled Queen Regent at that time then the onus is on you to  provide evidence for it."  This is a clear call for the editor to WP:PROVEIT that the claim is true.  In the third example, the editor was actually and knowingly (I thought it was quite obvious) misusing the shortcut.  There is no question in my mind that all three examples, plus Steaphen's misuse, are crystal-clear cases of misusing the shortcut, which is CLEAR-CUT PROOF that my proposal deserves serious attention.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  12:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me try to muddle your brain a little. It is becoming clear that the question of what constitutes a misuse of WP:PROVEIT is the bone of contention here.
 * In the second example, the request is for "evidence" (as in "sources"), not for "truth". Actually, this one can't be proved any other way, as any evidence would have to be a piece of writing anyway.
 * "editor was actually and knowingly (I thought it was quite obvious)": Obvious. Obvious? Uh, what's obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to someone else. It sure isn't to me. What is the case for considering the accusations valid? Really, I don't see it, but I may be myopic here. Paradoctor (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read the discussions Paine linked to... here is my take: in two of the three examples, the editor who is using the link to "PROVEIT" was asking for a citation to back an unsourced statement... a proper use of the link. In the other, we had an unsourced statement that was challenged, a citation that was added in response, and challenger then linked PROVEIT as part of a request for a specific page number and a quote ... because he doubted that the supplied source actually supported the original statement.  All three were somewhat heated discussions over somewhat controvercial unsourced statements... In other words all three were appropriate situations for an editor to say "Oh yeah? PROVEIT". Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Blueboar for taking the time to read the examples. The problem, at least with the first two examples, is that the wording was wrong.  It may have been accidental, and it probably was accidental, but both editors were very clear that the other editors had to verify that the claims were true, and not that they had to verify that the claims had been made.  This is the essence of WP:V, that verification of TRUTH is not sought, ONLY verification that the claim was made.
 * Suppose you and I were editing the Abortion article. I added a claim to the page and reliably sourced it.  You read it and you refuse to believe that the claim is true, even though it's reliably sourced.  So you hunt down a counter-claim that says just the opposite of my claim, and you find that the source you came across is a very reliable one.  So you add the counter-claim to the Abortion article along with an inline citation.  As you are well aware, this is how it's supposed to work.  Wikipedia is not interested in which claim is right, wrong, true or false.  WP:V is very clear that a challenged claim must simply be verified that it was made, and not necessarily verified that it is true.  And in the first two examples, it was the truth of the claim that was mistakenly sought.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  23:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I afraid none of Paine's three examples above hold up to closer examination, as the participants in each discussion were all long-established editors who would well understand what the shortcut meant. All but one was over a year, and that one has thousands of edits. Even I assume that anyone who has edited here for more than a few months has incurred some thickening of the skin, although it still discomfits me that that should need to be the case. If examples are needed they should be better than these. User:LeadSongDog come howl  17:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, LSD, close examination shows that in the first two examples, one editor was saying to another editor that a claim had to be proven to be true by using a verifiable source. This is NOT what WP:V is about.  Read the first sentence of the policy.  In each of those two cases an editor misused the shortcut to get another editor to PROVE that a claim was TRUE, not that the claim was just verifiable.  Why is the difference so difficult to understand?  If the shortcut is used to say, "You have to WP:PROVEIT that a claim was made," then it is being used correctly.  And out of those 21 links, there were 12 cases where the shortcut was used correctly (there were six of the 21 pages that no longer had WP:PROVEIT on the page in spite of the page being on the "What links here" list).  If the shortcut is used to say, "You have to WP:PROVEIT that a claim is TRUE," then it is being used incorrectly.  And in the first two examples I noted, that was precisely what had taken place.  Two editors had said to two other editors that they had to PROVE that a claim was TRUE, not just verifiable, TRUE.  And the third case was an example of a different way the shortcut can be misused.  Let's throw that one out, because there are probably several shortcuts that can be Wikilawyered around.
 * So where does this leave us? There are two clear cases of abuse out of 21, well, actually out of 14, since as I said, 6 of the pages didn't have the shortcut on them anymore. So there are 21 total pages, minus 6 no-show pages, minus the one example we threw out.  This leaves 14 pages.
 * There is no challenging the fact that out of those 14 pages, fully 12 were examples of the shortcut being used correctly. However, the undeniable fact remains that on 2 out of the 14 pages, WP:PROVEIT was being misused.  That is still 14.3% or 1 out of 7.
 * I'm not saying that those two editors who used the shortcut to try to get other editors to prove that a claim was TRUE did so with any malice aforethought. If they were asked, I'm sure that they would tell us that they merely miswrote the words, and that they really meant that verification of the claim was needed.  It would further be hoped that the other editors would have the savvy to actually READ the section and the policy.  But none of that is to the point.  The point is that, because this shortcut is two-faced, because it can be misconstrued either by accident or with malice aforethought, then it is a misnomer that has to be dealt with in some way.  It should be deleted, moved, or at the very least, removed from the shortcut box.  If we opt for that third choice, than I would further ask that experienced editors who draw this shortcut like a gun (honestly, I'm grinning, no incivility intended) be extremely careful that they use it only to ask for VERIFIABILITY of a claim, and not for the TRUTH of a claim.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  22:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand the objection to WP:PROVEIT, but I also understand the unwilliness to let go of long used terminolgy. What about adding WP:SOURCEIT to the policy shortcut box where WP:PROVEIT is? Over time editors may come to a consensus to use that shorcut, and at a future time WP:PROVEIT gets dropped, or maybe not and WP:PROVEIT will win out. Ward20 (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, editor Ward20, for your understanding and helpful sentiments. I would gladly settle for the two-faced shortcut, WP:PROVEIT, to be removed from the shortcut box.  That way, experienced editors could still use it to point to that valuable section of the WP:V policy (and hopefully they would use it sparingly and only to ask for verifiability of a claim and not for the truth of it), and it won't be visible to less experienced editors who now see Policy shortcuts: WP:PROVEIT jumping out at them like a sore thumb.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're going to have to provide quotes, not just links to pages. As far as I can see on none of those pages is WP:PROVEIT being misused. In every case the poster is asking for sources. WP:PROVEIT is a shortcut for this and a link to the policy, and is understood by all parties.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No problemo, John. From the first example:

"What you don't seem to understand Andrew, is that saying that Bernal "is cited in the major reviews of this field and taken seriously by the major authors in this field" is not the same thing as actually proving it. You have been asked and repeatedly to prove that Bernal is taken seriously as a linguist, and more specifically, that his Kenyan Urheimat theory for the origins of Afro-Asiatic is not a tiny minority view. You have been unable to prove either one of the two things, much less the latter. Instead, you link me to an interview with Ehret saying that he basically appreciates Bernal when it comes to his take on the "Egyptian influence on Greece" although a boat-load of other professionals he collectively labels "Classicists" apparently do not. There is no mention of Bernal's standing in the linguistic community, much less of his very idiosyncratic Kenyan Urheimat theory or his equally fringe "Rift Valley Urheimat theory (you write that "Martin Bernal came to argue for this Urheimat based upon perceived connections between Afroasiatic and Khoisan languages" -- that's classic fringe). Please, for the umpteenth time, stop stalling and produce those quotes per WP:PROVEIT. Otherwise, it's clear that the edit cannot remain in place."

- Causteau (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a clear-cut case of asking another editor to PROVE that a claim is TRUE, not just to verify that the claim was made. Now, from the second example:

"Though Catherine may have been regent for the Kingdom in 1513-1514 and was certainly Queen Consort at the time, it does not necessarily follow that she bore the title of Queen Regent. For example, the Prince of Wales was regent of the United Kingdom from 1811 to 1820 and was known as the Prince Regent, but Prince Paul of Yugoslavia, who was regent of that kingdom from 1934 to 1941, was not. User:62.56.53.218 said in an edit summary of 09.48 on 5 October 2008 "Just added her ttles in full they are all factual go check". One should not have to "go check"; if you know she was styled Queen Regent at that time then the onus is on you to provide evidence for it. See WP:PROVEIT."

