Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 45

WP:CIRCULAR and when things enter the part of the cultural language
Over at WT:VG there is an ongoing discussion around the possibilty that the current chrological division of video game consoles may have violated CIRCULAR because they refer to certain consoles by a generation. The first edits to this effect were back in Wikipedia's earlier days, April 8, 2005 to be exact the term first appeared. We are contacting the people who added them right now, but I'm bringing this up prelimarily as a just-in-case measure.

The problem would come here: if we cannot find any sources before then, arguments have been made that using them violates policy; however, the counterargument is that there would be no real way to prove this, and even if it was, the termingolgy has become a part of the industry's language. Assuming that the two originators of the terminolgy cannot verify their generational division, what should we do? 陣 内 Jinnai 04:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC) What I'm saying is that you are unlikely to resolve such a dispute one way or the other. I'd edit the articles to point out that the divisions are subjective, trivial, and invoked to support individual arguements, and give in.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC) It sounds like this is not especially relevant to the instant case, but I think that when it is relevant, editors should consider all the facts and circumstances, not merely whether enough words and sentences overlap as to make us wonder about copyright. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What do High Quality Reliable Sources (academic material, reviews from accepted savant / magisterial reviewers) say? These sources are capable of legitimising their contents regardless of their source.  Fifelfoo (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When they say anything, they are divided in how to group "generation'. Academic sources are mix of those listed in the current artilce, those listed there with some tweaks to the earlier generations and those based on the CPU type. 陣 内 Jinnai 04:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely any subdivision of artifacts made under commercial competition is highly subjective? It's not as though some over-arching planning body said "ok lads, monochrome single-function eprom based games are done now.  It's time for colour."  The situation is no different to English Gothic architecture, where one man's perpendicular is another's romanesque.  There is a loose consensus, and a lot of heated disagreement about the particular (and the perpendicular!)
 * This general issue has been on my mind for about a year, and I'm with Fifelfoo: a sufficiently high-quality source can legitimize a "circular" source.  For example, something I wrote on Wikipedia was lifted (and lightly edited) by a world-reknowned subject matter expert on an 'expert medical view' webpage.  I'm flattered, and I consider this "circular" source to be the most direct and authoritative way to verify my explanation.  The source is not just the words and sentences, but also the author and publisher, and this author is as credible as they come.
 * In the instant case, almost everyone agrees with the generations of video games as Wikipedia presents them. When there is disagreement, it is generally in connection with one or two systems and whether they are first or second generation.  Virtually everyone agrees with the third-seventh generations.  There are tons of RSs which refer to the generations as we do, and I haven't found any that use Wikipedia as their source.LedRush (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

verification sources
When writing an article or modifying editors commonly refer to books or articles as sources.One experienced editior claimed that refering to an item in a public museum was not acceptable asa source.I feel this is wrong -we accept books as "reliable" sources even though many are out of date or just plain wrong.In 2011 there are so many other sources that are widely available that it is silly not to accept a real live thing as a source.Claudia jan 2011  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.37.160 (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing a change to policy? What policy?  RB  66.217.118.152 (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright
I've reverted an addition which I feel is already covered under our copyvio guidelines; its pointless imho to cover guidelines in more than one place and given how daunting the scope of our entire MoS is (probably 200+ pages if printed out), I don't feel there is a need to over-explain things or lengthen rather than tighten guidelines in many areas. Lets just try to stay on topic here. AaronY (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is already covered under WP:COPYVIO and that's where all detailed discussion of the issue should stay. All this page needs is a two-sentence mention of the fact that you can follow the sources too closely, plus a direct pointer to the policy. The background and context to this edit, of course, isn't completely unrelated to the circumstances in which User:Rlevse became a redlink: WP:V has genuinely been used as a reason for substantial copyright violations in the encyclopaedia. The problem the edit was supposed to address is not just theoretical.— S Marshall  T/C 20:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the Rlevse fiasco. I still don't think we need to summarize one guideline in another. There's always a tendency to over-explain in these guidelines which has the opposite effect of the one desired. Once they become too long or digress too much people's attentions begin to wander. I'd be interested to see what others think. AaronY (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This could obviously go either way. Brevity v Spell-it-out.  Suffice to say, the tension between V and COPYVIO is a real one, and a brief pointer for resolving that tension is not a bad idea. Ocaasi (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is 2 to 1 consensus now? Oh well I guess if someone else comments we can change it back. AaronY (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think all we need is a pointer, with no explanation. Explaining how to avoid copyvio here just increases the chance of confusion or conflicts between here and elsewhere. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Pointers can do the trick in such cases, but they should be clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright in the lead (2)
SlimVirgin has restored her preferred version of this policy with this edit, thereby removing reference to copyright in the lead. I had thought the several discussions above were sufficient, but apparently not, so let's hear the reasoned objections, please?— S Marshall T/C 21:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This policy isn't about copyright, and Copyright violations isn't one of the core content policies, which is what the edit said. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 12:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not difficult to address by rewording, considering that copyright violation policy is enshrined in the third pillar, it's clearly a policy, and it's clearly related to content. Is that the only objection?— S Marshall  T/C 16:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SV if this policy isn't about copyright why are you supporting the retention of the sentence "Be mindful of copyright: do not copy text from copyrighted sources, or paraphrase too closely, without in-text attribution."? -- PBS (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I do intend to reinsert the disputed wording if there's no further response.— S Marshall T/C 02:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, don't do that. Slim's right: copyvio is not a core policy of wikipedia.  it's more of a nono attached to wp:V and/or wp:OR.  wp:KISS.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, copyright policy doesn't belong in the lead here. --Nuujinn (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? If copyright is a "nono attached to WP:V", then it really should get more prominence here.  Although for the avoidance of doubt, my position is that WP:COPYVIO is of central importance and few Wikipedians take it seriously enough. I see it as a core policy.— S Marshall  T/C 16:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The aforementioned edit and SV's comment refer to core content policies. Per Wikipedia:Core content policies and List of policies and guidelines, WP:COPYVIO is not a core content policy. Location (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyright is not a "no-no attached to WP:V"... it is a legal concept defined by the laws of the US and the State of Florida (since our servers are located in that state). WP:COPYVIO is a Wikipedia policy that is based on those laws... and as a policy it stands on its own. While I think WP:COPYVIO is important, I don't think it has much to do with the concept of Verifiability.... thus, I think a brief mention and link are helpful, but there is no need to expand upon it in this policy. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We can start an RFC on whether WP:COPYVIO counts a core content policy, if you like. My position is that it's clearly a core content policy. The current wording is problematic because of its implications.  It reads: Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The unstated implication is that once editors have familiarized themselves with all three, they know everything they need to know about Wikipedia's core content policies, and that's obviously false.  There's clear evidence above that editors, including formerly very senior editors, are acting on this unstated assumption, so you can see that it's a real and current problem. In the face of this, quibbling whether WP:COPYVIO is a core content policy (as opposed to merely a core policy about content) strikes me as inappropriate, but I'll put it to RFC if you like.— S Marshall  T/C 18:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you would have to run an RFC and gain consensus before we consider WP:COPYVIO a core content policy. In my opinion, it is an important legal policy affecting content... but not a "core content policy" the way NPOV, V and OR are. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur, in one sense it's not our policy at all, but a requirement imposed by various governments. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comments are invited on User:S Marshall/Rfc draft. Is the wording acceptably neutral?  (Please use the draft's talk page if you wish.)— S Marshall  T/C 19:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in a bit late, I also agree, WP:COPYVIO is not one of the core content policies. Jayjg (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg your comment does not make sense to me. Are you saying it is not, or that you think it should not be? It seems to me that it is a key content policy, and is made so by the comments at the bottom of every edit page: "Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites – only public domain resources can be copied without permission." and at the bottom of every article page: "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.". I have always assumed that copyright considerations were implicit in all that we are doing. I think that stating it explicitly in the lead of the other content policies will help remove need for mentioning it in sentences in those policies like "Be mindful of copyright: do not copy text from copyrighted sources, or paraphrase too closely, without in-text attribution." which is less than helpful without a lot of qualification. -- PBS (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PBS raises a good point. If we mention copyright in the lead, there is no reason why we need to keep the later statement, which editors seem to find unsatisfactory.— S Marshall  T/C 18:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As others have explained, the copyright policy is not a core content policy, so it wouldn't be appropriate to mention it in the lead as though it is. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to avoid bringing that particular quibble to RfC. Which limb do you disagree with?  That it's a core policy, that it concerns content, or both?— S Marshall  T/C 23:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a quibble. The core content policies are V, NPOV, and NOR. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The content policies are not directly part of WP:Article title but they are mentioned in the lead of the Article title policy with the wording "which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies". This is because although we could ignore the content policies when deciding on an article title, in practice that would lead to more silly names rather than less. So while content polices and article naming are not part of the same house they are semi-detached. I would suggest that placing an additional sentence in the lead of this policy along similar lines for WP:COPYVIO would be a way forward. -- PBS (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: I originally put the RFC here, but there were objections so I've moved it.— S Marshall T/C 00:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright in the body
This may be better as a different topic, but in the discussion above it was mentioned that the current wording states "Be mindful of copyright: do not copy text from copyrighted sources, or paraphrase too closely, without in-text attribution." That would seem to be accurate only in the case of direct quotes. In all other cases, it should read "Be mindful of copyright: do not copy text from copyrighted sources, or paraphrase too closely." I think it might be better to drop the "... without in-text attribution" part, as copyvio is copyvio whether or not you attribute it, yet the current wording seems to say that it is ok to add copyrighted material or closely paraphrase the text so long as you state where it came from. - Bilby (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Epidemic error
Suppose: 1. an Editor writes an article that


 * (a) refers to the ruling British Monarch as "Queen Elizabeth III" and


 * (b) provides a list of references that look authoritative, thereby meeting rules of verifiability,

2. this usage is then used in links from a large number of other articles that mention the Queen,

3. the Google search algorithm creates thousands of entries that refer to these (NOT far fetched, for several days last week Googling British Coal Utilization Research Association brought up tens of thousands of links (according to the message at the top of the Google page) to Rosalind Franklin who worked there for a couple of years)

Would a student writing a paper about the Queen then have to refer to her as "Queen Elizabeth III" under rules 44B1e and 47A and of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules published by the American Library Association (pages 78 and 89 of the 1967 edition). The first of these rules states "Use the form that has become established through common usage ...", the second refers to use of ordinal number to disambiguate.

The situation posited would make the frequency of usage of "Queen Elizabeth III" trancend usage everywhere else.

This example is extreme and, hopefully, would be squelched quickly. But it does illustrate a problem that I have encountered, that I think important enough to raise for general attention, to find if this is an ongoing concern and, if so, what can be done. I found the error described below by accident, when responding to a request for help on an article remote from my immediate interests.