- Opera hat (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, the editor was asking that the claim be evidenced to be TRUE, and not just that the claim be verified to have been made. As I said above, both of these editors were probably acting in good faith, and most likely they both meant to mean just that the claims should be reliably sourced.  However, their wording clearly shows that they were also calling for whether or not the claims were TRUE.  So they were either consciously or unconsciously misusing the WP:PROVEIT shortcut.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  23:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The quotes are "and produce those quotes per WP:PROVEIT" and "the onus is on you to provide evidence for it. See WP:PROVEIT". In both cases they are simply asking for sources, and pointing to the relevant policy. That's no different in intent to putting a { {cn} } next to a questionable article paragraph. And this is clearly the intent, and is understood as such in each case.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 00:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind, JB, that of the first 21 links to the shortcut, 12 were used correctly, i.e., in all twelve discussions, WP:PROVEIT was used only to ask for verifiability using reliable sources. The above two cases, when you read the entire quotations, clearly ask for more than just verifiability.  They clearly ask that the claims be verified to be TRUE.  And this is not proper usage of the shortcut.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Paine, the problem is that you are interpreting their statements. None of them mentions either "true" or "truth", so there is no question of any literal statement. If you wish to assert that their statements amount to demanding proof of truth, rather than proof that the challenged statements were indeed what was said, you need to provide evidence that your interpretation is the only appropriate one. So far, your argument is basically, "why, isn't it obvious?". I'm afraid not. Paradoctor (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you're right, Paradoc, for I certainly seem to be missing something. Let's see, first of all, your premise that the actual words "true" and "truth" must be used for me to make my assertion.  This I don't follow.  ". . . not the same thing as actually proving it.  You have been asked and repeatedly to prove that Bernal is taken seriously . . ."  "You have been unable to prove . . ."  To me, the editor is using "prove" and "proving" in the incorrect sense as regards this discussion.  The editor is asking, NOT that the other editor verify that the claim is valid, but instead that the editor PROVE that the claim is true.  And in the second example, ". . .if you know she was styled Queen Regent at that time then the onus is on you to provide evidence for it" .  Here the editor does not, to me, appear to be asking for mere verification of the claim, but for "evidence" that the claim is true.  So I guess I'm just not getting how this can be seen as anything other than, in both cases, editors asking that a claim be proved to be true rather than just asking for a reliable source to support that the claim has been made.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  00:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "your premise": No such thing, I'm afraid. I merely stated that the assertion is not in the words you refer to, but rather in your  interpretation of the words actually written. It follows that we're  talking about a problem of interpretation.
 * 'the editor is using "prove" and "proving" in the incorrect sense': That is the thing we're rotating around.
 * So, how is the editor in the "Bernal" case using "prove"? Apparently, s/he wants to see a proof that "Bernal is taken seriously". I  submit that this is mere shorthand for "please provide citations to  reliable literature that makes the assertion that Bernal is taken  seriously". So, the subject of proof is not Bernal's reputation, but the  existence of citable assertions about it.
 * In the "Catherine" case, we have the same thing: The "evidence" requested is not evidence that she was queen regent, but that  there is literature claiming this. In this particular case, a primary  source in the form of a document assigning the title to her would also  be acceptable, but I doubt that this is what was asked.
 * You sure make this discussion interesting. :) Paradoctor (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As do you, Paradoc. You do seem to forget though, that I went through 21 links to find these two cases.  And at the same time I found 12 cases where the WP:PROVEIT shortcut was used correctly.  This has to give you the inkling that I know the difference.  The above two cases definitely are requests for verification.  However they are also clear-cut, no-interpretation-required requests that the claims be PROVED or EVIDENCED to be TRUE.  I do know the difference, and there is a clear difference between these two cases and the other twelve.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  04:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "the inkling that I know the difference": I agree that you know a difference, but since we disagree, it's evident that our criteria are different. As you refer to cases I haven't seen, it might be helpful if you cited one of the cases where we seem to agree, so we can compare corpses. Currently, I have no idea of the criteria you apply in your determination that the present cases are misuses. Paradoctor (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The cases you haven't seen are:
 * Talk:Epitaph
 * Talk:Original sin
 * Talk:Yom Kippur War
 * Talk:Fasces
 * Talk:Spanking
 * Talk:Nuclear winter
 * Talk:Anti-Arabism
 * Talk:Counter-terrorism
 * Talk:Michael Collins (Irish leader)
 * Talk:Genocide denial
 * Talk:Axl Rose
 * Talk:Acupuncture
 * Use your browser's search function with PROVEIT in the field and you should be taken to each instance of the shortcut's usage on these pages. You will find that in each of these cases, the shortcut was used correctly, i.e., it was used to request ONLY VERIFICATION that the claim was made, and NOT that the claim had to be PROVED to be true.
 * And lest we forget, there is also the example on the Zeno's paradoxes Talk page. Editor Steaphen used the shortcut to demand proof that the claim(s) was TRUE.  That's actually 3 out of 15, and leaves us with 20%.  Twenty per-cent!  Possibly 1 out of 5 times the PROVEIT shortcut has been misused over the years!  The numbers seem to get better and better (or worse and worse from my perspective).
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  06:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sidenote: I'm not sure your chracterization of Steaphen's usage is correct.
 * Main course: I had a look at the examples, and I don't see what specific criteria you applied:
 * "Axl Rose is a tenor 100%" ... "Once again: WP:PROVEIT"
 * "Terrorism has often been used to justify military intervention in countries where terrorists are said to be based." ... "This paragraph falls fouls of WP:PROVEIT and WP:OR."
 * "your presumption that the ADL is Anti-Arab does not require rebutting (WP:PROVEIT)"
 * "Please demonstrate the relevance of why Michael Collins' 12/13th century alleged ancestry is relevant to this article, see WP:PROVEIT."
 * No. 4 is a clear misuse, the issue here is WP:DUE.
 * I don't see any substantial difference between your two examples and #1-3, in each case we have the request to prove a statement of fact. If there is a difference, please explain it. Paradoctor (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * When I read those examples and the other cases, I was unable to justify their usage as specifically calling for the truth of the claim itself. The two cases I did choose I felt were very clear-cut examples of asking for both verifiability of the claim and for the truth of the claim.  And you don't seem to agree that editor Steaphen used WP:PROVEIT to call for the math claim to be true?   Then I may as well give up.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  00:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "I may as well give up": Forgive me for saying so, but how can you give up if you haven't even started? I asked you to "explain it". Your reply was "I was unable to justify their usage". Ok, but that explains nothing, it only restates what you did in terms meaningful only to you. Where are the reasons? I. e., something like "editor X said 's', which by this or that rule of English usage has to be interpreted as t, which violates "r" in part p of policy P". This gives me text I can read, and respond to. What you did in the above reply was in effect saying "I chose the two examples and not the other because they looked to me like they support my position.". Help me! Paradoctor (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see... in the Rose example, it was very clear to me that the WP:PROVEIT asking editor was not asking for truth, but just for verifiability:

Once again: WP:PROVEIT. Wiki really doesn't care about what your voice teacher can do or your personal assessment of Rose's voice, and neither count as a reliable source. If you can find reliable sources that contradict what is in the article, feel free to share them here.
 * In your 2nd example, the editor was just asking "Who says . . ." and clearly using the WP:PROVEIT shortcut correctly.
 * Your 3rd example, is actually a very good example of correct usage. The editor used it in the same manner one might use WP:BURDEN or WP:BOP.
 * The 4th example:

Please demonstrate the relevance of why Michael Collins' 12/13th century alleged ancestry is relevant to this article, see WP:PROVEIT.
 * is again, just a request for the other editor to verify the relevance (verifiability) of the claim. So all those appeared to me to be correct usages of the shortcut.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we please ignore Steaphen in all of this. He was banned shortly after for his behaviour on that talk page, and his protestations as far as I can see are part of that. Instead find editors in good standing that have misunderstood it if you want to prove a point.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 00:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see why we should ignore an editor just because he is "not in good standing". Misuse is misuse.  Either Steaphen was confused about the shortcut (IMO the most likely) or he misused the shortcut with malice aforethought.  Either way, Steaphen's usage represents what I consider to be a classic case of misuse of the shortcut.  That discussion was indeed why I came to this Talk page to attempt an improvement.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  01:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Before we get into this further, let's get back to brass tacks... Even if we can pick holes in Paine's current examples, I am sure that he will be able to find other examples where this shortcut has been misused. To me, the occasional misuse does not matter... I think all the situations where editors have used "PROVEIT" appropriately far outweigh the occasional misuse. The fact is, there are more than enough situations where saying "PROVEIT" was, is, and will continue to be both appropriate and necessary that the occasional misuse can essentially be discounted.
 * Paine... It is obvious that you feel strongly about this, but pushing for it may be hurting your case more than helping it ... I know it has had a negative effect on me... shifting me from "I don't see the need, but I don't care enough to strongly object" towards a more solid "I oppose the removal". I think it is unlikely that you will gain a consensus to remove this link... so perhaps it would be better to drop the idea? Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "he will be able to find other examples": Maybe, but apart from my personal preference for convincing over discouraging, please note that he already made a statistical argument that these two examples would constitute sufficient reason to believe there is a significant problem with the shortcut. Before we get into that, I'd rather milk the current point for what it's worth, I don't think we have yet arrived in diminishing returns country. Paradoctor (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK... but I think you are arguing just for the sake of argument... my point was that, even if we were to accept Paine's interpretation of these examples, I don't think they do constitute sufficient reason to believe there is a significant problem with the shortcut. Nor do I think that his finding a few more would be sufficient reason. I think that the benfits of being able to properly use the link far outweigh any potential for abuse. Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not arguing for the sake of argument as Paradoc might be. I'm arguing against a two-faced misnomer of a shortcut that should be TNT'd about as far away from Wikipedia as we can get it!  First, you say you want examples.  So I show you very real examples where editors asked NOT JUST for verification, but also for TRUTH OF THE CLAIM.  Now, you imply that I wasted my time.  You might be right, and I might not garner consensus for this, but there are other ways of getting rid of nasty things in Wikipedia that editors cling to as if they were married to them for fifty years.  PROVEIT has to GO, it HAS TO.  It is a longstanding shortcut that I've shown causes problems, so it has been causing these problems – edit wars, incivil heated arguments on Talk pages, confusion among novice editors and abuse by longstanding editors – for a longstanding time.  It's about time to get the shortcut the heck outta Dodge!
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  04:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "just for the sake of argument": I'll admit to enjoying this particular exchange, but my heart is pure, my intentions are good, and I'm on the right side. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no "right side" or wrong side, Paradoc. There is only improvement of this grand and great encyclopedia, this information resource that has no equal.  I have been in Blueboar's shoes before, and I have been in LeadSongDog's and Ward20's shoes before.  The first argument I ever made on WP was just like this one, though.  I argued to move the Shirley Temple page to "Shirley Temple Black".  I felt among other things that Black has been even more notable as a government-service worker than she was as a child star.  There were IIRC more than ten involved editors who promptly and effectively shut me down, though some excellent compromises/improvements were made.  It wasn't really a consensus, though, until I read Black's own words, which indicated that she herself never had a problem with being identified with her sparkling, child-star image.  Only then was the issue of renaming the Shirley Temple page brought to true "consensus".  I am no stranger to being on the minority side of an issue.  But when I know my proposition will improve this encyclopedia, then the majority will find that they have the proverbial "tiger by the tail".
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  05:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, I like kitties. ^_^ Though I have to assure you, there is a wrong  side. :-P Paradoctor (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As you wish, Paradoc, but if there is a wrong side, then it would have to be a bunch of good, experienced editors who, for whatever reason, blindly close their eyes to a solid gold case of shortcut abuse and misuse. WP:PROVEIT is nothing.  It's just a shortcut with two possible meanings.  It could be misused accidentally, it could be misused with malice aforethought, and it could be misunderstood by confused novice editors.  Three strikes!  The dern shortcut ought to be out.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  00:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh no! Not WP:SPOT, too! o_0 Paradoctor (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps another way of looking at the question is to ask what extra value the WP:PROVEIT shortcut brings. How does it improve on the alternatives? Are there cases where it is simply a better choice, or could the alternatives serve as well, making it redundant? User:LeadSongDog come howl  14:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To Papyrus: Yes, there are cases where I think it is simply a better choice... I would agree it is a link that should be saved for rare occasions... but it is a very useful link to have when those rare occasions arise.
 * To Paine: shouting "it HAS TO go" and threatening a "tiger by the tail?"... my, you are getting worked up over this... perhaps it is time to take a wikibreak? Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Emotional outburst noted and hopefully forgiven by all. You're right, BB, I think I'll go whoop some vandal butt for awhile.  As Uncle Arnold said, "I'll be back."
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  15:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of tigers... you might want to read WP:TIGER... a very nice essay that seems to apply here. See you when you get back. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just briefly checking back, and yes, BB, that's a good one. I apologized for the ALLCAPS, because that was out of line.  However, I cannot and will not apologize for the TBTT statement.  I know that fulfilling this RfC proposition will improve Wikipedia.  I am the metaphor personified.