The articles that concern me are Simon de Montfort (disambiguation) and Earl of Leicester. These are in serious disagreement with the definitive naming of the personages they mention, in works that include:

1. Complete peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and ..., Volume 5 edited by George Edward Cokayne, page 44

2. monographs which it cites,

3. The New Century Cyclopedia of Names, ed. Clarence L. Barnhart, Appleton-Century-Crofts, N.Y. 1954, page 2423 for personages named Earl of Leicester, page 2804 for personages named Simon de Montfort (title page mentions "staff of more than 350 consulting scholars, ...),

4. 'Encyclopedia Brittanica, vol 15 page 791, 1969 ,

5. The Thirteenth Century by Sir Maurice Powicke, 2nd ed. (in the Oxford History of England series, edited by Sir George Clark) Clarendon Press, Oxford 1962 -- for page numbers see index entries for "Leicester, Earl of", "Montfort, Simon " in contiguous disambiguating forms,

6. Smaller History of England by Sir William Smith, John Murray, 1889 edition, pages 71, 77--79

I hope that the following referencing on the Earl of Leicester page, however, does not trump these under principles of WP:Verifiability.

1. Lords and Earls of Leicester , "http://www.semper-eadem.co.uk/Citizens/earls.htm" -- clicking the link invokes a page carrying the diagnostic message "Server not found",

2. Levi Fox, The Honor and Earldom of Leicester: Origin and Descent, 1066-1399, English Historical Review, 54 (1939), 385-402 -- an erudite, responsible, peer reviewed article by an eminent scholar in a major journal, that does NOT refer to any of the personages by the titles that the article uses -- I think I have found a sentence that the writer may have misunderstood, that does not even require knowledge of the nuances of language that describes British enoblement,

3. Debrett's peerage (fully described) -- it took me a while to establish that the copy I have at hand does not mention Earls of Leicester before the 18th century,

4. Leigh Rayment's peerage page, http://www.leighrayment.com/peers.htm that provides links to recent Earls, but not those in mediaeval times,

5. Our family history, http://www.thepeerage.com/ by a self-described "eccentric".

Does the democratic approach of WP make assertion of the relative strength of the first group of references a matter of WP:NPOV, or what I have done a violation of WP:NOR? Even if I had time to try finding and flagging errors propagated by the Earl of Leicester and Simon de Montfort pages, would I get bogged down by wiki-legalisms that have hit some of the pages I try to edit close to my personal knowledge. Also, correcting the titles for the individual Earls would break links from articles that refer to them.

Has anyone pointed out the analogy between the total democratization of WP editing, where the views of anyone counts, and the situations in the early days of the former Soviet Union, when inadequately informed views could prevail (as in The Fatal Eggs by Mikhail Bulgakov, and the laying of cement on the floor of the cow shed in Quiet Flows the Don by Mikhail Sholokhov). And the Cultural Revolution in China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael P. Barnett (talk • contribs) 17:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I sort of replied to this general question here on the talk page of Simon de Montfort. I come across this problem all the time, and it is not usually easy to answer, so IMO the best thing to do is to pick what a you the concerned editor considers to be the most reliable sources, and go with those while footnoting the other options. If another editor disagrees and thinks one of the other footnoted options is better, then it can be discussed on the talk page and if necessary escalated using the usual dispute resolution process. As such a dispute is almost always bound to involve controversial page moves and WP:RM is another forum that can be used. As I mentioned on the talk page of Simon de Montfort, if one is going to use websites like Darryl Lundy's http://www.thepeerage.com/ then only use them if they cite their sources (WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). I do not think that web sources such as Leigh Rayment's pages, should be used as a source because he does not cite his sources, so for example I don't think that Sir Robert Anstruther, 1st Baronet carries any reliable sources as the web pages given as sources do not cite their sources. -- PBS (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. This sort of exchange is one of the pluses of WP -- but for me, mediaeval history is recreational, and I am trying to extricate myself from expenditure of time (which is inelastic) on topics outside my area of research. I indulged this particular interest to learn that perhaps the ultimate in original sources on this topic may be in Royal Archives. From their website "Enquiries relating to historical material held in the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle should be directed in writing: Senior Archivist / The Royal Archives / Round Tower / Windsor Castle /Windsor /Berkshire SL4 1NJ" My hope is that somewhere in the Wiki community someone is sufficiently interested to clean up the Simon de Montfort / Earl of Leicester topic (and maybe write an article on enoblement). It would be awful if WP problems force people to use names, terms etc. that diverge from common usage. Will keep this on my watchlist, but cannot do anything substantive. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Michael P. Barnett (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Another resource for the harassed editor is the talk page of interested Wikiprojects and Wikipedia space pages - in this case, WT:PEER and WT:NCROY; many such pages exist almost entirely as discussion lists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Levi Fox is an academic author and certainly reliable. GEC Complete Peerage is also a reliable source, but an older one what may have been overtaken by more recent research.  Burke and Debrett usually only deal with extant titles.  Burke's Extinct Peerage is a very old work.  Rayment is useful, but derivative.  Lundy is also useful, but should only be used when no better source is available.  I would suggest that we standardise on the numbering of the early 20th century Complete Peerage, except where there is a subsequent WP:RS showing that it is wrong.
 * I do not think that the Royal Archives will be a useful source on medieval history; certainly not as far back as the time of John and Henry III. The relevant material is in The National Archives and most of it is published (or at least calendared).  The Patent and Close Rolls are the official royal correspondence of the period, so that there will be nothing useful at Windsor.
 * On the specific issue of the Earldom of Leicester, the first creation of the earldom precedes the patent rolls, so that it is impossible to say whether the original grant was to the heirs general or heirs male of the first holder; from this flows the second question of whether the Simon de Montford was restored to or confirmed in the earldom or whether there was a 2nd creation in 1207. However, I suspect that we are dealing with an issue of anachronistic semantics: the Honor of Leicester was an earldom, so that by one view the holder of that honor would be an earl.  On the other hand, the earliest holders were Counts of Meulen, and the titles, earl and count, are identical in Latin and French.  The need to assert an English earldom would only have come in the time of John when he lost Normandy and his lords were forced to chose between allegiance to the English or French king and forfeiting their lands in the other realm.  Several lords overcame this dilemma by dividing them, with one son becoming a French subject and having the Normandy estates and the other the English ones as an English subject.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Verification of lists
Judging by this bot approval, it is agreed that articles which "merely consist of lists of events" (eg year/decade/century articles, like 1900), "should be referenced in the appropriate [linked] articles". (i) is this recorded anywhere? (ii) would a hatnote-type template be helpful, eg referencedinlinkedarticles, to clarify this for both readers and editors? Rd232 talk 14:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know-- that area is a mess. You might want to ping in, who is knowledgeable on lists.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did so, but xe's busy IRL. Template_talk:Unreferenced seems the basis for that bot approval, BTW. Rd232 talk 16:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Try ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This gets us into the issue of how to distinguish "informational lists" (lists that are articles in themselves, and present information) from "navigational lists" (lists that are designed purely to point readers to Wikipedia articles). This is a bit of a gray area (and one that I am not completely comfortable with). There is a consensus that, when it comes to articles, information should be cited where presented (and if the same information is presented in two articles, it should be cited in both). However, there is also a consensus that navigational pages (such as categories, dab pages, etc.) do not need citations. So I suppose the question is... should such lists be considered "articles" or "navigational pages". They seem to be a bit of both, but I would say they are more navigational in intent. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)WP:V states "This policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception..." Yet a current discussion points out that lists survive around here without being tag bombed (here).  I don't like the idea of the template because it directly opposes policy that is to be "strictly applied" "without exception".  RB  66.217.118.84 (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blueboar's distinction seems a helpful crutch to lean on in this matter, and maybe something that should be enshrined somewhere to help them when they hit this grey zone.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI... the question of when, and how, WP policy applies to lists is an issue elsewhere. We have been wrestling with this question at WP:NOTE as well.  Blueboar (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it's reasonable that navigational pages (like dabs) aren't cited. But as noted above, WP:V says it's supposed to apply to lists as well, "without exception", presumably because lists are considered articles, not navigational pages. Rd232 talk 19:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This all goes back to the key phrase in WP:V, that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" should be sourced to an inline citation. Let's take 1872 as an example. Is "The Society of Jesus is pronounced illegal in the German Empire" contentious enough that we need to source it in both the year (navigational) article and the encyclopedia article? That should be determined through editorial discretion and consensus. Looking at this specific bot proposal, I think I would agree with it, broadly. Slapping unreferenced tags at the top of year articles is unlikely to be much help anyway. We should consider each citeable fact individually. That's my interpretation of policy, anyway.
 * Now, what would I do? I would go ahead and cite the facts on the navigational page. We can't as easily control what goes on in other articles; one day the reference could be there, and another day, it might not be. I would never place my full trust in other Wikipedia articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, this is a good one. We recently had an issue with the fact that a list had a number of subsections, all of which linked out via a main template.  Problem being, while the list met the featured list criteria, the pages linked to were an unknown quantity, and in some cases completely unreferenced and (frankly) poor.  I'm not sure if WP:FAC participants check the quality of each and every page linked to, but I would be surprised if they do.  Per Dabomb87, I believe that even navigational lists should stand alone, and be able to reference themselves.  A dependency on a linked article is an avenue to despair.  Articles should be self-verifiable, even if they're navigational.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not convinced. If the linked pages are poor quality, then the problem to be addressed is the linked pages, surely?
 * In a printed encyclopaedia there are indexes at the back, TOC at the front, chapter TOC at the start of each chapter, and tables of cross-reference after some subjects. You would not expect a printed book to have the footnotes and bibliography from the main text repeated on those pages, so why WP?  In fact, in a printed book, it would look jolly odd.   It's not as though there is some automatic mechanism for duplicating references.  A tiny percentage have their own template, but the vast majority would have to be cut-and-pasted between articles, causing bloat for no sensible reason.  I don't think that adding refs to lists would make the encyclopaedia any better.  (I have put refs in year pages where there is no article to link to, e.g. 359)  Duplication would be a maintenance headache without doing anything make the "facts" any better. Suppose someone wrote a tool to find all the Cite Web templates, for research or verification purposes.  Those double-linked on the list pages would distort the significance of the citations, if nothing else.  As well as increasing effort if anything has to be changed.
 * I think there is real pragmatic wisdom in that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" quote --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I am seeing a variety of lists. For example, some lists are just that, lists of notable people, for example, with no supporting text. But others, such as lists of events in a year, containing assertions that are not directly sourced in the articles to which they link, see as an example the article 1900, in which there is an entry for the first Electric bus--but the latter article does not have a reference to the first electric bus. So we have an assertion unsourced in either article. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To me it looks simple. Inclusion on a list is a statement that the item fulfills the criteria of the list. (it's not other statements about the item)  With most lists the "statement" is no-brainer-obvious and not challenged.   When the inclusion is challenged, it should be sourced.   Simple application of wp:ver.  The only loose end is that wp:ver as of yet doesn't require a good faith challenge, so pov warriors and people with personality problems can require a cite for each item without making any good faith challenge. North8000 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Our "event by year" lists date back to a time when we were much less strict about sourcing in general, and when we were very lax about sourcing in lists. The consensus on this has changed over the years, and we are now much stricter.  That change in consensus does mean we need to review our older articles, and bring them up to snuff.  We have let the "events by year" lists slide because the information is rarely "challenged or likely to be challenged"... but the fact that we have been lax on these articles in the past does not mean we can not (or should not) fix them now.  Of course, like all unsourced or poorly sourced articles, it is often easier and quicker simply source the information yourself (adding the source to both the list and the article)... and we highly encourage our editors to do this.  But, an alternative is to tag or remove the unsourced information.  It's a judgment call.  Certainly you would piss off a lot of people, and be considered disruptive if you started a campaign to mass delete all entries in these articles... so a slower approach of adding sources where you can, and tagging what you can't, is a more appropriate way to deal with the issue. Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with all of that, as we will not finish WP today.... --Nuujinn (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what North8000 wrote. Typically if a sentence includes a link to a Wikipedia article and all the sentence is saying is that an event happened on a certain day and that is sourced in the article then there is no need for a preemptive source (as it is not reasonable that it should be challenged), but if there is an entry that does not link to another Wikipeida article or the article to which it links does not contain a reliable source for the date or other information. Take for example the first entry for 1649. It consists of two sentences sentence: The first sentence is easily checked by looking at the entry for Charles. But the second sentence is not confirmed by the link to the Henrietta Maria article (it contradicts it) so in my opinion it is not unreasonable to ask for a source for the second sentence. -- PBS (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * King Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland is beheaded. His widow Henrietta Maria returns to her native France.
 * I agree, and I think that's uncontentious. But it is that one sentence that should be flagged, not the whole page - which is where I started from at  Template_talk:Unreferenced. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Tag it where you would put the in-line reference with  or   On the particular instance cited, Henrietta Maria was already in France, where she had tried to raise support for her husband's war.  On the more general point, I would suggest that "low level" list articles do not need much citation: the citation is provided by a link to a detailed article that should have citations.  However, lists such as British ambassadors to France (for example) ought to have a source, either for the whole list or individual entries.  This is because such lists often begin as lists of redlinks for articles that are needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Are challenged statements really supposed to be verified?
The policy states this, and it seems clear to me:

Yet when I challenged an unsourced statement today by starting a discussion about it and inserting a "dubious" tag, the tag was reverted. I brought this up at the reliable sources notices board (follow that link to get all the details), but apparently that's for questioning particular sources, not for questioning the lack of sources. So is there any consensus teeth behind this policy statement?

Comments, suggestions?

Thanks, --Born2cycle (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's best not to add tags unless you've tried other ways of obtaining a source. Best thing is to look for one yourself. If you can't find one, copy the sentence or paragraph to talk, and ask for a source there. If none is forthcoming after a reasonable period, either tag it or move it (rather than copying it) to the talk page, and ask that it not be restored without a source. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 05:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin gives good advice... beyond that advice, follow the WP:BRD cycle... you edited by adding a tag... your edit was reverted... now everyone should go to the talk page and discuss the situation. Explain your reasons for tagging the statement, and ask why the tag was removed.  There is no rush... give people a reasonable amount of time to respond.  Also, try to get multiple editors involved in the discussion and form a consensus on how to best deal with the issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the specific issue... it seems that the sentence in question has been modified, and sources supplied. If this has not resolved the issue, continue to discuss on the article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blueboar: while agreeing with most of what you said, I have to say that citation and dispute tags should never be removed without discussion and resolution of the issue. These tags are not part of content per se, they are notifications to the community that there is a potential problem that needs to be addressed on the page.  In my own experience, removal of such tags (when done without discussion) is often reflective of an aggressive form of page ownership - pure red flag behavior.  I've occasionally thought about trying to work some protection for dispute and sourcing into policy; while I don't want to legitimize tag-bombing articles, I also don't want editors dominating pages by silencing any avenue of broader discussion.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that tagging per se is subject to BRD. However, once it get's to "D" in BRD, if it's a sourcing tag, policy strongly favors the tagger. North8000 (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds about right to me, and I'll note that all of these types of actions should be informed by the assumption of good faith. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To Ludwigs2: Never?  Are you sure about that?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing: I'd ask you please not to go for the strawman arguments like this. My point is that editors should not be able to suppress discussion about changes to the page through edit-warring over 'problem' tags; I assume that editors are not so stupid that they are incapable of distinguishing 3rd-grade vandalism from honest concerns.  However, editors who are that stupid should probably give the tag the benefit of the doubt and leave it in place; the tag does little harm, and sooner or later an editor with better discrimination skills will come along to resolve the issue.


 * Sorry to be brusque, but I hate to see discussions derailed by the introduction of absurd scenarios. -- Ludwigs 2  16:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's an absurd scenario, actually. It appears that Wikipedia has an astonishingly high percentage of editors who think that written policies trump common sense in all cases. E.g., apparently we have to be open-minded about whether Santa Claus exists because many sources agree him as real while others say he isn't. Or, if a "reliable" source gets details of things that happened on Wikipedia's servers wrong and libels an ex-Arbitrator, we must report the accusations as fact ("verifiability, not truth") and cannot possibly set them right based on our server logs (primary source, original research). This nonsense seems to be getting more and more common, and we must either proof all our policies against this kind of nonsense wikilawyering or develop an awareness for it and make sure that it is not regarded as socially acceptable. Hans Adler 16:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tags are to be used to invite people to improve the topic, not to warn the readership. Thus if a tag is added it needs to be justified on the talk page. If this does not occur than it is appropriate to remove it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Hans - first, what are you trying to say about Santa?!? Second, you're right about the literalness - too often I find myself having to use wp:IAR like a machete to get through a jungle of literalist interpretations of policy.  I don't know what to do about that, though, except keep hacking away.  It boggles the mind...  so I hereby officially tone down what I said to WhatamIdoing. apologies.
 * @DocJ - that's actually a good rubric - I think I tried (and failed) to get something like that written into policy at one point: i.e. If a tag goes on and someone opens a talk page discussion about it, the tag stays on until the discussion reaches a consensus of some sort (even if that consensus is that the tag is silly); but tags without discussions can be removed on sight. The assumption is that a vandal isn't likely to stick around and discuss the merits of a vandalism, and won't get very far with it if he does. Editors with serious concerns, however, are likely to want to talk about it, and the tag might help prevent edit wars by allowing editors to express that they disagree with a passage without actually needing to change it.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What I was trying to say about Santa? The following quotation is from an editor who opposed the removal of an in-universe coatrack section with NORAD Tracks Santa spam from Santa Claus:
 * This seems to be clear enough. Apparently, Wikipedia's policies make it impossible for us to imply that Santa Claus does not, after all squeeze himself through thousands of chimneys in a single night in order to distribute presents that were packed at the North Pole. He obviously doesn't, but reliable sources say that he does, so we must stay out of the debate. And since the media report about NATO fighter planes following Santa Claus every year in an in-universe style, we must do the same. After all, if it were true, it would be significant information about Santa Claus. Hans Adler 20:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are people reading this considering posting a suggestion that the problem could be solved by attribution. "Sources report that...". Hans I agree with you. A policy minded way of stating what I think is the same concern is that WP:IAR seems to be not just ignored but routinely violated on an increasingly regular basis. I do have sympathy for the argument that appealing to IAR means you can open an un-ending debate, especially if there are bad faith editors looking for an opportunity, but that is exactly the point: if no simple rule will vouchsafe what a consensus of good faith editors thinking about article quality would choose, then there is no use having a simple rule just to make avoid debates.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are people reading this considering posting a suggestion that the problem could be solved by attribution. "Sources report that...". Hans I agree with you. A policy minded way of stating what I think is the same concern is that WP:IAR seems to be not just ignored but routinely violated on an increasingly regular basis. I do have sympathy for the argument that appealing to IAR means you can open an un-ending debate, especially if there are bad faith editors looking for an opportunity, but that is exactly the point: if no simple rule will vouchsafe what a consensus of good faith editors thinking about article quality would choose, then there is no use having a simple rule just to make avoid debates.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (e/c @ hans) well first, you know I was just kidding, right?   That being said, the 'Santa' case is actually an interesting litmus test. What we have in it is the almost universal perpetuation of an untruth because of sociological pressures - you can see the relationship to a broad range of of topics (from religious assertions about the existence of God or higher beings, to pseudoscientific claims about non-existent forces or material properties, to spiritual or psychological claims about the existence of human consciousness).  It applies wherever one group asserts something that another group categorically denies.  It seems to me that in such cases we are constrained as follows:
 * We cannot assert that one side or the other is 'true' (even where it's obvious that one side is true), partly for OR reasons and partly because it's not our purpose on wikipedia to debunk people's cherished beliefs.
 * We do need to describe the mythological component fairly and neutrally (which means we recount how the story is told and don't harp endlessly on its 'mythologicality').
 * We try to cover all perspectives on the topic fairly.
 * However, there are tools for this. For instance, I would have argued against that NORAD thing as being based on unreliable sources. there's good reason to believe that news sources who report such things are fabricating material to pander to their audience, so wp:RS and wp:UNDUE can be brought to bear. If necessary, it should be possible to source the fact that the material is being fabricated.   Just argue that all sources are biased on this issue because of Christian leanings in the culture (Al Jezeera most likely does not do Santa tracking, for instance), and so demote the reliability of the sources and re-weight or remove the section to prevent advocacy of a biased viewpoint.  If someone is really persistent about it, well...  that's when IAR comes out of its sheath and carves a path through to the vale of common sense.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This could all be solved by introducing the two missing metrics into the RS criteria (objectivity and knowledge regarding the statement that cited them) make the measure of the strength of a cite equal the sum of these and the current two RS criteria, and making a statement that the strength of a cite must be stronger the more challenged/controversial the statement is, and vica versa. Arbited by the usual consensus methods, but using this framework.  There's two sentences that would solve 1/3 of all of Wikipedia's problems. North8000 (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO there are a number of issues that must be handled. One, as I reminded Ludwigs above, vandalism and trolling are part of Wikipedia's reality.  Absolute rules violate our basic policies.  Editors should be free to ignore or remove bad-faith tags.
 * Two, not all tags benefit from explanations. Fact, especially at the end of a sentence that includes a statistic, is really pretty self-explanatory.  What exactly would I post as a point of discussion in that instance?  "It says '26%'.  I think that sentence would benefit from a citation"?  Don't you think that you already knew that, just from the tag I added?
 * Other templates do benefit from an explanation (and even more do on occasion). Others—POV is an example—really require an explanation.  (IMO we ought to have a bot pulling such tags from all articles whose talk pages have had zero non-bot, non-minor changes during the preceding ~60 days, because there have been, at least within the limits of my knowledge, zero instances of multi-year continuous efforts to resolve POV problems at any article—and we have tags dating back to 2008, last I checked.)  We want a program that encourages editors to use their best judgment, based on the situation at hand, not one that says every single template requires an automatic (and, oh, yes, if it were absolutely required, it would quickly become automated) talk-page explanation.
 * IMO the solution here is to provide recommendations on a per-template basis, e.g., by documenting expectations at the template's on doc page. This prevents us from trying to force editors to follow the same rules for uncat and POV.  In other words, what we've got now is IMO basically what we want.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Links for verifiability going dead
A task force is working on the the problem of links for verifying articles going dead. We would like more input from the greater community. Everybody is encouraged to share their concerns here. Thank you. -  Hydroxonium  ( H3O+ ) 14:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 125.166.187.49, 11 February 2011
125.166.187.49 (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Deactivated the template - no request given.--Kotniski (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Challenged or likely to be challenged
FYI - Village_pump_(policy), JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability and inline citations
I believe that inline citations greatly aid in verifiability, and thus that all sentences (barring obvious case) require an inline citation. Some editors disagree. A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources; comments from verifiability experts would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Piotrus boldly added an assertion to CITE saying "referencing only at the end of a paragraph composed of multiple sentences is insufficient". There are accusations that he did so to game a dispute at DYK.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why we have two pages saying much the same things
Why do we have two essentially identical (in scope) pages, this one and WP:NOR? Please see and contribute to the thread I've started at WT:NOR.--Kotniski (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Dataspaces and OR
Recent policy announcements by NIH and NSF require funded research workers to put results in sustainable dataspaces. See,. (This is not mentioned in Dataspaces.