You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral.
 * For better or worse, that is me when I know I'm right. Admittedly, it sometimes gets me into trouble, but life is far too short to settle for mediocre, two-sided, Janus-faced misnomers like this shortcut.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  18:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose and remind editors that this issue is addressed elsewhere: "The shortcut is not the policy".  Perhaps this warning should also be added to WP:SHORTCUT.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion, editor WhatamIdoing! From the link you provided, ". . . Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined by the community through consensus. Major changes to a policy or guideline page are discussed first on the talk page, especially with policies, . . ."  This particular shortcut, as previously noted can have two meanings, thus making it a serious and confusing misnomer.  I realize that "The shortcut is not the policy" covers shortcuts that do not necessarily mean what the pointed-to policy is meant to cover, but I sincerely believe that this shortcut, WP:PROVEIT, is not what that procedural policy was meant to cover.  I am hard-pressed to accept that WP:POLICY#Adherence asks us to accept a two-sided, Janus-faced misnomer shortcut that has caused, and continues to cause confusion and misuse on Wikipedia discussion pages.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  12:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Geez, I was bringing some questionable language from WP:NPOV over here which is so poorly worded it allows all sorts of WP:OR to sneak in, and now people want to get rid of "prove it"? How much more questionable nonsense would sneak in? Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view with relevant proposal to this page Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC status
Refs.: WP:PROVEIT – RfC: Should shortcut WP:PROVEIT be changed/deleted –  &

At present there are five solid opposing editors and one editor, myself, who still wants the WP:PROVEIT shortcut completely removed from Wikipedia, either by moving it to another name or by outright deletion. There are two editors who have suggested a compromise to remove the shortcut from the shortcut box, and to allow the shortcut Redirect to remain and be used sparingly. I still strongly believe that this shortcut must go. However in the spirit of seeking agreement/consensus, I would seriously consider a compromise if opposing editors would also be willing to do so. &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  13:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to nit-pick, I count Six opposing editors... but even five to one seems to be a clear consensus against removing. As for the "hide it" suggestion... If there are times when it is appropriate to use the shortcut (and I think there are), then we should continue to list it.  You have yet to convince me that there is a valid reason not to list it, and unless you can come up with a new argument I don't expect you will be able to convince me. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * . There are only five editors who are clearly opposed. The editor of which you speak is probably Paradoc, who has not indicated an opinion, although has argued for the most part in opposition of this RfC.


 * So Blueboar, in accord with what you say above, you appear to endorse the confusion and misuse of this shortcut. Why would you want the confusion, edit wars and incivil disputes caused by this shortcut to continue?


 * On a separate note, and to be completely straightforward, I have asked for help on this discussion page. I sincerely would like to keep this discussion informal as long as possible.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  13:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. You have a majority, not a consensus. There is a difference.


 * Your argument is similar to saying that because some people drink and drive, we should do away with cars, and that if I am in favor of cars, I "endorse" drunk driving. I think that is a fundamentally flawed argument. I don't endorse drinking and driving... but I would strongly oppose banning cars. Similarly, I do not endorse confusion and misuse of the PROVEIT link, but I support appropriate use of this link... and that means that I stongly support keeping the link. Furthermore, I think you are seriously over stating how much confusion and misuse actually exists, and I think that what little confusion or misuse might exist can be dealt with in other ways... and are better dealt with in other ways. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * . Perhaps you don't consider 2 out of 14 (14.3%) a significant number of misuses? Or perhaps you find the sample size inadequate?  If I go pull an AQL sample, then who knows what I might find?  There might be less than 14% or there might be more than 14% editors who use the shortcut inappropriately.  I am only closely familiar with one case, which is the case that brought me here in the first place, first to make a BOLD edit, and then to open discussion to attempt to get you involved editors to see just how badly used this shortcut can be.  Since you and the other opposers (with the exception of Paradoc) were not involved in this heated discussion, then how can you possibly feel the powerful opposition I have to this shortcut?  So I do understand your position, Blueboar, and the positions of the others, however I still firmly believe that this shortcut is a two-sided, Janus-faced misnomer that must be dealt with, someway, somehow.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  15:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You now have 6 opposing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What misuses? The links you provided were to experienced editors using it as a shortcut to a policy. You have yet to link to an editor using it to mean something else. Please, as you have no evidence and have convinced no-one, perhaps it is time to LETGO?-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Called it ~4 days ago. Jclemens (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * JB, your refusal to "see" that those editors were calling for a claim to be proved/evidenced to be TRUE does not negate the fact that they were doing so. That is clear misuse of the shortcut, whether they were experienced or not.  Then you have the example that sent me here to discuss the issue.  I feel that it is highly unfair of you to call my evidence "no evidence", and to pressure me into submission.  The shortcut is a two-faced misnomer that has no business on Wikipedia, and I will continue to believe so until you can provide at least as hard evidence in support of its continued misuse as I have provided to get rid of it.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  17:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. When used as a call for truth, this shortcut is actually in violation of this policy!
 * Does anyone else see the irony of one editor asking (in the face of pointed questions) for something that he's unable to convince anyone else is necessary? Just curious. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No irony here that I can see, JC.
 * We have myself and two other editors who clearly see the need for improvement.
 * LeadSongDog
 * Ward20
 * Paine Ellsworth
 * comment... Um ... I don't see any comment by Mark20... so make that you and LeadSongDog. Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies to Ward20 for my error, which has been corrected. Thank you, BB. for pointing this out.  &mdash;  Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  20:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up... note that Ward20 did not "clearly see a need for improvement" all he said was that he understood your opposition. His suggestion was actually to keep PROVEIT as a link, and add SOURCEIT as another alternative (something that I would have no objection to.) Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "What about adding WP:SOURCEIT to the policy shortcut box where WP:PROVEIT is?" That was Ward20's suggestion. First you threaten me, then when I have been straightforward about asking for help at MedCab, you sneak over and persecute me, and now you totally misconstrue another editor's statements.  I think it's time for you to leave this debate.  You egged me back into this when I really didn't want to come back yet.  So what's next?  You gonna make more threats?  Oh, excuse me, you gonna warn me and advise me some more? Dern stuff can be contagious as heck!  &mdash;  Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  21:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't Ward's suggestion... read it again, in it's entirety: "What about adding WP:SOURCEIT to the policy shortcut box where WP:PROVEIT is? Over time editors may come to a consensus to use that shorcut, and at a future time WP:PROVEIT gets dropped, or maybe not and WP:PROVEIT will win out." (bolding mine for emphisis). Ward's suggestion isn't to replace PROVEIT with SOURCEIT... his/her suggestion is to 1) add SOURCEIT to the box in addition to PROVEIT, and 2) let time and usage determine which (if either) is preferred.  I have no problem with this idea. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * . Hopefully, Ward20 will return and notice the words being put in his mouth. He did not write, "add SOURCEIT to the box in addition to PROVEIT".  He did write, "What about adding WP:SOURCEIT to the policy shortcut box where WP:PROVEIT is?"  So I see Ward20's improvement as replacing WP:PROVEIT in the shortcut box, while allowing the Redirect to remain intact.  Then let the future take care of itself.  Are you amenable to this improvement?
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  22:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ward also wrote: "...and at a future time WP:PROVEIT gets dropped, or maybe not.... I interpret "and at a future time WP:PROVEIT gets dropped" to mean "keep it for now". Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the way I read it, too. When coupled with his first sentence, Ward20 suggested to replace WP:PROVEIT with WP:SOURCEIT in the shortcut box, and keep it (the WP:PROVEIT Redirect) for now.  Are you amenable to this improvement?
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, all I can say is that I interpret Ward's comment very differently than you do. I interpret it as having both PROVEIT and SOURCEIT, and time will tell which people use. So we will have to agree to disagree unless Ward comes by and clarifies.  I would be amenable to having SOURCEIT in addition to PROVEIT, waiting a while to see if this addition changes behaviors, and if so then reopening the issue of removing PROVEIT... I am not amenable to removing PROVEIT at this point in time. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't been monitoring closely enough. My intent was to offer a compromise exactly as Blueboar describes above, having SOURCEIT and PROVEIT both in the box. It would allow editors to migrate away from PROVEIT, if they wish. It also allows editors to note SOURCEIT and PROVEIT are equivalent which indicates truth need not be proved. I am not advocating any particular wording one way or another, I just wanted to advance a possible compromise. Ward20 (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well then, Ward, I must have misunderstood you when you indicated to put SOURCEIT where PROVEIT was. Okay, so the only change you advocate is the addition of another shortcut.  Why do you suppose WP:SOURCEIT, WP:BURDEN, WP:UNSOURCED and WP:BOP aren't enough?  And what makes you think anything would change for the better if WP:PROVEIT remains in the shortcut box?
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  23:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I view it as a compromise to find out if there is a future consensus to use WP:SOURCEIT over PROVEIT. There seems to me to be a consensus not to eliminate PROVEIT right now. As I said previously I understand the reluctance to let go of long used terminology. I think a compromise similar to this would minimize any disruption over the long term. Wikipedia wasn't built in a day and some parts will take longer to optimize than others. Ward20 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree to disagree.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  23:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We have one editor who appeared to be arguing for the sake of argument (productive nonetheless) and who never actually voiced an opinion either way.
 * Paradoctor
 * We have six editors who oppose this resolution without really giving strong reasons to do so.
 * Jclemens
 * JohnBlackburne
 * Crum
 * Blueboar
 * WhatamIdoing
 * CarolMooreDC
 * I looked over the conversations that Carol pointed us to, and I tend to agree there with the majority, but mostly I see how people made the dissenting editor feel. I guarantee you, JC, that no matter how hard you and others might try to make me feel that I and my ideas don't belong here, it ain'ta gonna happen.  We are init for the long haul.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  17:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Paine, I am going to be blunt here... The change you want isn't going to happen. Get used to it.  Your continued pushing of this is now becoming a case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT.  Please drop it before someone gets pissed off enough to take action. Blueboar (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * BB, thank you for your bluntness, however please corral your threats! You fellas need to stick to the issues.  You've been pushing me to stop since the very beginning.  It didn't work then, and it won't work now.  What we have here is an issue of incorrect use of a shortcut.  We do not have any other issues except for the one you seem to be threatening.  I have been civil up to now, but I will not stand for being threatened.  I did not come here to piss anybody off, and that is not my intention now.  So I will ask you just this once.  Please stick to the issue at hand and stop trying to turn this conversation into a fiasco, won't you?


 * I am not threatening... I am giving warning and advice. You can take it or leave it as you wish. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Paine you are completely mischaracterising the debate. No-one is agreeing with your interpretation and unfounded assertions: you are in a minority of one. And those that oppose you do not need to give strong reasons: it is you trying to convince others that needs to provide persuasive arguments to change a long standing and widely used shortcut. This has already gone on too long, there was clear consensus before the RfC. Opening an RfC and posting elsewhere as if it were still open to question was quite unnecessary.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 18:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * JB, I'm not mischaracterising anything, except perhaps the tone that this debate is taking upon itself. You people are real gems!  I come here with the intention to improve this encyclopedia, and all I get is blind following of a misused shortcut just because of its longevity.  Let's face it.  That's pretty much all you have, isn't it?  The shortcut's been around the block several times.  It's my information that longevity of anything has never before stopped the improvement of Wikipedia.  As well it shouldn't.  So that is a very weak reason for doing nothing to improve this policy.  You fellas seem to be getting a little out of hand, so I'm outty for awhile.  When I return, it is hoped that civility will rule the day, and that editors will be sticking to the issue at hand and coming up with valid reasons to keep this shortcut.  At present, there are no valid reasons to keep this shortcut, and I have proved beyond any shadow of doubt that improvement is necessary.  Thank you for listening.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  20:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on the edits, not the editors. There's no point in antagonizing each other.User:LeadSongDog come howl  20:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, LSD, since Ward clarified his position, it is now just you and me against the . . .— anyway, do you think it is useful to continue to attempt compromise? or are you willing to acquiesce to the status quo?
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  00:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Google Street View
(moved from the previous "Text vs. other media" discussion) Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if this is not the place to ask, but carrying along the lines of this topic, can Google Street View be considered a verifiable source for geographic based statements? I ask in regards to the twinning situation of Antony, Cornwall, where the village is included with the twinning of Torpoint to Benodet, but as the smaller settlement is not cited in any online sources. Yet if looking at the specific page on Google Street View (here) it can be seen that the local government recognises the twinning through the road sign. If this can be used as verifiable, how would one cite such a source? Zangar (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by "twinning." Maurreen (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That link doesn't work well for me -- this one, on the other hand, does. http://maps.google.com/?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=50.370978,-4.247246&spn=0,359.933052&z=14&layer=c&cbll=50.370957,-4.247528&panoid=PRctKrmNfX3zaEmDGxEHBw&cbp=12,285.31,,0,8.55&oi=nojs --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Twinning in this case refers to town twinning, where two settlements (usually in different countries/regions have a cultural/commercial cooperative agreements with each other (their twin); it is analogous with sister cities in the US. Hope this helps! Zangar (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sidestepping the issue of Google but addressing the main point -- A source is not required to be online to be acceptable. Is a text published on paper that would serve the purpose? If not, somehow the sign itself seems to me a better source than Google; you could just show it through Google. I come down firmly in the middle. :) Maurreen (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Maurreen, I don't think Zangar questions that sources do not need to be online per se. He is just pointing out that in this particular instance – the fact that Antony is twinned with Benoded – there does not appear to be a readily available source that verifies the twinning. Sure, it is probably enshrined in a document held by one or both local authorities; and, no doubt, the actual twinning ceremony was recorded by local newspapers and/or local television. But unless those sources are recorded accessibly – and on the web would be the most accessible of all – they are not much help. So, as I understand it, Zangar is asking what visual or photographic sources are acceptable for verification and, specifically, whether the visual record held on/by Google Streetview is an acceptable and authoritative source as far s Wikipedia is concerned. Andy F (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's right, Andy F summarises my question well. Any thoughts on this? Zangar (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think we are asking the wrong question. What you want to cite is the sign that stands along the road as you enter Antony... a sign that happens to be shown in the Google Street View image.  You are merely using Google Street View to confirm the existence of the sign... but that is not necessary... we do not require confirmation that a source exists unless someone actually challenges it and questions whether it exists.  Even then, there is a good argument that if someone wishes such confirmation, all they have to do is travel to Antony and see it.
 * So the question we should be asking is this... is the road sign a reliable source for the information that Antony is twinned with Benodet. I don't see any reason to say it isn't.
 * The next question is... is this the type of information that needs a citation? I don't think so.  It does not seem like something that is "likely to be challenged". Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with BB who's pointing out an important distinction between the source (the road sign), and how we came to know about that source (Google books, street view, a library, another source who discusses it etc). We have no reason to suppose the road sign is wrong, or that the way we found out about it has distorted it in any way. It could be out of date, but that's true of any source, and a quick email to the local government offices will solve that problem. Now, please don't anyone ask me if the road sign is a primary or secondary source. :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 14:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh jeez... you had to mention that didn't you? Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I did before you did. :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 16:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not me... I'm the one who keeps saying that we spend too much time arguing about the definitions of PSTS and should focus instead on whether the source is used appropriately. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to divert this discussion again, but the primary/secondary distinction is one way of deciding whether it's used appropriately. It's a tool. People who want to remove it are saying to those of us who use that tool that we mustn't use it because they don't want to. More tools and concepts are better than fewer, just as a 200,000-word vocabulary is better than a 20,000-word one. That's my only argument: that it's an incredibly useful tool. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 17:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a tool... but are we using the right tool for the job? With PSTS, I always come away thinking we are trying to fix a broken window with a sledge hammer.  Oh well... this isn't the place to go into all that.
 * Getting back to the subject... I don't think there is a need to source the twinning... but if someone challenges it... just cite to the road sign. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

burden
I am involved in a dispute over the inclusion of material on British National Party. This edit ] is being disputed as failing burden[], but I fail to see how. Am I missing something? It needss formating but beyond that I cannot understand the objection.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it passes WP:BURDEN. My guess is that there are other issues, and the editor is simply citing Burden in error.  Be patient and keep asking for clarification. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That is what I thought. Thnaks for the help, I hope that this can now be resovled.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Unverifiable source okay when info verified elsewhere?
I have a hypothetical I want to bring to your attention: An event occurs. An article is written about the event. We have several sources that meet WP:V that verify both the event itself, and the major details surrounding said event. These sources are cited in the article. There is also a source that does not meet WP:V, say another freely editable wiki or a forum post, that gives a first hand account of the event. Now, mind you, all of the important details in this first-hand account have been verified by other sources. What the first-hand account brings to the article is the color and depth of seeing the event happen through someone's eyes. Should this first-hand account be excluded from the article on the grounds of WP:V? Thanks. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 07:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say we should not use the first hand account... not on the grounds of WP:V, but on the grounds of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Defining news oranisations
Hi, I am trying to start a debate about defining what news organisations, as a reliable source, are good for and/or not good for. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources ~ R.T.G 18:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that people reply at WT:RS. Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Should 'blog' in verifiability/notability policy be 'personal blog'?
Presently, various verifiability and notability policy pages include 'blogs' in lists of self-published sources, along with personal web sites, open wikis, and the like. Sometimes a notation is made that newspapers' blogs may be reliable. I'm thinking that the evolution of internet media may have outmoded the reflexive classification of a blog as self-publication. Examples I'm looking at: Both of these sources seem to have nonzero reliability, to me. Not as much as a Pearson Education publication or a Washington Post blog, maybe, but vastly more than a personal web site or open wiki. This suggests to me that maybe the 'blog' item in self-published source lists would better read 'personal blog', so as to not blanket-discredit reliable media outlets because they use the (increasingly popular, obviously) blog format. I can see a concern that this would embolden people to claim group blogs as reliable, on the logic that they're not 'personal'. I think we could easily say that a blog is just as 'personal' when run by three random people as by one, though. Any thoughts? :) &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * [WoW Insider], a blog-format news organ that appears to have extensive editorial oversight, to be operated professionally, and to be owned by a reputable company (Weblogs Inc., thence AOL) rather than an individual (but not a newspaper; possibly a news organization?).
 * [Digital Connections], another blog-format news organ. Editorial oversight is less clear than with WoW Insider, but does appear to exist, and it's clearly a serious outlet of a prominent company in its field (360i).  Also not a newspaper, not a news organization.


 * We do have a footnote to that effect, footnote 4: ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 17:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The exception language is written to be specific to newspapers and/or news organizations, though, right? Maybe there's a tweak to that language that would work.  Maybe if, before "Some newspapers", we had "The blog format does not, in itself, imply a self-published source; for example, [s]ome newspapers..." &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we have to be careful, because people will otherwise claim, "Oh, but it's really a blog; it's only in blog format." The question then would be, if it's not a blog and it's not a news organization or publishing house, what is it? I think you're right that the evolution of internet media may make this policy outmoded soon, but I don't feel it's happened yet, and I think this is one case where it's best to lag behind. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 17:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds wise. :) I feel like there's a valid answer to the "what is it?", but I suspect someone better-versed than I in classification of communications media is needed to properly formulate it.  Thanks for your feedback! &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with SV... it wasn't that long ago that we simply said "no blogs". Period. That has changed, and may change further... but such change should happen slowly and with deliberation. Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree. I suspect we could use a very narrow relaxation of the personal blog ban, where the blogger is clearly and independently notable (not merely as a blogger/writer/journalist), writing on a subject within their area of expertise on which they have personal knowledge, generally regarded as a reliable person, and the information does not raise BLP content issues -- but the exception would need to be so narrowly drawn that it's almost impossible to phrase simply and coherently.  Better, I think, to use IAR as a basis for tolerating the occasional exception. [What brings this to mind? The well-known bassist John Ciambotti |CIAMBOTTI&sql=11:fvfrxqe5ldae~T4 died (or reportedly died) earlier this week; yet although his death has been documented by various personal acquaintances, the closest thing we have to WP-acceptable sources are a Twitter report by Rosanne Cash and an official-site-blog post by Elvis Costello.]  I just don't see how to frame such an exception, and if it weren't rock-solid-phrased it would end up being more trouble than it's worth. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Should this be sourced
I am currently in a debate with another editor over whether the DVD release dates for a television show need to be sourced or not. According to the other editor, since "release dates and air dates are almost never vandalized", and since release dates do not have "political, social or economic significance", then we don't have to source them. In addition, because the source of those release dates takes up "20% of the article size", that's another reason not to source them.

I am of the opinion that since release dates can be easily manipulated by any passerby, then they should be sourced. Verifiability is about things that could "likely be challenged", and in my opinion how am I to know that a show aired at a specific date, or was released on video at a specific date if I don't see a source confirming that? For all I know the date is made up. I have seen plenty of times where IPs have come to articles and just put in random dates for DVD releases that I could not find mentioned on any website (let alone a reliable one).

The other editor just keeps reverting all of the sources back out of the article. When I even offered up alternative sources, because the editor does not appear to like Amazon as a source for a release date, they just shot it down with the comments about how we don't need sources for release dates or air dates.

So, I ask, "Do we need to source home video releases and air dates for Television shows?"  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you should ask this at WP:RSN (this page is to discuss the policy). Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I see this as a policy question. Typically at WP:RSN, someone comes with some content and source and asks whether the source is reliable for that content.  No source is being given in the question so there's nothing for us to evaluate.  In any case, I'll answer the question by dodging it.  It shouldn't be too hard to find reliable sources for DVD release dates, so if an editor is requesting sources, it seems like a pretty easy request to fulfill.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's kind of my point. I had sources for the page in question, and another editor came in and removed all of them stating that it is "common practice" to not source these things basically because they aren't "vandalized" often. That made little sense to me. They even removed sources for dates in Region 2 and 4, which are kind of hard to verify if you don't live in the UK or Australia. I did start a thread at WP:RSN as well, but the editor is adamant that not only should they not be sourced, but that sourcing them with the same baseline source (e.g., Amazon, TV Guide, etc.) is considered spamming the article because you're using one specific website more than once.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Easy question to answer. "[A]ny material challenged [...] must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." <span style="font-size:medium; font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  06:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, they need sources, same as any other content. Despite what the other editor things, they are frequently vandalized, and particular for series that air out of sequence or when dealing with foreign works, frequently disputed. Claiming that only facts of "political, social or economic significance" needs sourcing is just wrong and against the idea and spirit of Wikipedia. That he is actually edit warring and removing reliable sources from an article based on his weird idea of what should and should not be sourced sounds like something for ANI. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
219.143.205.157 (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No request. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  14:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources - Redirect is wrong?
WP:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources redirects to WP:IRS but WP:IRS doesn't mention anything about exceptional claims. Shouldn't WP:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources redirect to WP:V? Specifically, the WP:V section? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing that section was moved from what was WP:RS at some point to WP:V, so yes, the redirect should be updated as well. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Blueboar (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

False information spread on the net undermines reliability
I'd like to bring a case to your attention for some some comment about how the policies apply.

I have come across more than one instance of a false claim arising (without knowing how it originated) and then it is repeated over and over in multiple news web sites, etc (probably as a result of lazy journalists cutting and pasting what they find on the net). Over time the false claim gains common currency and all the references to it are used in WP as citations in articles. However, in actual fact, the claim is incorrect but because it hasn't warranted attention from any independent commentator or analyst, and the claim has not been proven false in any published material there may not be any citable source (so it falls foul of WP:OR).