Will WP consider information in the DataSpace of a major research university self-publication or publication by the university?

TV and radio
It seems to be unofficial policy that TV and radio broadcasts meet WP:V, and it would require quite a lot of re-editing of WP if they didn't. However, the wording of WP:SOURCEACCESS would appear to suggest not: "anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source". You can't necessarily do this with a TV or radio broadcast.

I had thought that the policy was that the material has to be archived somewhere, but if the archive is not accessible to the general public then too bad.

Opinions anyone? Is there a guideline somewhere that clarifies this? Should the policy covering this be tweaked? Should TV and radio broadcasts not be considered to be verifiable sources?

--FormerIP (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Remember that "archived" does not mean "on line"... Most TV broadcasts (not sure about radio) are archived in places that are accessible to the general public... for example, in the US there is the Paley Center for Media (which has branches in both NY and LA). It has extensive archives. Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, if there is a public archive that contains the broadcast then obviously that's fine. But what if there isn't? A lot of content from the BBC that is used on WP would appear not to be accessible at all: . The Paley centre appears to have copies of 120,000 shows - but wouldn't it be necessary to establish that a show is in their archive before using it as a source? --FormerIP (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that some material that's not accessible in its original form might still be available as transcript. But if there really isn't any way for a WP reader to go back and confirm that the source says what we're claiming it says, then no, by definition it's not a verifiable source and we shouldn't use it. This is inconvenient sometimes but uncheckable sources do pose a serious risk - no matter how reliable the source might be in itself, editors are quite capable of misinterpreting or deliberately misrepresenting such things. (I've encountered at least one editor who made a habit of using uncheckable sources as a way to insert bogus material into a BLP.) Whether an editor is obliged to check an outlet's archival practices is another matter - I think in some cases (not all) it would be reasonable to assume archival until demonstrated otherwise.
 * I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of TV/radio sources in articles that don't satisfy WP:V for this reason, and if anybody challenges them they're likely to be removed. But the reality is that this will only happen when and where some editor cares enough about the issue to do something about it. Uncontroversial material that's not doing any harm is likely to stay there until editors run out of other things to worry about, which might take a while... --GenericBob (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That all sounds fair. I would say though, that it is not reasonable to assume there will be a public archive in the case of TV and radio material. It seems very clear that in most cases such material is not archived.
 * I think there may be a significant problem that many editors, including experienced editors, think that TV and radio are generally okay as sources (in fact, I think this is pretty much a stock attitude at RSN). Either that or those editors are right and policy is wrong. --FormerIP (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, editors are supposed to have seen a source before they cite it... and the rest of us are supposed to assume good faith about that. Blueboar (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there are some real problems here. Any source should, automatically, be specific enough, so I saw it on TV just now or even it was just on CNN shouldn't qualify.  Also, it's not appropriate for exact quotes, when the distinction between fact from opinion is not clear, when it's not obvious whether there is original reporting or reporting on someone else's reporting, or any situation where the source of the source is unclear, the context of the report, or the role of the reporter/commentator.  I think it should be a minimum requirement that an editor looking to use TV or radio sources a) knows which show, which host, on which day; b) knows who was speaking at the time and what they said; c) can distinguish between a quotation, summary, commentary, etc; and d) is aware of the context of the report or discussion.  Assuming good faith does not take the place of another set of eyes being able to verify details or confirm for an interpretation.  So, nothing against TV/Radio inherently, but I think we should not encourage their use unless its from an easily accessible online clip.  And just as a practical matter, I doubt there are many reliable TV or radio shows cover material that really couldn't be sourced to a major newspaper article? Ocaasi (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify... When I said to assume good faith, I was not talking about someone saying "but I saw it on TV"... When it comes to citing TV or Radio broadcasts (or films for that matter), we should not cite the original broadcast (although we should note when it aired).  Instead, we should cite to a reliable copy of the original broadcast (or an official transcript)... and we need to indicate where we located that copy, so that if someone who wants to verify our citation, they can obtain it as well.  Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict with Blueboar -- who has now answered my concern :)] If the material is not permanently archived -- and even if it is archived but not accessible to the general public -- isn't there a logical problem here? OK, we assume one another's good faith; or we may set up a system for us to verify one another's citations while still verifiable. But that doesn't help our readers. We don't ask them to assume our good faith: we tell them that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So they should not rely on what one or two Wikipedia editors claim a TV programme said, if that claim is no longer verifiable. So the claim and the dead citation are no use to our readers. So why include them? And rew D alby  15:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

OK... I have added a caution about this to the policy (see: WP:V)... I am sure it could use tweaking and revising... feel free. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Yes, Andrew, I think I agree. To put it another way, the spirit of WP:V is that readers should not be asked to assume the good faith or reliability of editors. If there are no means by which to verify a source, then it fails. This means including in the citation a mention of the location, online or offline where the material is available to the public.
 * Slight issue is that we have a template Template:Cite episode which doesn't inlude any field for an archive.
 * Subsequent question: is broadcast material verifiable if it is illegally on YouTube? --FormerIP (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The YouTube issue has been answered many times before... we require that things be verifiable to a reliable source... videos on YouTube are not considered reliable - unless hosted on an official sub-channel (such as the BBC sub-channel). Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Blueboard (and FormerIP), for the added section in the policy: it works for me. And rew D alby  18:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not supposed to link to a YouTube copyvio. But it wouldn't seem entirely unreasonable for someone to cite a TV broadcast and, if challenged, say that it's findable on YouTube. I tend to think the general principle you are talking about ought to apply, but I don't think it's clear-cut.
 * Perhaps more importantly though, I think a change to the citation template to include space for archive info should be proposed. Anyone agree with that? --FormerIP (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "the spirit of WP:V is that readers should not be asked to assume the good faith of editors" - also, there are plenty of good-faith editors who misunderstand/misremember sources. (Probably all of us at one time or another!) IME this is a much bigger issue for WP's accuracy than bad-faith editing, and one of the main reasons for WP:V. --GenericBob (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. I'll edit my comment above. --FormerIP (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

New section
I don't think this works as written:

"Radio and television broadcasts present unique problems with verifiability. A TV or radio broadcast is ephemeral in nature, occurring in the moment and then over. For this reason, its contents will not be verifiable at a later date. However, a transcript or recording of the broadcast can be verified. Editors taking information from a radio or television broadcast should cite a reliably produced transcript or publicly accessible recording rather than the original broadcast (although the original air date should be included in the citation)."

We don't require that people send off for transcripts before citing a broadcast. It's the person who wants to verify it who has to do that, as with any other source. We can insist that either a copy or a transcript be available in principle, i.e. that the broadcaster is a reliable, professional one. But we can't insist that people have already seen the transcript and know how to cite it.

Also it's unclear what "Editors ... should cite a ... publicly accessible recording rather than the original broadcast" means. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm reading it the same way as you (fair enough, that may be an indication that something needs rephrasing). I think the general idea is that an editor needs to provide a means of verification, whatever that happens to be, and that "trust me, I saw it" is not enough. I don't think it says that editors need to "send of for transcripts" (I'm not sure many TV stations would respond positively to such a request in any case). The onus can't be on the person doing the verifying, because that would require them to prove a negative. --FormerIP (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have to cite the transcript, rather than "Soldier Arrested," ABC News Nightline, February 20, 2011, it means you need to have seen the transcript, though it will likely say exactly the same thing. So the section really doesn't work as written. (And yes, you can always buy transcripts.) Also, the last sentence doesn't mean anything. How could I cite a second recording, and not a first broadcast (or whatever is being said)? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do understand what you are saying Slim. ... but I am not sure you are correct that you can always buy a transcript. This will probably be true of most major network broadcasts... but not of every TV or radio broadcast everywhere (local station?). At minimum, I think we need to have a reasonable expectation that a particular broadcast was reliably recorded or transcribed (ie that it is possible to verify it) before we cite it. Blueboar (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It feeds into the issue of reliability, because I think any halfway-major broadcaster would make transcripts available. Because you have to be able to prove what you said, prove what you didn't say, be part of the public discourse, as with any other reliable source. Any broadcaster not doing that would be an amateur, self-published as it were (or unpublished in this case). SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not amateur vs professionals: Local radio stations and smaller shows don't normally make transcripts available because, in actual practice, nobody wants them.  Why would you pay to have every show typed up, if nobody wants to read the results?  It's like the joke about alphabetizing the files before burning them.
 * Thirty years ago, smaller outfits didn't even keep recordings. And just because it was recorded doesn't mean that it's available to the public or that it's necessarily kept for very long.  If the station doesn't want to bother finding tapes, then they may keep recordings for their own historical, billing, and/or legal purposes, but they might refuse to let anyone hear them unless you're armed with a search warrant or a subpoena.
 * The whole transcripts thing is a red herring. If a recording of the broadcast is available to the public, whether through the web or through buying a copy or through visiting the station and listening to the recording (the equivalent of visiting the newspaper's office and asking to see something in the morgue), then the source is verifiable from our perspective.  "At two minutes, eight seconds of this recording" is no less verifiable than "on page 239 of this book" or "on the editorial page of this hard-copy-only newspaper".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite
I rewrote it. Is this okay?

"Radio and television broadcasts are acceptable as sources, provided the broadcaster is a reliable one. Editors should cite the title of the segment if it has one, the name of the show, the name of the reporter as appropriate, the broadcaster, and the air date; the time of the particular segment or statement can be included if available. Transcripts are often available online, and can usually be purchased or otherwise obtained from broadcasters. Editors should note that anything contentious that relies on a broadcast or transcript that other editors find difficult to view or obtain risks being deemed unverifiable for that reason."

SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

When addressing this subject, I think we also need to differentiate between broadcast media as primary or secondary sources (just as we would with print media). A segment on a news broadcast is a secondary source. A movie or TV show (not a documentary) is a primary source and should not be used per our policy on primary sources. Rklawton (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we can not lump all news broadcasts as Secondary sources... a live broadcast from the scene of an ongoing event is a primary source. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Slim Virgin: I think the statement "Transcripts ... can usually be purchased or otherwise obtained from broadcasters" is just plain wishful thinking. It would be nice were it so. Are you able to provide, maybe, the webpage of a major broadcaster where they give the contact details for ordering transcripts? --FormerIP (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the info on CNN's webpage.
 * I think Slim is correct where major news networks are concerned (and even the better local news stations). But how do we verify a statement that someone said something on a local cable access show, or a local radio program?  I am less certain that such outlets would bother to create transcripts or even record their shows.  Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine a professional broadcaster not recording and retaining its own programs. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Blueboar: That's just the webpage where CNN hosts transcripts. If what I want to cite appears there, then there is clearly no problem. I can cite the transcript. However, if it isn't there, which in most cases it won't be - it looks like they do one or two segments from each episode of a major show - then it is not clear that CNN will get one of their staff to produce a transcript just because I ask for one. --FormerIP (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's an example. People send off for transcripts of shows a lot for various reasons. You have to pay for them, but they already exist; they don't create one for you, they just send you a copy.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, that page offers a search facility for 6,500 transcripts. If my show is there, then no problem. But if not, who do I contact at ABC? --FormerIP (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but you can definitely order transcripts. They're needed for legal reasons, journalistic reasons (i.e. for sourcing, like us), for personal reasons, and people use them in journalism school etc. Here's where you order them from CNN.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, it's where I can view those transcripts that are available (as discussed just above.
 * I don't see any reason to suppose that the number of transcripts available to the public is greater than the number of transcripts available online. --FormerIP (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what that means, about the number available. This is a bit like wondering whether publishers keep more than one copy of their books. :) All broadcasters have transcripts of their shows. They study them, they check them, others study and check them. Members of the public can send off for copies.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So you say. I don't think what you are saying is correct, however.
 * Your overall suggestion seems to be that we can accept broadcast material because it is almost always transcribed and the transcripts are almost always available to the public. I'm asking for some evidence that this is the case. Clearly, some broadcasters transcribe some shows. But we have no information about how much of the overall field this represents. --FormerIP (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you look at the closing credits of major network news shows, you will find, amidst all the other legalese and small print flashing by so quickly, a note informing the viewer of the address to write to if they want to order transcripts. It is standard practice (at least in the US). Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you may be missing the point. What proportion of shows carry this note? Is it high enough for us to say that all broadcast material is in principle verifiable, or is it less high than that? --FormerIP (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should look into that, see if you can find a broadcaster who doesn't do it. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Or maybe I haven't proposed any new text and so I don't need to prove anything. --FormerIP (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're making edits based on your personal opinion, which seems to be based on you not being familiar with broadcasting. So it would make sense to familiarize yourself. Sorry if that sounds too harsh, but the way this discussion has gone has not been sensible. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound harsh, although it does sound a little straw-grasping.
 * I haven't made any edits based on my personal opinion, only based on my unwillingness to accept yours as fact.
 * I think the best thing would be to bring your text to the talkpage, which is what I'll do. --FormerIP (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)... Back in college I volunteered as a Classical Music DJ for WRTC in Hartford, CT. (the college radio station). They certainly didn't transcribe or record my broadcasts. The station also had news reports (mostly someone reading the AP wire, but there was some original journalism, especially if it concerned the college), people did live interviews with local officials and other noteworthy people (for example interviews with rock bands that were in town and had a new album to promote)... None of this was transcribed or recorded for posterity. Could we cite these broadcasts? If so, how can someone verify what we say? Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * But that's the kind of source we wouldn't want to cite, at least not for anything people might worry about. Maybe we ought to leave that section out entirely. I think it's causing more problems than it's worth. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you wouldn't want to cite it, but I could certainly see someone else wanting to cite it. Suppose someone from WRTC interviews , and the lead singer says something about what inspired him to write a particular song.  I could definitely see the fan crufters wanting to mention this in the band's article.  Suppose the College President is being interviewed, and announces that a new dormitory is being planned. I could definitely see someone wanting to add this to the article on the college.
 * Now, I could agree with saying that, because no recording or transcript was made of the broadcast (and thus there is no way to verify its contents), these interviews are unreliable. But in which case, are we not defining a "reliable broadcast" as one that has been transcribed or recorded? Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed, just as books have to be written down, and not only read out once from the mind of the author during a fan club meeting. But that's a very minimal requirement. It's not the same as an editor being expected to prove that a transcript exists. At some point common sense has to kick in. We see here that even ABC News and CNN are being questioned. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One issue with citing broadcasts (as opposed to archived or transcribed versions) is that we must rely on our one-time perception of the material. We may have misheard something but have no way of double-checking to correct ourselves. If we have a personal recording of the material then we can at least confirm or correct our first impression and transcribe additional text for context, but that often isn't the case. So transcripts or archive copies can be important for helping us accurately summarize the sources we use, as well as for letting others verify them.   Will Beback    talk    00:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We've always had an understanding on Wikipedia that publication implies very little about ease of access; the material simply has to be available to the public in principle, but you may have to cross oceans and slay dragons to obtain it. This proposal changes that principle, saying that broadcast material, unlike books, must be readily available. I can think of several instances already where that could threaten source material. What matters, surely, is that the broadcaster is a reliable one. That means we know that copies exist. We know that if we write to them, they'll confirm the contents—including the BBC, despite its "no transcripts" policy—though it may require some fuss and some work. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That doesn't address my point about hearing something once and misremembering it, which is an inherent problem with using broadcasts as sources. Taken differently, what if two editors disagree about the contents of a broadcast they both heard? I suppose it would have to be removed until one of them can produce a transcript.
 * The standard for books is that they actually exist. We can usually prove their existence (if not their contents) with library catalogs, bibliographies, etc. However the existence of an unpublished transcript or tape of a broadcast is an entirely different matter. I doubt that most local TV stations keep tapes of their news broadcasts for more than a couple of years, at most, but even then we're just assuming that they have them in the first place.
 * Further, most printed sources are relatively accessible to readers. Old books can be purchased through Amazon or obtained through interlibrary loan for under $100. Having to travel to New York City to verify a broadcast citation is more difficult, time consuming and expensive by several of orders of magnitude.
 * Has anyone ever written to the BBC to have them confirm the material from an old broadcast that isn't on their list of transcribed programs?   Will Beback    talk    00:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've written to the BBC as such. Some individual people there, and they've always been helpful, but I don't know what happens if you try to go through the corporation. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed text moved from page
";Broadcast media

Radio and television broadcasts are acceptable as sources, provided the broadcaster is a reliable one. Editors should cite the title of the segment if it has one, the name of the show, the name of the reporter as appropriate, the broadcaster, and the air date; the time of the particular segment or statement can be included if available. Transcripts are often available online, and can usually be purchased or otherwise obtained from broadcasters. There is no requirement under this policy that an editor citing a broadcast be in possession of a transcript."

What's wrong with this is that it does not appear to say anything about verifiability, which is the topic of the policy page. The first sentence is about reliability. The second is about how to cite. The third (factually contested) tells us something about transcripts but nothing about their relationship to the policy. The last sentence is obviously true, but it doesn't really provide anything that helps in applying the policy.
 * What really ought to be set out on the page is information about the circumstances under which broadcast material can be considered to be verifiable. --FormerIP (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What we need to acknowledge is that some broadcasts are verifiable, but others are not. Blanket statements in either direction are not going to be accepted.  So... what kinds of broadcasts are verifiable? and what kinds are not? Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Blueboar on that. It'd be better if it started out something like, Radio and television broadcasts are acceptable as sources, provided the broadcaster is a reliable one and that the broadcast has been archived or transcribed. If it hasn't been archived or transcribed then it's not verifiable except through the use of a time machine.   Will Beback    talk    22:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think they're verifiable if a record of the broadcast exists and is accessible to the public. That could be a recording in a public archive or online, or it could be a transcript. But we need to be reasonably sure that it exists and is accessible, rather than just proceeding on the basis that this is possibly the case. In other words, I'd add to what Will says that the archive or transcript also has to be available for the purposes of verification by a WP editor or user. --FormerIP (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Any broadcaster who spouts off into the ether without thinking they might in future need to know what they said, isn't going to be a reliable source for us by definition. The difficulty with saying it must be archived or transcribed is that you'll get editors who know nothing about broadcasting who'll insist the editor prove that a transcript exists. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the whole point. The editor does need to prove - or at least show a good indication - that the transcript, or some other record, exists, otherwise the material is not verifiable. --FormerIP (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * See? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I do know some stuff about broadcasting. I learn it from the BBC website: . --FormerIP (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is more: when does the editor need to "prove" that an archive exists... at the point of citation, or when challenged on it? I lean towards "when challenged"... We don't require that someone link to amazon or their library's card cataloge when citing a book (to "prove" that the book exists)... but, if someone suspects that the book does not exist, they can challenge the citation and request such proof.  The same should be the standard when citing broadcasts.
 * The more I think about it, the more I think Will's phrasing above is really all that is needed... 'Radio and television broadcasts are acceptable as sources, provided the broadcaster is a reliable one and that the broadcast has been archived or transcribed. This sets out the condition of reliability succinctly and we trust editors to abide by it.  If there is a reason to think that this condition has not been complied with, however, then a challenge can be issued and the problem discussed. Exactly the same as with questionable citations to print sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree, because I think the arguments here offer a taste of things to come, with editors being told they're not allowed to cite a BBC program unless they can somehow prove that a copy exists. We're better saying nothing than exposing people to that kind of problem. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, what happens if you think a print source does not exist? You issue a challenge and make the editors "prove" that the source does in fact exist.  They don't need to do this in the citation... they can provide a link to amazon or google books on the talk page, but the challenge does need to be responded to or (per WP:BURDEN) the source can be removed. Blueboar (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * But we expect people to use common sense. We need a reason to suppose a source might not exist. FormerIP is saying editors need no reason to suppose; that the default position is to assume copies don't exist. What he thinks happens if there's a lawsuit, I don't know. But professional broadcasters do, of course, keep copies of their work, and to ask editors to prove that is silly. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are the archives of professional broadcasters open to the public?   Will Beback    talk    23:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would guess that's not usual. I know that the BBC archives are not. If the archives of any particular broadcaster are open to the public then fine - that's that broadcaster covered. --FormerIP (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This may be a national thing... because in the US they definitely are. Are you saying that if I write to the BBC and request either a copy or a transcript of something they aired, they will not send it to me? Blueboar (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not routinely . Are you sure this is the case in the US? If I write to HBO requesting copies or transcripts of anything at all they will send it to me? How do I get this service? --FormerIP (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "While MSNBC does not offer or sell video copies of MSNBC programs, MSNBC does offer transcripts for certain programs". --FormerIP (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * SV, applying WP policy shouldn't be seen as a "problem".
 * Blueboar: I agree that any requirement to identify means of verifiability should only come into play if the material is challenged - that's normally the case when applying WP:V in any event.
 * I think it is important, though, to make clear that the archive etc should be publicly accessible, otherwise there will just be disputes about whether the private archive of CBS or whatever counts. As you can see from the OP way above, I had been under the impression that it would. But this goes against WP:SOURCEACCESS. --FormerIP (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, according to WP:IRS, all sources need to be publicly accessible (A manuscript that only I possess is not a reliable source) ... so I don't see the need to repeat this specifically for broadcast sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true, but it's not many bytes just to add the word public. I'd be concerned because that was the misapprehension I was under, and I think other editors will be under it too. --FormerIP (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Nother proposal
";Broadcast media

Radio and television broadcasts are acceptable as sources, provided a permanent record of the broadcast in question is available. Some broadcasts may be available online or as commercial video or audio recordings. Some may be found in library or archive collections. In many instances, written transcripts of broadcasts will be available from the broadcaster, either on their website or on request."