In this case only the false information has a verifiable source and therefore WP will continue to record incorrect information.

The most recent example I've come across is the claim that Wembley Stadium was designed so that its roof did not cast a shadow on the pitch. There are thousands of citable sources for this claim on the net (the vast majority of which are clearly plagiarised or reproduced articles as they are word-for-word identical). However the fact is that the roof does cast a shadow on the pitch as many photographs attest and anyone watching the FA Cup Final on 15th May 2010 will be able to see with their own eyes (assuming the sun is out !). But any potential citable source for this fact and the incorrectness of the claim is drowned out by the mountain of citable sources for the false claim.

So how do the policies relate to this situation ? Is it more reliable to carry the false information, because there are sources for it, than it is to carry the correct information, for which there is not necessarily as good a citable source ? And where does an editor stand when outvoted by other editors applying WP:Sources to enforce the false information ? Marlarkey (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a difficult question, and one that I'm currently dealing with myself, where The New York Times, CNN etc seem to have reported something quite badly, as a result of which it's in one of our articles. All you can do is try to track down sources that say otherwise and add them alongside what you see as the false view. If your sources are good enough, you may be able to persuade others than their sources are inferior. What we're not allowed to do is decide for ourselves that something is false, and that we know the truth. What matters is what the sources say, even when we disagree. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 01:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * But who judges which editors views take precedence ? I have one editor threatening to revert my change to Wembley Stadium on the basis that they don't think my sources are good enough when I think they are clear.  And in the instance I mentioned can a photograph be a source ?  I've decided to raise this issue here because this isn't the first time that I've come up against this issue and I have concerns anyway about plagiarism and lazy journalism, newspapers turning into press release factories, and I now have concerns about the effect of this on WP reliability when this mess is used to backup articles. Marlarkey (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've not looked at your source, but you'd need one that says what you're saying. You can't add an image and say, "look, a shadow." :) SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 01:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I wanted this to be a discussion about the policies and principles rather than the specific example. But I've cited as a reference the BBC commentary transcript for the relevant match where the commentator says at one point "The Chelsea goal is in the shaded part of the pitch" and at another point says "The whole pitch is in shade now". That's best I could find in amongst the mountain of cut-and-pasted articles. Marlarkey (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The BBC commentary simply proves that the stadium casts shade... not that it casts a shadow. Thomas Foolerie (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @Marlarkey: Well then, let's get back on topic. What we care about is "verifiability, not truth". We are encyclopedists, not journalists. Whether the Earth is round or flat, we don't care. What we do is to summarize as many and as much as possible of all the sources published on a topic, giving more weight to more widely held opinions and less weight to less widely held opinions. Who is right is not for us to decide. <span style="font-size:medium; font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  03:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Marlarkey, the example you give of using the BBC mention of a shaded part of the pitch is an example of WP:SYN. Take a look at that and see if that answers your questions. The bottom line is that if you want to say X, you need to find a source that says X, not one that says Y which in your view implies X. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 05:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's quite right; I'm very sure you can draw conclusions from a single source, provided the consensus is that you are drawing correct conclusions. You can't combine two or more sources though, even if there's consensus you're right, because that's synthesis. The wikipedia actually does draw conclusions all the time from single sources; that's essential to summarise things. But the conclusions you draw must be unequivocal.- Wolfkeeper  01:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So from this discussion am I right to conclude that verifiability' is about verifying the existence of references rather than verifying the veracity of the information ?

You see in this day and age with lazy journalists, newspapers and web sites regugitated press releases and endemic plagiarism on the net, the opportunities are enormous for false information being spread on the net, then being used as sources for citations in WP and WP then being used as a source for further repetition of the false information. Who knows, if I can think up a suitable fact perhaps I'll have a go at spreading a false fact that way. For example by putting something into a WP article, then bringing that info to the attention of a local paper, which may refer to it in a published story, and then that published newspaper story could be used as a source for the original false information in WP - if more people looked at WP they would find a verified fact and with plagiarism and copying of WP it would spread, convincing more people of the truth of the fact. Marlarkey (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Marlarkey, consider it a division of labor: journalists and researchers go after the "facts" and publish them, while Wikipedians (or encyclopedists in general) summarize their work. It's our job to weight this summary according to "reliability" and "preponderance" of the sources, which means we need to use our collaborative common sense for both tasks. Crum375 (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the difference. The problem is how that plays out in a world where journalists in particular don't go after facts any more, they reproduce press releases without verifying the information in the press release and they use WP as a source to verify the facts and to steal text from. Newspapers and their web sites feed off WP and WP feeds off newspapers and web sites, and that's all just fine and dandy by WP policies - despite it resulting in incorrect information appearing. Marlarkey (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. Our goal is to be a summary of what others have published about a topic, not to ferret out "the truth". If the reliable source are all wrong, or all right, it doesn't matter from our perspective. Let's assume there is an error which has been widely reported. If it's of any significance, eventually it will be fixed, and then we'll include the fixed version in our article. Wikipedia is simply a weighted mirror of what the reliable sources are saying, right or wrong. Crum375 (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To put this another way... our job is not to "correct the record"... just to report what it currently says. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand that... but its not how others understand it and its not how WP presents itself. At Assessing reliability it clearly states that articles are reliable if they have reliable sources and it lists the types of sources that are deemed to be reliable.  It also gives an example "This is a fact" clearly implying that it a fact (ie true) because it has a reliable source but nowhere is there anything about the veracity of the source.  A fact is not a fact just because someone says it is in print.  Marlarkey (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Marlarkey, what you are referring to is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. Which means it's just someone's opinion, with no known consensus or any official standing. You should refer to our policies to learn about this site, and WP:V says that what we care about is whether the material has been published by a "reliable source", not whether we think it's true. And WP:V also tells us that "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In other words, we check whether a source has a "reputation for accuracy", and if so we summarize what it says. Crum375 (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (4th nomination)
You are invited to join the discussion at. patsw (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC) (Using )
 * I commented against deletion on the grounds that a radio program of 15 hours per week heard by 20 million listeners presents a unique situation with regard to verifiability. patsw (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I commented for merger into either the article on Rush or on his show. The jargon Rush uses is note worthy in either of those contexts, but it isn't notable as a topic on its own. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prods
See WT:BLPPROD for further discussion. Gigs (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to update with info about sticky prods for BLPs, per  discussion there. Maurreen (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prod reversion
I made this reversion because that language creates an impression that adding a source of any kind is sufficient to make an article acceptable. Especially in the case of BLP, sources must be of extra high quality, and must directly support the material. The language I removed makes it sound that all we care about is having a source, any source, no matter what it says, which is clearly wrong and in conflict with this policy, not only for BLP, but for any article. See also the WP:BLP discussion. Crum375 (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest consolidating any discussion, at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. -- Maurreen (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think discussion of changes to V sourcing requirements belongs here. Crum375 (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a slight change to the prod's proposed language... accounting for Crum's concerns. It may now be acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another concern I have with this proposed addition to the policy is that it seems to imply that unsourced problematic material, including derogatory or defamatory material in BLP cases, should be allowed to remain there for days. The length of time allowed to fetch the required sources should be dependent on the circumstances: very short, perhaps a few minutes or even less, for material which can cause perceptible harm, or longer in less critical situations. Crum375 (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes that should alleviate this concern. (Ie, made it explicit that adding a source only stops BLP-Prod, it doesn't in any way lift the burden of WP:V. --  B figura  (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also bumped the section further down the page, since BLP-PROD is only a minor consequence of WP:V, so I didn't think it belong above the references section. Just my $0.02. -- B figura  (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that all this belongs in WP:V. The policy already states that we need to properly source our articles, and especially BLPs.  The details as to what should happen to a BLP that does not meet these requirements are best left to WP:BLP. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I made additions to the tag handling description to make it conform to V and BLP policies. Crum375 (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Poorly sourced articles are not subject to BLP PROD. Period. Gigs (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Unsourced content that's contentious is subject to deletion, but the whole BLP RfC thing didn't find support for speedy/prod deletion of poorly sourced articles. (By poorly sourced, I mean articles with only 1 RS). -- B figura  (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Poorly sourced" does not mean "only 1 RS". It means that the source or sources provided are from a marginally-reliable or unreliable publication, such as an SPS or advocacy site, or the reference material does not directly support the article. It's a matter of quality, not quantity. Crum375 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just so we don't trip ourselves up over mere terminology... I would like to ask that we maintain the distinction between removal of unsourced content... and deletion of unsourced articles. Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No more sticky prod issues should be added to any policy until we determine whether the idea has consensus (and no one has been able to link to a discussion yet showing that consensus was reached), and the wording is agreed so that it makes sense and doesn't contradict other policies or best practice. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 19:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea has widespread consensus at the RfC. You and Crum trying to twist things around and blockade what the community wanted is highly disruptive.  There is absolutely no consensus for out of process deletion of BLPs that are merely poorly sourced or unsourced outside of Prod, BLP Prod, and CSD. One or two people trying to pretend there is doesn't make it so.  We already had a massive RfC on the matter, and it was rejected, utterly.  BLP Prod was what people accepted.  New, totally unsourced BLPs can be deleted if they remain unsourced after a period of time.  It's that simple.  Gigs (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to propose sticky prods as a policy or guideline, you should do that by writing it up with a proposal tag on it, which has now been done. No one could follow the previous workshop discussions, and hardly anyone has contributed to them recently. I'm concerned that a very small group of people are trying to weaken the BLP policy by the back door&mdash;perhaps inadvertently because they're not familiar with the policies. But the motives don't matter. What matters is that the policy not be weakened without substantial wiki-wide and Foundation consensus.


 * This should be discussed on the sticky prod proposal page, not here. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 20:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

See WT:BLPPROD for further discussion. Gigs (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent Change
Deletion of articles that are merely unsourced or poorly sourced was specifically rejected at the RfC. So is there any consensus for Crum375's recent change:


 * "Articles about living persons that are unsourced or poorly sourced are subject to deletion, especially if the material included is negative or contentious."