--FormerIP (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Works for me Blueboar (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Is that in addition to the part about the broadcaster/production company being a reliable source?   Will Beback    talk    02:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say that's optional, but am inclined to say it's not needed because: (1) all sources always have to be reliable, so it's not really news; (2) I'm not sure what's meant by "reliable broadcaster" - all broadcasters will have general oversight, but may be more or less reliable in particular instances (e.g. Babestation may not be a reliable source for very much, but ... er, maybe you have a point). Including it wouldn't be the end of the world if it's a dealbreaker. --FormerIP (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This risks opening up the black hole of what it means for something to be "published." With a book we can require an ISBN number, or an indication that it is catalogued by a library. But what do we mean by "available permanent record" in the case of broadcasting?


 * Practical example—I want to cite BBC Panorama from 1967, a documentary I have a personal copy of. An editor who doesn't like what it says insists I demonstrate that a "permanent record of the broadcast in question is available." How do I do that? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 11:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * From what people are telling us about the BBC's practices, it would be difficult... but suppose you owned a rare, out of print book published in 1867 (before the invention of ISBN numbers). How would you demonstrate that this source is available? ... The fact is, you might not be able to.  You know that the source exists and says what you say it does... but others can't verify it.  They can object and challenge your source... exactly the same way someone could object and challenge your copy of Panorama.   What we are saying is that broadcasts should be held to the same standards as print sources.  No more, no less.   Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's exactly my point. We don't mention this kind of issue for books, but now we want to introduce it for broadcasting, without defining any of the terms, or considering how it will be misused. And not just rare broadcasts, but bog standard ones. Editors of good faith can sort these issues out themselves, without the need for words in this policy that may do more harm than good. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... fair point... I am thinking that we should mention this issue for print sources (or rather mention it in terms of all sources, print and non-print). And the more I think about it... we should probably do so at WP:IRS, as opposed to here.  At the moment the overview of WP:IRS states:
 * The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.
 * This indicates that non-archived media sources are not considered reliable. The last line should be amended to reflect the fact that this applies to all sources (both print and non-print).  Any source must be obtainable by the general public (but not immediately obtainable) in order to be verifiable. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm quite leery of adding any wording that makes it more easy to cite video. Stating where something is found in a book is fairly easy, yet people regularly get it wrong. Doing this accurately and reproducibly with a video is almost impossible, imho. Jayjg (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like this for the same reasons as SlimVirgin. Let's please consider sources case-by-case and stop trying to erect rules for every situation and stop trying to make it harder to use sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, if you're going to try to institute a sweeping change to the acceptability of broadcast media as sources, please open an RfC and advertise it centrally. A consensus of a handful of editors isn't really appropriate for a change with such implications. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, what we have been discussing is not a "sweeping change" but simply a clarification of what the policy already was. Obviously, you disagree with my perspective, but it explains why I didn't file an RfC on it. Blueboar (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this isn't a sweeping policy change, just an attempt at elaborating existing policy (sources need to be checkable - how does this apply to broadcasts?). Possibly it has a significant effect if it is the case that policy is often not followed in this area, but that just highlights the need for clarification on the page. --FormerIP (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's instruction creep without the instruction. FormerIP, how does an editor show that a "permanent record of the broadcast in question is available." SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By showing that. Cite the DVD you have, the URL where the content can be viewed, the archive reference or whatever it happens to be. If you have no way of showing that a permanent record is available, then the material is not verifiable. --FormerIP (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that we wouldn't be able to cite any BBC documentaries not available on their websites? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying we shouldn't use as a source any BBC documentaries whose contents cannot be verified. There are a number of means by which verification might be possible, as has been discussed. --FormerIP (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You've so far not provided a single way in which someone could check the contents of a BBC documentary what wasn't online or for sale. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * , (account required), . --FormerIP (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

In many ways, broadcasts are similar to live events, such as speeches. Let's say I attend a talk by a noteworthy person who is a recognized expert on some topic. I videotape her speech, but my personal copy of that videotape isn't available to other editors. Presumably, editors could contact the speaker or her heirs to obtain the notes or transcript if those exist. Is the speech an acceptable source?  Will Beback   talk    02:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is why we've deliberately never tried to define "published." People have to use their common sense. Clearly, the BBC is a reliable source, so it boils down to whether you trust the editor to be honest and accurate in their reporting of what they saw. But to insist that an editor "cite the archive reference" goes way too far, and it would never fly. In any event, how would editor 2 go about checking editor's 1 citation of "BBC Archive Panorama 1072/2/98/4A? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well... we do at least hint at a definition of "published" at WP:IRS (in the overview I posted above). Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * They couldn't, because that example doesn't provide information about where the content can be accessed. --FormerIP (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand that sentence. Could you rephrase? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If a citation just says "BBC Archive Panorama 1072/2/98/4A?", then, AFIACT, editor 1 has not provided information that will enable editor 2 to check the content, so it fails WP:V. --FormerIP (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What would editor 1 would have to write (to cite, say, a BBC Panorama documentary from last month, which is not online) to "enable editor 2 to check the content"? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 13:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is verifiable but not online, then presumably there is a publicly available physical copy somewhere. If editor doesn't want their material to be deleted, this is what I would advise them to cite (e.g. Richard Grange, Panorama, BBC, "Miracle Baby Grows Up", 2004, Brymor Jones Library, Hull, UK . or David Attenborough's First Life, 2entertain Ltd, London, 2010.)
 * If what you're asking is "how can editor 1 enable editor to check the content in a case where there is no reliable method of doing so" then the answer is obviously that they can't. Editor 2 will there for be within her rights if she deletes the material in question.--FormerIP (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're adding to a citation the name of a library the tape is in?


 * Okay, look, if we were to add anything to this policy that prevented BBC documentaries or similar being used as sources, there would be uproar. Or rather no, there wouldn't; people would simply ignore this page completely and it would no longer be policy. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Policy already prevents it if the content is not verifiable. --FormerIP (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In some ways, this is analogous to using a very rare printed source. Let's hypothetically say I own the only known copy of a publication. (I know it's so rare because I hypothetically paid a lot of money at a rare book auction for it). As far as I know of current policy, I can cite my rare publication. If anyone inquires I can tell them that it's theoretically possible that another copy exists somewhere and that it's up to them to find it if they want to prove my summary of its contents wrong. Clearly, that'd be absurd. The logical response would be for them to ask to see quotations or scans and for me to provide them. In the case of a privately recorded news broadcast, an editor-created partial transcript should satisfy most verifiability issues. It might even be possible for a videotape to be duplicated and sent. The point being, accommodation can often be made because the line between verifiable and unverifiable is not always sharp. Perhaps rather than saying a broadcast must be archived or transcribed to be verifiable, we should turn it around and say something more like, "If citations to broadcasts are challenged and cannot be verified then they may be removed."   Will Beback    talk    05:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you owned the only known copy of a very rare book, that book would not be considered a reliable source, as other editors could not gain access to it to verify its contents (as for you copying it and sending them a copy... how do other editors know that you didn't fake it? How do we know that you didn't write it yourself?).  However, if a public library or museum had the only known copy of a book in it the collection, then it would be reliable (as 'anyone' could gain access to it, and we have a reasonable expectation that the library didn't fake it).  We have to hold all sources (printed, recorded or broadcasted) to the same standards of reliability and verifiability... what we are struggling with is out how to say this in the policy.  Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Folks, as I pointed out above, this is already covered at WP:IRS ... let me repeat the relevant language: Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet. So... to me the real question is... do we want to say something similar here in WP:V?  Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A book doesn't stop being a reliable source just because there's only one copy left.


 * We've avoided trying to pin down what's meant by "available" and "published" for years, and I think we should continue avoiding it, because when we get to these hard cases, we're wandering into "if a tree falls in an empty forest, does it make a sound?" territory. These cases almost never arise on WP, and when they do, we can leave them to editorial judgment.


 * The point of the content policies is to resolve disputes. They can only do that if they're written clearly and consistently. What's happening in this discussion is that lots of different concepts are getting mixed up (e.g., cite a recording, not the original broadcast, even though the latter is a recording too), and anything like that added to policy would only cause confusion. When it comes to issues like this, we should prioritize "do no harm" over a desire to add more words to the page. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Available" means "available". "...anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source." No trees are required to fall anywhere. The policy obviously has a problem in resolving disputes, because we're having one right now. If the policy just stated that broadcast material needs to be available to be verifiable, then things would be clearer and the potential for dispute would be reduced. This isn't an innovation, it's just highlighting the policy that already exists for all sources. --FormerIP (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * re: "A book doesn't stop being a reliable source just because there's only one copy left." Yes and no... if it is located somewhere that "anyone can access" then you are correct ... but if it is in a private collection with limited or no access, then it does becomes unreliable.  The issue is one of accessibility.
 * On the rest... I agree with SV in concept... but on this particular issue, we have pinned down what is meant by "published" (at least somewhat)... not here, but at WP:IRS.
 * To be honest, when this discussion started, I had forgotten that the issue is already covered at IRS. Now that I realize that it is covered there, I am perfectly content to omit mentioning it here at WP:V... I don't think it harms the project for this page to omit it (but I do think it would be helpful to the project if this page covered it). Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as the major issue, though. I don't think there's any underlying ambiguity about what terms like "available", "verifiable" etc actually mean.
 * Where the problem lies is that a significant number of editors, including experienced editors, appear to think that there is a sort of bloc exemption for broadcast material from the requirement of verifiability that normally applies. This may be because there seems to be reasonably common (but false) belief out there that if you ask a broadcaster for a DVD or transcript of a programme they will always or almost always send you one . In fact, this seems to be possible only some of the time.
 * This situation is damaging to WP because it makes it more difficult to challenge potentially inaccurate material - presumably a discussion like the one above is always going to be on the cards.
 * This could be helped just by having it stated somewhere that TV and radio broadcasts are subject to the same verifiability criterion as any other material. That could be here or IRC, I don't really mind. --FormerIP (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, we publish what reliable sources have published. The policy makes clear that that implies nothing about access. Some material needs expensive subscriptions; and some books have to be purchased. If we have to travel overseas to examine the only copy of a first edition held in someone's private collection, then that's what has to be done. The key point for us is that it was published independently by a reliable source, so it's out there, waiting to be verified. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's half the story, because policy says that sources also have to be available in an archive and that it needs to be possible for anyone who wants to check them. True enough, this might in extreme cases require someone to travel to Siberia and pay €1,000 subscription to a library. But where there is just a complete absence of any reliable method of checking a source, then it fails WP:V. --FormerIP (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Slim, I could not disagree more with your last comment ... while we discount the ease of access (to prevent the "But I can't find it on the internet" argument), the intent of this policy has always been that the source must be accessible to the general public. We can not assume that any editor will be granted access to a private collection. (Seriously, would you allow complete stangers into your home or office just because they wanted to look at a book you owned... I know I wouldn't.) Unless there is public access to a source, it simply is not verifiable... period. Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The policy doesn't say anything about an archive, and it's not clear what that would even mean. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but WP:IRS does... it defines reliability (in the case of media sources) as being those that are archived. Our polices and guidelines do have to work together. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * IRS isn't policy, and the thing about archives is very unclear. I agree that IRS should work with this policy, but it can't be the other way round. It's also arguably supportive of systemic bias to insist on the existence of an "archive" (undefined), and that editors somehow know how to find it (but no clues are given), and not only that but must prove that it exists to the satisfaction of others (which might be impossible for even routine things) in that it may have the effect of excluding unusual sources, which would often be non-English ones. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes... the old "its only a guideline" argument... as old as Wikipedia itself and one I utterly reject whenever it gets trotted out... While WP:IRS (the page) has "Guideline" status and is not a "Policy Page"... the concept of reliability is policy... in fact it is a policy that is laid out right here in WP:V. WP:IRS is where we define what Wikipedia means by "reliability".  Therefore, this page has to work with WP:IRS.  They are inter-connected at their very heart. Blueboar (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * But you haven't explained what you mean by an archive, or explained how anyone is supposed to find it. This is the problem I have: not with adding extra layers of explanation, but adding words that aren't used with precision. And yes IRS is a guideline, and one that gets edited a lot, which is why it's always been problematic. You surely remember that several editors even tried to remove its guideline status.