Discuss. Gigs (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * An RfC for setting up a template, or debating mass deletions, is no substitute for the policy talk page. But can you please point me to a consensus which says that the core content policies have changed? Crum375 (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the one changing a core policy, not me. Gigs (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Here is what the policy says: "If the page's primary content is contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced; there is no obvious way to fix it; and there is no previous version of the page that is policy compliant, it may be necessary for an administrator to delete the page." Please explain where you see the difference between these words and what you quoted above. Crum375 (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Primarily contentious material" ... "no way to fix it" ... "no previous good version"... etc. There's a lot of strings attached.  That section is not a blanket license to delete any unsourced BLP. As it is, I'm not sure how wide acceptance that section has anyway.  Why isn't it reflected in a proper WP:CSD for example? Gigs (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does it say there is a "blanket license" to delete? The words you quoted are a brief summary, or overview, of BLPDEL. If someone is interested in the details, they can go there and read the full explanation. Crum375 (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion regarding making it into a proper CSD. Gigs (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's covered by G10. Starting a discussion on yet another page is not that good an idea. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 01:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion is basically done if the change stays reverted. If the CSD are out of line with this summary deletion of unsourced BLPs that everyone keeps pretending is allowed by WP:BLP, then that discussion should probably happen on the CSD page. Gigs (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be some more consideration here of what's being added. Adding to policy that new unsourced biographies may be deleted implies that old unsourced ones may not be. Adding that they may be deleted by a sticky prod implies that they may not be deleted in any other way. Any proposed addition to policy has to be written clearly so that we're not implying things we don't intend to imply. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 01:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Gigs (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is the change under question, please? Maurreen (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, the massive RfC was clearly against summary deletion. Stop dicking around. OrangeDog  (τ • ε) 14:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The massive RfC was against massive deletion. Summary deletion is part of BLP policy, and is done every day by admins when contentious BLP articles are improperly sourced, per WP:BLPDEL and WP:CSD. And this particular thread wasn't even about summary deletion, but WP:BLPDEL in general. Crum375 (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's not what the link I followed from VPP said - "Verifiability policy changed to allow summary deletion of all unsourced BLPs". OrangeDog  (τ • ε) 06:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Leave BLP specific issues to WP:BLP
May I suggest that we leave discussion of BLP specific issues to WP:BLP. I don't think we need to include anything about the new sticky prod in this policy... nor do we need to discuss the details of the BLP policy on this talk page. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This policy (clarification: WP:V), while providing much of the basis for deletion policies and guideline, has historically had nothing to say about deleting articles directly.  It seems out of place to mention the sticky BLP PROD, when we don't mention speedy deletion, AfD, or PROD. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 00:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

A massive loophole in WP:Verifiability
There has recently been a case of a user − the person and his/her agenda is irrelevant to this discussion − including material into the WP on a grand scale. This user consistently cites references to support his/her additions, which, however, as a closer inspection reveals, almost as regularly are actually not supported by the cited sources. The user cites these sources without reading them carefully. He/she ignores the qualifications in the texts he/she cites and pushes their claims beyond what they have written in a way that fits into his/her agenda. In a nutshell, the references are consistently misinterpreted through bias and carelessness. Since the user also works massively with copy and paste techniques, soon his/her distorted views are all over the place.

The particular problem which arises − and the loophole which is exploited − is that the footnotes give the inclusions outwardly a neat appearance which leads other unsuspecting users to defend its contents against those users who are in the know about the material (and the agenda of the said user). This forces these users into lengthy debates on talk pages, all the while the said user continues his/her mass production method of creating faulty evidence. Thus, the whole situation has something of the tortoise and the hare with users in the know constantly (feeling) obliged to chase after the newest misguided references which are often reinstated after several weeks.

In this light, I would find two things helpful: What do you think? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) templates for both complete articles, sections and individual sentences stating something to the effect that the "source given does not support the text"
 * 2) a specification in WP:Verifiability to the effect that referenced material for which there are good grounds that it is misinterpreted can be removed until the user who included the material in the first place (or some other user) can give a full verbatim quotation (with discussion if necessary) on the talk page

On general policy

 * I think Ma is on to something. A short edit that would deal with this issue would be to revise the Burden of evidence section to say that "Any material lacking a reliable source or failing verification may be removed,..." (additions in italics). Does this adequately deal with the problem?  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have recently been goaded into editing articles in Wikipedia, almost entirely by the kind of trouble that Ma mentions. The final straw for me was discovering that other reputable sources (textbooks published by major publishers, popular articles written by well-known authors) have repeated some of this material, apparently hoodwinked by the reassuring presence of such references.
 * I have generally been following a personal policy of deleting implausible material that is not supported by the given citations (or which is only supported by poor quality citations) and in other cases going to the effort of collecting sufficient evidence to convince myself and, I hope, any other editor who cares to double check my actions. But as Ma also says, the double checking of such misused citations takes a lot longer than it takes anyone to add (and liberally copy/paste) the material.
 * I am too recent an editor here to be comfortable suggesting any particular remedy to this issue, but I can only say that I believe it is a worrying issue and one that has continued, in this particular case at least, for many years, and which has frequently raised concerns from other editors, without any end to it.
 * All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly concur with Gun Powder Ma and can certify the existence of the problem. This is becoming serious, as there are dozens of articles that have become unreadable hagiographic POV-fests.  In my experience, if the community sees an addition that is referenced, they will assume AGF and leave it untouched.  This is particularly true if the reference is not easily available online but can only be accessed in hardcopy.  However, if another, knowledgeable editor removes it, he is often reverted and forced to engage in discussion, while the original POV-pusher is free to continue cutting-and-pasting the offensive text all over wikipedia.  The fundamental problem here is that users who make additions are given the benefit of the doubt, but users making removals are not.  This needs to change so that the burden of proof should be shifted to the editor making the addition.  We're talking about a major policy change here.   Athenean (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The user should also be identified so that more people can carefully analyze the edits, and if necessary sanctions should be imposed upon the user. Are you talking about ? His edits have come under attack, and while I have opened a discussion on his talk page about it, he has ignored my attempts to discuss . This by itself suggests that he's not taking this seriously. II  | (t - c) 21:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I too have added comments to that editor's talk page, without any response, which doesn't encourage me to look favourably on his actions. –Syncategoremata (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please understand that this is strictly about general policy concerns. Talking about a single person's edit pattern can only be to the detriment to such collective action. What I envision is a solution, as far as there can be one, which benefits the whole of Wikipedia, and not just one single case. Thanks for your understanding Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The solution is to identify the problem editor, bring it to the attention of everyone, and then discuss the issue with the editor. If the editor can't be reasoned with and continues, the editor should be severely sanctioned. I don't see any other solution. II  | (t - c) 21:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree, intentionally using sources in a dishonest manner is in my mind the worst possible offense on Wikipedia. It virtually proves bad faith, and should be dealt with as such.  I can understand the problem though, as I've reverted unexplained removal of sources many times, but a well-formed edit summary usually catches my attention to investigate further, and not simply revert. WP:BURDEN already states that the burden lies with the one who adds, not deletes.  Maybe we should make this more clear, but it is there. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 22:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is there, but unfortunately only implicit. However, we need to stress that point. SteveMcCluskey's proposal to expand the wording to "Any material lacking a reliable source or failing verification may be removed,..." is a step in the right direction. Even better, we could add one complete sentence under Burden of evidence section which explicitly addresses such misuses. Wikipedia guidelines urgently need to become more specific about these cases as they are potentially more harming than brute propaganda or plain misinformation. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to User:ImperfectlyInformed, I already responded to your comment here, and yet you were the one that completely ignored it and didn't bother giving me a response... and yet here you are criticizing me for not responding to you? Should I assume bad faith in your part (i.e. intentional deception) or good faith (that you simply didn't notice my response)? And do you have some kind of agenda against me? The only thing I remember you complaining to me about was an edit I made 2-3 years ago, which I already explained (and which you clearly ignored). That can't be the only reason you want to get me "sanctioned" for? Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Of the three different places you could have responded, you made a short response in the place I expected the least, and only a couple weeks after I originally notified you of the issue and requested a response again. A note on your talkpage would have been handy - and also would let people browsing your talkpage know that you're not just blowing me off. So, yeah, I didn't see your response. My agenda comes from the fact that I saw multiple people complaining about your edits in a similar vein (misinterpreting scholarly refs) with little acknowledgment and engagement from you on your talkpage, beginning with that issue presented by Dialetric. Even a simple statement like "I see what you mean, I'll try to take note of that in the future" goes a long way, or something like "I disagree for [reason]". Scholarly refs are often more difficult for the rest of us to verify, but they lend an air of credibility which makes it easier for errors to slip through and make us more likely to rely on the information. I don't like to be fooled, and this is a situation where I could easily be fooled. I'm less concerned now that I've seen a response, but I am still concerned about how much effort it took for me to get a response. It also somewhat concerns me that these tend to be in the area of glorifying ancient Arabic culture, at the possible expense of NPOV and broader context. In my comments in this discussion, I have said that the general procedure should be to "discuss the issue with the editor. If the editor can't be reasoned with and continues, the editor should be severely sanctioned".  II  | (t - c) 04:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the talk page I responded at was the first one you linked to, so I assumed that article was your main concern. When users drop comments regarding an article at my talk page, I usually respond at the relevant article. I didn't see a need to respond on my talk page unless it's of a personal nature. If that really does give the impression that I'm ignoring everyone though, then I'll make sure to drop a link on my talk page next time whenever I respond at the relevant article. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a loophole in the policy at all, and I think efforts to tweak the policy are marginally useful. Sometimes problem editors crop up, and they have to be dealt with head-on. The policies are already quite clear that sources have to directly support the material they're represented as supporting. I agree with LiberalFascist that, if it can be shown that the sources are being intentionally and dishonestly misrepresented, that this is probably the worst possible offense on Wikipedia and the editor should be dealt with similar to the way vandals are handled. II  | (t - c) 23:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the addition to the guidelines that Steve is proposing, and I think it would be a huge step forward. It will make it a lot easier to clean up after users who exploit this loophole.  It still doesn't address the problem of using sources that aren't easily verified, like old journal articles.  I also don't think it will slow down the disruptive editor in question, though.  However, that needs to be discussed separately, perhaps in an RfCU, not here. Athenean (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * While I support that the unnamed editor (I'll be referring to them as "X") causing the disruptions by misrepresenting the citations should in fact be flogged, keel-hauled, and thrown in the stocks (among even more horrible punishments such as being blocked) I caution about over-zealous (though good faith) messing with policy. ImperfectlyInformed (II) is completely correct that policy ALREADY COVERS THIS. There is in fact no loophole, those who claim that what the X is working within policy are wiki-lawyers who are trying to game the system and dont have a leg to stand on and those who dont read the references but yet stick up for X shouldnt be commenting in discussions on those article talk pages. The problem that will evolve from any additional "strengthening" or "clarifying" of existing policy will be detrimental as it will be used by those who wish to declare that sources that are not online are not allowed (something that has been routinely dismissed at the Village Pump and here and specifically a guideline was written to address that it IS allowed and a section added to policy declaring the same as the guideline). Sources do NOT need to be verified by EVERYONE, this instant, easily, for free (or cheaply), without restrictions. The proposal as I read it could be used by those that say "a source only found in the NYS archives in Albany in not allowed because I cant travel to Albany to see it".Camelbinky (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, but the guideline has already been specified and I can't see that this addition works to the effect of the exclusion of online sources which you fear. I proposed to include a direct mention of the relevant template, too. Over here is a request for a direct link between this template and the talk page as is customaty for other templates. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Camelbinky makes a very important point. We should always ask how an addition to policy might be abused by wikilawyers and bad faith editors before we try to clarify or "strengthen" policy.  Remember that we recognize the difference between something that has not yet been verified and something that is not verifiable.  The policy requires that things be verifiable, not verified.  That said... something that has been checked, and fails verification should indeed be removed... and the tags and templates discussed below are a step in this process. Blueboar (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, so how would you put that policy into words? My first take (in bold):

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the citation needed template, a section with unreferencedsection, or the article with refimprove or unreferenced. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or move the material to the talk page. If the material has been checked and fails verification, add Not in citation or remove it altogether."


 * Sounds good to me, assuming that the BLP sentence immediately following this will be left unchanged. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 02:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Current wording
<-- has edited the policy to now read "References which, after being checked, fail verification may be tagged with failed verification or removed from the article altogether." As I understood it, the discussion here was that the claim be removed, not the citation, which Blueboar appeared to be agreeing with in their comment above, or maybe that is felt to be too strong a policy and open to misuse, as has also been discussed here? I just wanted to check whether my understanding was correct on this or not.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't quite follow you. If the claim has been shown to be unsupported by the cited source, not only the claim but also the citation has to be removed, of course. Otherwise there would a solitary footnote left in the text which refers to nothing. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies for such morning incoherence. I was asking whether the intention of the new wording was that just the failing citation be removed (leaving the claim potentially unreferenced), or whether both the claim and the citation be removed (assuming that this is the only citation supporting the claim); i.e., I should have written "not just the citation" in my comment above.


 * And now I'll go make myself some more coffee. All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just the citation. The material can be removed later if no proper source can be provided.
 * As I see it, a "failed verification" tag returns the statement in question to the "unsourced" category, and it does so with a red flag attached. The "failed verification" tag essentially tells those who wish to include the material... "This is your last chance... find a source that solidly supports the material or the material will be removed".  But as always, how long you should wait before removing depends on the specific material in question. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your clarification; that plus more coffee has helped here.
 * I'll follow that process in cases where the claim itself has some plausibility; otherwise I will continue to delete unsupported and implausible claims immediately (which could be seen as following the same procedure, but with a zero length waiting period).
 * All best wishes. –Syncategoremata (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the policy already says you can do this... however, my advice would be to use the tag and wait a short period (such as a day)... if for no other reason than to protect yourself from accusations of removing "cited" material. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "implausible" was too weak a word for the sort of nonsense I was thinking of. See, for example, the claim that Darwin derived his theory of evolution at least in part from reading certain medieval Arabic manuscripts (diff), all based on a single quote from one particularly POV source. For the merely implausible, I'll follow your advice.
 * All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

On templates

 * As to templates, the Template:Failed verification seems to be appropriate in such cases. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See verify source. Crum375 (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Template:Failed verification looks good. Also cite check for articles. But Template messages/Sources of articles still seems to lack fitting templates for individual sections. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am unclear on the value of adding such templates to individual claims in an article. As a reader I find them intensely annoying, though that might be more an issue of their over- and mis-use rather than the templates per se.
 * I also feel that such annotations have been added numerous times to articles, and all that happens is that editors find another reference to add, which they feel allows them to remove the template, regardless of whether the new reference supports the claim any better than did the previous one. But perhaps any solution would be vulnerable to exactly that problem: even if the material were deleted, there is nothing to stop someone coming along and re-inserting it with more or different references, regardless of their quality or value.
 * All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the addition in the article. Could we add in the Burden of evidence section a link to Template:Failed verification for those increasing cases where the source says something other than what is contained in the text, too? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we are making pregress here.I agree with Gun Powder Ma and Syncategoremata.--Knight1993 (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * certainly works for faked sources  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  02:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the point of templates here. If the citation has been checked and found not to support the material, why not just remove the citation? If the material is doubted and no support is found after looking for such support, why not just remove the material? Am I missing something? Maurreen (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the point of working with verification templates is to give the original creators sufficient time to react and/or to invite third-party editors to engage in the verification process. After all, we cannot exclude that those users who counter-check the material and fail to verify it may be wrong. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible abuse of loophole closure
It was FASCINATING to consider this issue without knowing the specific bad citation. This is the first (and hopefully last!) time I ever think ignorance is a GOOD thing.

What struck me was that before knowing the specific cite, I found myself thinking "My GOD this can be abused to push extremely popular but false beliefs, or suppress true but extremely unpopular ones. Why can't they see that?"

Then I went through three phases of understanding.

Phase one: When I read that it was about an Arab pushing his horrible, womens'-head-chopping, love-suppressing, nuclear-bomb-making mass-delusion I suddenly thought "Oh, NOW I see what's going on! Yeah, GET that bastard!" One reason is that I am a woman and I saw a video of a girl's head being chopped off in a Colosseum-like soccer stadium for the crime of having sex before marriage. I also saw them hang a gay man.

I thought "these psychotic monsters are SO dangerous and horrible that they must be suppressed by Any Means Necessary--and I STILL believe that (though if you think about it, it's a strange position for an anti-fascist bleeding-heart liberal like me to take).

Phase two: Okay, the above is not a problem for Wikipedia because their Holy Book of Magic isn't in peer-reviewed scientific journals. But I remembered an astrophysics forum I hang around, where another Arab made a long speech about four-dimensional Riemann manifolds being in the koran.

That's still not in academic journals, but we're getting close.

Phase three: You guys seem to have found a case where a legitimate cite saying that Darwin was inspired by (what else?) that same Magic Book. I found myself asking the same question I have been asked so often: How can someone so SMART be so STUPID? I don't see how that could possibly be legitimate, but you guys all think it is, so I'll assume so.

What occurred to me and inspired me to write is that a LOT of people in the U.S. believe just as fervently in the manifestly false, and some aren't technically stupid. Like the guy who started Creation Research; I think he has a PhD in something. And he found the one creationist geologist in the world. (At least I HOPE he's the only one!)

That brought me back around to the beginning again: if we trust the consensus of editors to wink at each other and suppress legitimate citations because "everyone knows it's ridiculous", we have shot a hole in the bottom of our boat and aren't worried about it because it's not very much water leaking in. Is that okay? If it's a rowboat, no. If it's a cruise ship and this serves a greater good, then yes. But what about in-between? What about the Titanic? It's a floating city, and the iceberg hole had an area only the size of your front door.

My concern is that someone will cite something which triggers my own emotional prejudices, and I go into the realm of "by any means necessary". Putting lies and suppressing truth in the world's encyclopedia is like torturing terrorists; when you start by waterboarding the 9/11 mastermind, you eventually torture bewildered Baghdad cab drivers.

I know this sounds like one of those silly questions they discuss in Ethics 101, "How do you decide what's true if you know that you might believe something false?" The problem is that, as we observe in this message thread, sometimes that question isn't silly after all.

I have always laughed with contempt at the so-called "scientists" at Padua University who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. And if the Arabs are right and a psychotic god puts me in hell, the worst possible punishment for me would be BEING one of those smug "scientists".

Every time I watch this (2 min), when Dr. Bronowski quotes Cromwell, it makes me cry. Techno Faye Kane 17:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Challenged or likely to be challenged "
Isn't this redundant in 2010? What encyclopedic content doesn't come under the category "challenged or likely to be challenged"?

For background: see essays WP:When to cite, WP:Common knowledge, You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, You do need to cite that the sky is blue

If the current wording still has effect, how does a editor assert that "material is not challenged or likely to be challenged" such that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation need not be supplied? It is as simple as a consensus of editors concluding that the material passes a "not challenged or likely not to be challenged" test? patsw (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is as simple as having some cultural literacy and decent judgment. This came up recently somewhere. There is some gray area, but these are some facts unlikely to be challenged:


 * George Washington was the first president of the United States.
 * Pi can be approximated as 3.14.
 * Albuquerque is the largest city in New Mexico. Maurreen (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd ask for a cite about Albuquerque. It isn't obvious to me and it could be just some editor being promotional. Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your examples, Maureen, are part of the cultural literacy of an American high school student but also they are trivially easy to locate a reliable source for an inline citation. The hard cases are ones where it is "material ... not challenged or likely to be challenged" and yet reliable sources for them are either non-trivial to locate or impossible to find. patsw (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you have a basic confusion, Patsw. Everything we write in Wikipedia articles, without exception, must be attributable to a reliable source, or it should be removed. What this means is that everything must have a source, either specified in the article, or easily available to us, otherwise the material stays out. The point about "challenged or likely to be challenged" is different. It focuses on when the source should be cited in the article, i.e. when the material should be attributed. If you grasp the distinction between attributable and attributed, all will become clear. Crum375 (talk)
 * To further Crum's point... what we are essentially saying is: If you are in any doubt as to whether you should include a citation... do so. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Crum's point and distinction, all too often I see editors who dont grasp the distinction and make comments in GA and FA nominations that "every single sentence MUST have a citation with it" and they are meaning literally that you must have a footnote at the end of each and every sentence even if its the same footnote (as opposed to having one footnote at the end of the paragraph), and THAT is absolutely not true and is unnecessary clutter. We have plenty of active editors here, when you write a new article find a random editor who doesnt know squat about the topic and ask for a review and if they see something that seemed obvious to you but not obvious to them then you know it needs a citation. On a side note- I'd like to point out that PI is not "part of American cultural literacy" the value of PI is the same in any culture (putting it in base 10 aside) and would be the same on an alien culture as it is in Chinese, European, or Australian Aborigine (except in Christian Fundamentalist culture where the Bible is infallible and therefore Pi equals exactly 3...).Camelbinky (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Albuquerque example excellently illustrated the fallacies of "I and everyone I know knows this, so it doesn't need a citation". What about Hanover being the largest city of Lower Saxony, or Wuhan being the largest city of Hubei? The inhabitants of both cities could easily make the same kind of arguments. (In both examples, the city and the state/province are larger than Albuquerque and New Mexico, respectively.)
 * In other words, the use of "cultural literacy" regarding a fact about your home town convincingly demonstrated how a lax sourcing policy could promote systemic bias.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, I can assure you that I am familiar with the distinction between attributable and attributed. Rather than discuss this here, some editors have just gone ahead and changed the policy since I started asking some questions about it. That's a real sense of urgency.