 * We have to work with the way the world is, and the way it organizes itself, and the language it uses. We can't make up our own terms and our own concepts unless we're willing to define them and then use them consistently across policies. And they have to be consistent with common sense. Anyone who says the BBC couldn't be used as a source, because we wouldn't know how to cite their archive, has violated the common sense rule. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This page gets edited a lot too... perhaps we should discount it as being problematic? (and FYI the section in question hasn't been edited a lot... it has been stable for almost two years.)  As for what we mean by "archive"... I am willing to accept the OED's definition: 1) a place where public records or other important historical documents are kept. 2) A historical record or document so preserved.  There is no need to make up our own definition. Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not enough for the archive to exist: It has to be available to the public.  Not free, not on the internet, but actually available to Joe Q. Public, not just those with court orders or friends who work for the broadcaster.  If it is impossible for every single one of our 50,000 editors to get their hands on a copy, even temporarily, then the material is not verifiable.
 * Once again, no matter what CNN does, this really isn't typical for smaller outfits. (Most smaller outfits don't have CNN's half-billion dollars in annual profits, either.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Slightly different way of framing the issue
How would we deal with this?


 * Joe Bloggs is a just-about-notable children's author from Sheffield, UK.  He is also a convicted paedophile.

--FormerIP (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a bad example, because a children's author who turned out to be a pedophile would be news elsewhere too, so we wouldn't need the television sources. You need an example that's only attributable to a broadcast. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you saying these sources would not be acceptable and I should look for print sources? The organisations they come from have impeccable reputations for fact-checking, so I can't see what is lacking. Or are you saying that TV broadcasts are only reliable sources if nothing else is available? I can't see that in any policy.
 * Joe Bloggs isn't actually very famous. Apart from the freak occurance of the Channel 4 News story, he only really gets mentioned in local press, and I haven't been able to travel to Sheffield yet to check the library archives for local press stories. --FormerIP (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There would be no need to use the broadcast sources, is what I'm saying, for a contentious claim in a BLP, because that level of contention would have spawned print stories. So I think you need to adjust your example to make it more realistic—an example of a claim we want to use that is only attributable to a broadcast from a source we know to be reliable, but where we don't have "archive access," whatever that means. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Joe Bloggs isn't famous enough to be get much coverage anywhere other than locally. It's maybe even questionable whether he meets our notability requirements, but that's another matter for another discussion. In any event, I like these sources and I don't see anything in any policy to suggest that they are any less valid just because they are broadcast sources. --FormerIP (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You changed your post after I'd responded to it. I don't know what you mean by "freak occurrence." And you could look through Google news archives for local print stories.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was your fault. You responded before I changed my post. I've checked Google news. The only significant local paper is the Sheffield Star, but it doesn't keep its content online for more than a few days.
 * I don't understand why you are asking me to look for other sources. What is wrong with the ones I provided? --FormerIP (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I too would like an explanation as to whether SV thinks there is anything wrong with the sources. She seems to object to them, but why? Blueboar (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I personally am unable to verify that these sources contain what they are alleged to contain. The show in question is not available online (now).  This does not actually prove that the show is not available to the public through some means (e.g., going to the radio station and asking to listen to the archives), but unless someone is reasonably certain that such an attempt would be successful, then I would not say that this material is verifi able, as in, no one is able to verify it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Such sources would have to be considered verifiable in principle, but still . We know such programs are archived. A better question to ask is whether any other source picked up on the story. A news search around that date can be helpful. Also ask the history which editor it was who added the content. Perhaps they retained a copy that can be verified by a second editor (ideally one who has supported an opposing view to that of the first). LeadSongDog come howl!  14:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it depends what you mean by "verifiable in principle". Is this different from "verifiable"?
 * I agree that Template:Verify source is normally going to be the appropriate thing to do. But there are cases where it won't be, such as significant BLP concerns, as in the example above. I'm not sure I have a problem in principle with idea of editors uploading material for verification, although copyvio is going to be an issue. --FormerIP (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Negative information about living people should not only be verifiable but verified. While that process is taking place, the content should be removed, I think.Ocaasi (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If I come across some content and I'm wondering whether or not to remove it, how do I tell if it is verified, as opposed to merely verifiable? --FormerIP (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick answer: is it cited to a reliable source or not. Long answer:  It really depends on the nature of the information. 1) If there is no citation - we ask ourselves whether the information is controversial or non-controversial?  If non-controversial, we should probably either leave it unsourced, or tag it with a  tag.  We are allowed to remove it, but we probably should not.  If it is controversial then we should either tag it or remove it. And if it relates to a living person always err on the side of removal. 2) If there is a citation - Assuming good faith, we usually consider the statement verified unless we have a reason to suspect that the cited source is flawed (eg: the source is not RS, the source is being misrepresented, the source does not actually support the statement, etc.)  If that is the case, we either tag it or remove it (again depending on how controversial the statement is). Blueboar (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That was very thorough Blueboar, and I agree with all but the AGF=no verification part. I think, unless you know both the source and the editor, that negative info about a living person should actually be verified. I wouldn't say that for all BLP content, and definitely not all content in general, but negative BLP, I think so, unless there's an abundance of good faith built up from reputation as well.  And even then, maybe not, since much is at stake potentially.  Ocaasi (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're both just pointing out that there are commonsense ways in which to approach sources depending on the circumstance, rather than suggesting that there are two different technical definitions of "verifiable". Right?
 * Obviously, yes, none of this comes into play unless there is some sort of bone of centention (or, I suppose if you are replacing the cite with something better).
 * Not sure about the about the AGF thing, because I think that is easy to misapply ("Excuse me, but I'm unable to check your source and I'm pretty sure Barak Obama doesn't have laser eyes" - "Please AGF!"). --FormerIP (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did say "we usually assume good faith" (not "we always assume good faith"). And no, I was not trying to set up two definitions of "Verifiable".  Blueboar (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Although, now that I think about it, the issue of verification is two fold... depending on whether you are the writer or the reader. Let's look at the various questions that relate to this issue from each viewpoint:
 * 1) Must the writer actually verify the information he adds to an article? - Answer: no, except when the information challenged or likely to be challenged. Good practice is to provide verification for more than that... and you must always be able to provide verification if challenged... but you are not required to provide verification for every statement you write.
 * 2) How does the writer verify the information he adds to an article? - By providing a citation to a reliable source.
 * 3) How does the reader verify the information in an article - By locating and reading sources provided by the writer.
 * 4) Must the writer verify the information in the source? - No, we are allowed to trust reliable sources to give us accurate information. But if the information seems odd or contentious, it may be a good idea to try)
 * 5) How does the writer or the reader verify the information in a source? - Actually, you may not be able to do so, but good practice is to try... one way to attempt it is to see what other reliable sources say on the subject and if they say something similar.
 * 6) How does the reader verify that a cited source exists? - (this is the question that is behind the current discussion). Blueboar (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Self evident factoids
Although this is a relatively minor point to what is being discussed above, I am wondering how to deal with various factoids that are "self evident" from viewing film or television broadcasts but not explicitly written or discussed. For example this edit mentions a notable building that is briefly (less than 1 second) shown in a notable person's music video. There are no reliable sources actually discussing this, so the only way for me to verify the assertion is to view the video and literally see that it is true. Does citing the video fulfill WP:V and WP:RS or should it be removed if no one is actually writing or talking about it? Location (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, citing the video would fulfill WP:V and WP:RS for such a blunt descriptive statement. However, the mere fact that something passes WP:V and WP:RS does not necessarily mean that we can (or should) include the factoid in a specific article.... there are other polices and guidelines that relate to this situation.  Is the factoid really relevant to the topic of the article in question?  Could mentioning it be seen as giving either the building or the video undue weight?  Should it be excluded under WP:TRIVIA or WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Passing WP:V is the primary threshold for determining if information should be included, but it is not the only threshold. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of article as a whiteboard
This article has seen 11 edits (so far) in the last two days, and although I haven't taken the trouble to examine them all, it appears that many or most of them have involved the same issues. I wouldn't describe it as an edit war, exactly, but I also don't think it's quite right to use the article as a kind of whiteboard on which to propose changes or compromises after one erases someone else's preceding proposal, either. Or at least it doesn't seem right to me to do so quite so prolifically as appears, on casual inspection, to be the case at present. I know you guys know this already, but may I just gently remind everyone: that's what talk pages are for?. Especially because this is so prominent a policy, it's my opinion that it needs to preserve at least some reasonable semblance of stability. So could people please try to work out compromises or whatever here, first, rather than just throwing them at the article to see what everyone else thinks? I understand that editing styles and preferences differ, of course, but I think that would probably be best re the needs of the larger community that relies on this policy. Besides, it'll help keep everone's tally of reverted edits down, and who doesn't care about that? ;-) Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please! Slowing down a bit would help, too. If we need a whiteboard for this, we could use a subpage instead of the article itself. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Please stop changing the meaning of the policy without clear consensus on the talk page; and if it's a major issue, an RfC to bring in fresh eyes. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You guys don't seem to understand how and when Wikipedia works. Articles improve, most of the time, by tweak and countertweak - people making improvements in good faith, and occasionally reverting in good faith when necessary. When people start thinking that edits are by their nature bad (anyway, 11 in 2 days is hardly exceptional), and reverting without providing any explanation even when asked, the system breaks down and we get left with a page that we all know is nowhere near as good as it should be. Please, there's nothing different about a page that happens to have POLICY written over the top of it - think of it as an article about Wikipedia's norms in certain areas, and work together constructively on trying to improve it. --Kotniski (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ohiostandard is talking about WP:Instruction creep is bad, Kotniski is talking about WP:Article Creep. The first is bad because policies should be more stable than articles. The second is not bad, but the natural way articles develop, and may need correcting periodically. PPdd (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think either of us is talking about either of things, in fact. Nor is it necessarily true that policies should be more stable than articles. (They should both be unstable until such time as they reach perfection, after which point they should remain entirely stable...)--Kotniski (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * But this isn't an article; it's a policy that needs to be stable. K, you're frequently telling editors no one understands what threads are about, or what changes mean, or what policies are for, or how Wikipedia works. Please consider that we do understand, but that we disagree with you. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite often people don't. But "a policy needs to be stable" is simply not true - like with an article, it's more important that it be accurate than that it be stable. If we find a false (per sources) statement in an article, we correct it or remove it. If we find a clearer way of expressing something, we change it. Of course someone might disagree; then they might revert it (or just raise the issue on the talk page) - then the merits of the case can be discussed. But you don't (or shouldn't) just revert something for no reason, just because you insist on being consulted over every change even if there's nothing wrong with it. And particularly if something's been discussed on the talk page and a conclusion apparently reached and implemented, you shouldn't be reverting that (unless you've got some really weighty objection that wasn't considered before) - that would be highly disruptive to the process. All this is clear enough in article space - but exactly the same principles apply to the pages we call "policies". If you undo someone else's work, you should be able to explain why. Just because a policy has said something for years doesn't mean it's true or it's necessarily the best way to phrase it - of course you might disagree with someone's change and (if you disagree strongly enough) revert that change, explaining why you're doing it. But the really destructive behaviour we see on some policy pages is people just turning up, reverting other people's changes without explanation or without joining in the discussion on the talk page, and thinking that they're justified by the false idea that "policies have to be stable". Of course we want Wikipedia's practices to be stable, but that doesn't mean the exact wording of policy pages has to be stable - and if it turns out that the existing wording incorrectly describes the practices, then it's particularly important that it does get changed.--Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kotiniski, please note that it's more complicated than that. Part of the reason that wikipedia policies are the mess they are is that over time many editors have taken your attitude that 'getting it right' is more important than 'keeping it consistent', but their idea of what's 'right' is a good bit different than yours or mine.  What really needs to happen is that everyone has to stop thinking shallowly (e.g. "How can I tweak the policy to give more leverage in the conflict I'm having right now over <...>?"), and start taking more of a Kantian perspective (e.g. "How can I tweak policy so that it will make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, even if it works against my interests sometimes...?") -  that would naturally slow down edits to the page, and we'd start to see incremental improvement rather than cyclical reversions.  Both consistency and change are important in their own ways, and we ought to give attention to each.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. The problem is that people arrive with one set of examples in mind, and want to tweak the policy to accommodate only those concerns. But the content policies have to address all situations, so it's important not to get mentally bogged down by personal experience. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with those points. But the behaviour we've experienced on these pages recently goes way beyond stopping people from introducing their personal opinions or ideas that don't apply universally. There's been regular blind reverting of things that clearly don't change the "substance" of policy (or, in the absurd case I keep bringing up at WP:NOR, of an obvious correction to a clear misstatement that's found its way into the policy). If people would stop reverting the uncontroversial, presentational changes as if the entire text of these policies were some kind of sacred scripture, then we could concentrate our discussion and energies on the substantial stuff. (Or if you really feel a compulsion to revert presentational things - SAY WHY YOU'RE DOING IT - then we can work together to find a solution that will hopefully satisfy everybody.)--Kotniski (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (You might also note that reverts ipso facto increase the number of changes being made, so if you don't like changes, stop making the unnecessary reverts.)--Kotniski (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if any of those accusations was addressed to me ("thinking shallowly", "more leverage in the conflict I'm having right now", ""people arrive with one set of examples in mind", "bogged down by personal experience") then I really find them totally incomprehensible and without basis (if they weren't to me, then never mind, but if they were, I'd like to know what they were supposed to be based on).--Kotniski (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree, as what's been going on has, in my opinion, started to verge on a slow edit war, although to everyone's credit, there's not much heat. If an edit is made, and then reverted, discussion should take place on the talk page until consensus is reached, and I'm not seeing consensus in these discussions yet. And please keep in mind that what seems clear to you may be obscure to me, and that everyone puts different weights to different issues. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes; but it's not the fact of the reverts so much, it's that the people doing the reverts don't provide any substantial reason for them. And in some cases, even after the discussions have taken place and consensus is reached, people who took no part in the discussions (though they had plenty of opportunity to do so) come along and revert the changes that were made as a result of those discussions - and STILL fail to give any reason as to why they are doing so. There seems to be a very unhealthy attitude of "change is bad" which makes the effort of improving these pages far more onerous than it needs to be. It's only substantial changes to "the rules" that we need to be particularly wary of - changes to presentation and explanation are perfectly normal and largely to be encouraged, as they are on any article or other Wikipedia page. --Kotniski (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason people usually revert is that they want the policies to be stable, and don't want one person to impose their personal views. They don't have to give a reason beyond that. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, they do if that reason isn't applicable in the given situation. --Kotniski (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At some point, you might consider whether or nor your continuing to push a particular view is productive--what you have to do in these discussion is persuade others. And I disagree that it is 'only substantial changes to "the rules" that we need to be particularly wary of', since rules are interpreted--even minor changes can have substantial effects. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean "substantial" in the sense of opposite to minor. If it has substantial effects, then it's substantial. But not everything on these pages is rules (the edits most recently complained about were nothing to do with any rules, yet people still reacted to them as if they were).--Kotniski (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is illustrated extremely clearly by what's happening at the moment over at WP:NOR. We've discussed to death the very simple matter that a particular sentence in the policy is an incorrect statement of Wikipedia's practice. No-one's disputing that; it's really not controversial, just a missing word whose absence makes the sentence absurd if read literally. Yet for some utterly unfathomable reason, the attempt to implement the undisputed result of the previous discussion is being resisted, with blind reverts (I'm not even allowed to tag the sentence in question as being under discussion, which is even more scary - it implies there's a propaganda element to all this - it must not be admitted that there may be something imperfect about the wording of these policies). The result is plain for all to see - more edits to the page than necessary (because of the unexplained reverts), vast reams of wasted discussion, AND THE POLICY STILL CONTAINING A WRONG STATEMENT!! Does anyone see any upsides to this at all? --Kotniski (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS Someone is finally now attempting to discuss the issue (though not the people who made the reverts, I might note), so maybe it's not as bad as implied.--Kotniski (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What if a significant number of secondary sources are wrong?