It is the consensus then, since any editor can assert a "challenge" for any reason, that in itself triggers the requirement for that content to be given an inline citation from a reliable source, or be deleted? That seems clear enough. patsw (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You cant challenge for "any reason"... it has to be a sane legitimate reason. I once saw an editor say "I dont challenge that its true, I know it is, I just would like to see a citation after it." and he/she kept removing the information despite everyone saying "then your not CHALLENGING it, leave it alone", finally a citation was put in to shut him/her up (same citation as the citation for the sentence that was two lines below it, and there were no intervening citations). Such idiocy can be safely ignored, not all challenges are created equally, I know there is lots of talk about who has the "burden" and all that, but seriously if you are going to challenge then YES you must have a legitimate reason that can be shown to everyone as to WHY you feel it needs a citation other than "I want a citation".Camelbinky (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * However, "I just think this needs a citation" is a valid reason to tag with a citation request and not delete... I often read articles on topics that I know nothing about, and say to myself, "hmmm... this bit of information could use a citation" ... I am not challenging the statement (because I have no idea if it is accurate or not). I may simply recognize it as something that would be better with a citation.
 * It is important for editors to remember that while a legitimate challenge triggers the requirement for the content to be given an inline citation. There is no requirement to delete... that is one of several options.  Sometimes deletion is the best option... but sometimes it is not.  Whether that option is the best one depends on the specific statement, the nature of the article and a host of other factors. Blueboar (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like a little elaboration on what makes a challenge legitimate or illegitimate. Is this going to be specified as a matter of policy or do we leave it to the consensus on the article talk page to decide if a challenge is legitimate or illegimate?
 * For Blueboar, I don't think I have ever seen an editing dispute end with "while the policy says I can delete the content not conforming to the policy and [the editor on the other side of the dispute] can't or won't change the content, I am not going to delete it".  No, I've never seen that happen. patsw (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not all black and white. But if something can be easily verified, then it shouldn't be challenged.
 * And Patsw, if you don't agree with my use of "cultural literacy" above, you can replace it with "ability to operate a search engine." Maurreen (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Google it yourself" is not a valid substitute for a proper citation. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedia articles are mainly written for readers which are not already familiar with the subject. And very often the other editors who are checking sources while reviewing changes and additions, to keep Wikipedia accurate, are in the same situation. Therefore restricting citations to only those facts which are unknown even to someone familiar with the article's subject degrades both the usefulness of the article for readers and its long-term reliability. And as discussed above, it also promotes systemic bias.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy overrides community consensus?
With all due respect to SlimVirgin I have to disagree with the recent change that makes this policy now state that in any dispute between the RS/N and this policy the policy takes precedent. That is like having the US Constitution say "In any dispute between what the Supreme Court says and what this Constitution says, then the Constitution takes priority". The RS/N is charged with being a community forum to discuss and (hopefully) come to a community consensus on what is/isnt RS material in particular or broad circumstances; it uses this policy as a guideline and hopefully using commonsense and at times a dose of IAR the RS/N shows editors how this policy should be implemented, again using community consensus. SlimVirgin's new wording comes across to me that it means "screw what the Community says, this policy is sacrosanct and implement it as it is worded! So speaketh the Lord!". IAR and a million other of our decisions and core beliefs tell me otherwise. This isnt a Law. This policy only means what the Community decides it means by how we implement it on our articles and in discussions at various places including the RS/N. If we implement it in a way not consistent with the wording then the wording in this policy is null and void and it becomes a sign that the wording needs to change to conform with our actual implementation, not that our implementation must conform to the wording of this policy.Camelbinky (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Some help with the alphabet soup above: RS/N is Reliable sources/Noticeboard and IAR is Ignore all rules,a policy. patsw (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's supposed to be an iterative process: editors edit articles. A policy or guideline is applied.  There's a dispute, and the discussion moves from the article talk page to the policy/guideline noticeboard or talk page for the policy, and the outcome there gets applied back to the article.  A problem that I frequently bring up is that when the the practice (i.e. "a pattern of consensus in how articles are edited observed in several articles") no longer conforms to the policy, it might be time to change the policy, and if there's no consensus to change the policy, get the practice to (again) conform to the policy.  My own political analogy would be if the legislators passed laws, and the police informally ignored them and acted according to their consensus of who ought to be arrested and for what crimes.  It's not an anarchy, just a parallel set of policies and guidelines.  patsw (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What you describe is called selective enforcement and apart from such offences as traffic violations it is routinely denounced as against the interests of both the State and of people's universal human rights (one of the big human rights complaints about China is their use of selective enforcement and complete lack of the rule of law). In many cases, such as rape, an officer's use of selective enforcement will not only lead to severe disciplinary action (including loss of badge), but also a lawsuit against the municipality, police department, the officer, etc. It isnt anarchy but it can lead there.Camelbinky (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As one of the main contributors to RSN, let me make it clear that the purpose of RSN is not enforcement. RSN has no authority... it is merely a venue where editors can ask for advice and help with reliability issues, and for obtaining outside opinions on reliability debates. Blueboar (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any real problems with enforcement of this policy, but there are often disagreements about its interpretation. E.g.: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". According to a fundamentalist reading this means that our articles must state everything that is "verifiable" – even if we know it is wrong, because truth simply doesn't matter. This problem came up w.r.t. Sam Blacketer controversy, where our server logs proved the press reports wrong, but some editors insisted we were under an obligation to libel Sam Blacketer by repeating these reports in the full knowledge that the negative information contained in them was incorrect.
 * Similarly, the obvious fact that a formally reliable source shouldn't be used if it has clearly taken the information from an unsourced Wikipedia article had to be included in the policy to reduce wikilawyering in this area.
 * At the moment I am struggling with an editor's unreasonable reading of the Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. He is regularly quoting "verifiability, not truth" to me, based on the mistaken belief that the fact that a source is obviously wrong about something doesn't reduce its reliability for the purpose of stating that "fact". But the real issue here is that quite a few editors, in supporting that one, are proving that they haven't got a clue about sensible evaluation of sources, and are endorsing quote-mining and misquotations. The way we resolve such problems is by discussion at WP:RS/N, and telling these editors they can ignore the result if it contradicts their interpretation of policy is hardly helpful. Hans Adler 05:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For the enlightenment of other editors here, I am that editor. Hans Adler has started a discussion against me here. I am in the process of replying and have already dealt with his misunderstanding of "verifiability, not truth." I will add it further down on this page. His statement above is wrong on two counts: (1) The source (an exact quote from the National Science Board) is NOT "obviously wrong"; (2) I am not attempting to use it to state a fact, but to state that the NSB actually said what they said. It is attributed, so it's obviously being presented as their opinion in an NPOV manner, but Hans Adler and another protector of fringe POV, User:Ludwigs2, won't even allow that type of use. They wish to eliminate the source because they think it's not "true", and it's in that context I quote this part of the policy. His comments on this page should be seen in the light of him wishing to change this policy to further the aims of pushers of fringe POV and to help him in his edit warring against the use of the NSB as a source. Now see my comment coming further down on this page as soon as I can do so. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Hans Adler and another protector of fringe POV" – I am just noting that this is incredibly rude and factually incorrect. "Ghosts" and "reincarnation" etc. are not "fringe POVs" but part of human culture. Even when you interpret them as factual claims (as opposed to material for films etc.), the English language is rich enough to describe these factual claims as wrong without implying, incorrectly, that they have anything to do with science.
 * While some people may be using the word "pseudoscience" in a relaxed way that is not reflected in dictionaries (see e.g. wikt:pseudoscience) – and in fact the NSB seems to be doing that –, it is not OK to do push this loose (and ultimately useless, since there are already plenty of synonyms such as balderdash, bunkum, humbug, malarkey, nonsense, rubbish) definition into encyclopedic articles about pseudoscience and topics loosely described as pseudoscience, i.e. to the very places where people expect the precise, narrow definition of pseudoscience to be used. Hans Adler 08:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I endorse User:Camelbinky's point. It is very clear from numerous policies and precedents such as WP:NOTLAW and WP:IAR, that our policies are customs not laws.  They are, by nature, imprecise and contradictions are resolved by discussion of the merits of each case rather than by a mechanistic system of priority.  And we cannot have policies claiming such priority because this will lead to direct contradiction when such policies each assert their superiority over the other.  Colonel Warden (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the principles put forth by Camelbinky and Colonel Warden. Maurreen (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And I have changed it back. Maurreen (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maurreen has removed that this policy takes precedence over the noticeboard. But it's very clear that it does. Anyone can turn up to noticeboard discussions, with varying degrees of understanding of policy, so what's said there may or may not reflect what's on this page. I'm going to restore that because otherwise we may as well throw out the policy and have only the opinions of whoever happens to comment elsewhere.  SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 22:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Slim please keep your addition OUT of the policy until this discussion is complete. Policy is for you to be bold, someone to revert, then for us to discuss. We arent done discussing and policy should stand at where it was last at consensus which is what it was prior to you adding your statement into it. There was no prior discussion in which your addition was agreed on. Please keep it out until we are done. The fact of the matter is that the consensus of the community at large is what overrides EVERYTHING, policy or guideline or what-not. The consensus decided upon at the RS/N on any given topic is expected to reflect the consensus of the community at large on how they wish this, and other policies should be implemented, it is up to those involved in the dispute to accept or ignore that consensus. If we start saying "this policy overrides the RS/N", then the "loser" in a discussion can say "screw the consensus here, I say WP:V says otherwise" and the entire meaning of an informal arbitration forum as the RS/N is meaningless. WP:V is not the last word, the last word is whatever the community decides that WP:V means and how it should be implemented. There is no one Truth to interpreting and implementing WP:V. This policy is not a Law. I will be reverting again.Camelbinky (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Slim, and now Crum as well, wish to engage in reverting instead of discussing and as I see it three here have commented in favor of eliminating Slim's reversions versus just Slim (sorry Crum, since you didnt come here to discuss I wont count your !vote), and I'm unsure of where Blueboar stands it does seem as slim as it is that consensus is in favor of removal of Slim's additions. I will post a request at WP:AN/I for an admin or other non-involved editor to take a look here and help out. Discussion and consensus should rule here, not one or two editor's opinion about policy. We dont need a clear majority to remove a brand new interpretation that has been stuck in by one editor prior to any discussion.Camelbinky (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * CB, it's widely accepted that the policies take precedence over discussion at the boards or any other talk page. A thousand people could arrive to claim that Mein Kampf is a reliable source on the Jews, but that wouldn't make it policy-compliant. Consensus on any given page can't override the policies, which can only be overturned with clear wiki-wide consensus. That applies to NOR, V, and BLP, and it particularly applies to NPOV, which is a Foundation issue. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 23:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I see two situations. In the first situation, a particular issue in a particular article or group of related articles is addressed in an appropriate forum, such as the article talk page or the noticeboard. The outcome of that discussion will determine what appears in the article(s), and anyone who persists defying consensus will eventually be blocked.

In the second situation, someone claims that a prior conclusion at an article talk page or noticeboard should apply to a new dispute, even though a policy says otherwise. In this second situation, I would hope the new group of editors discussing the dispute will follow the policy rather than a precedent that one editor claims is applicable. However, the consensus in the second dispute will be whatever it is; there is no one else to decide the matter unless it goes to arbitration. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I used your edit summary suggestion to add compromise language, namely that the noticeboard seeks to apply this policy, with the "seeks to" leaving open whether they actually do. :)  SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 02:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Policy is what community consensus says it is. And IAR is policy.  SlimVirgin's remark up there, where she says, "it's widely accepted that policies take precedence over discussion", is badly in need of a  tag, because I don't think it's widely accepted at all.  It's accepted among a specific group of editors, primarily comprising those who watch and edit policy pages.  We're lucky there are people out there building an encyclopaedia instead, and we should support them by making sure their knife for cutting through layers of process and bureaucracy -- the IAR clause -- stays very sharp.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  13:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully support SlimVirgin's compromise edit and as far as I'm concerned it solves any problems I had with it. I never had any problem with the rest of her edit about guidelines, IRS, etc; only the word noticeboard being in there in regards to this policy taking precedence. I'm glad we were able to talk this out and come to a conclusion (I hope others agree with this compromise, if not I encourage you to keep up your fight for what you believe is right, even if you disagree with my position). I also would like to say "amen" to S Marshall and completely agree with that editor's assessment about policy pages and a "specific group of editors", I hope Slim can appreciate that policy can be interpreted in many different ways and one interpretation that seems obvious to one editor is absolutely the opposite to an equally large group of editors.Camelbinky (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)