 * (This is an issue relating to verifiability, although i don't know if there's a more appropriate place to discuss it than this talk page...)

I've been editing Wikipedia articles for a number of years, and i think i've adequately appreciated the difference between primary and secondary sources, as well as how these relate to editing Wikipedia. However, i've been working on a particular article for several months, and i've come to the conclusion that this case may very well represent an exception.

Specifically, a significant percentage of language and American slang secondary sources for the railroad term "gandy dancer" (slang for a maintenance of the way worker) variously (and sometimes tentatively) cite Gandy Tool Company, or Gandy Manufacturing Company, or Gandy Shovel Company, always located in Chicago, as the source of the term.

I have probably seen more than twenty such examples in otherwise authoritative sources. Yet i believe (as do others, and perhaps just one "authoritative" source) that all of these sources are wrong, and that no record has yet been found to prove the existence of such a company. (This uncertainty has led to a sort of "research project" on the gandy dancer article's talk page.)

These references probably originally came, directly and indirectly, from a single mention of "Gandy Manufacturing Company" in Railroad Magazine in 1940. But why the various names for a probably non-existent company? By chance, i happen to have been a friend of the late singer/songwriter Utah Phillips, whose stage performances often included a tall tale introduced with a mention of this alleged company with these variations. Were his yarns used as a source by all of these historians? I cannot say, for few of these fine texts mention their source for the tentative claim.

In any event, i find myself ignoring nearly all published resources dated later than 1920, and doing something closely akin to "original" research, in an attempt to find the truth for that one detail in this Wikipedia article, i.e., that the Gandy company seems to be some sort of urban legend. (One recent source cites a Gaelic term similar to Gandy Dancer, which seems somewhat a plausible source at this point. But i'm suspicious of all other recent "authoritative" scholarship that i've seen on the source of the term.)

Anyway, my reason for discussing this here is to get feedback: has such a circumstance (probable widespread, unrefuted errors in secondary sources) occurred with a Wikipedia article topic before, and how was it dealt with? Richard Myers (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You might be looking for WP:Editorial discretion. Just because something is in a reliable source doesn't actually obligate you to include it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. But if you want to keep mention of this story you could also consider wording the mention of what these secondary sources say in a way which makes it clear that the editor(s) who've written the Wikipedia article are not confident that they have got the full story yet. This is actually a pretty common problem with things reported in the press, and "cut and paste journalism" is certainly going to make this worse as it increases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In conjunction with the copyright policy

 * See also previous section now archived Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 45

Given the outcome of this Village pump (policy)/Archive 83 RfC. I am adding the phrase:
 * ", in conjunction with the copyright policy,"

to the sentence in the lead:
 * "These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles."

The new sentence will read: "These policies, in conjunction with the copyright policy, jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles."

--PBS (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear on the "outcome" of that discussion, it appears that one editor agreed with your suggestion and another disagreed. Are there other opinions on this? Location (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I make it two agreeing and one disagreeing, and the one saying he disagreed didn't in fact address the specific issue of the addition of these words. (I can add my agreement as well.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The place to discuss changes to the policy is here, and I don't think anyone would argue that Copyright is a core content policy. And it certainly doesn't determine the type and quality of material that's acceptable in articles. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 08:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the first few comments on the RfC it was move there from here because some people objected to it being here. It is also advertised in the last comment on the section above that you just copied here. -- PBS (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The wording does not say it is a core content policy (it says in conjunction with the content policies) and copyright does prohibit certain types of content and force us to use to use certain constructions when using some sources. I would have thought you would have have agreed with that as you have been campaigning for in-line attribution of closely paraphrased text from copyright sources. Such usage is a direct result of copyright prohibitions. --PBS (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say it certainly is a core (i.e. very important) policy, and it certainly relates to article content, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to argue (as some have done) that it's a "core content" policy. Perhaps it doesn't determine the "type and quality..." exactly, but then that's not a very good description of what V/OR/NPOV do, either (and there are many other policies, guidelines and customs that do do that). Perhaps we could just drop all this peacock language and make a straight statement that these three particular policies overlap quite a bit (and then set to work trying to see if we really need three separate pages and what the scope of each page ought to be).--Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You've posted a contradiction in your reasoning. You are in favor of a wording change that states WP:COPY does "determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles", but then you state that "[WP:COPY] doesn't determine the 'type and quality...' exactly". Location (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As one possible alternative (albeit without any substantial change in wording), move the reference to WP:COPY up to the section "Reliable sources and other principles" like this. By being in that section, it would better stress the importance of WP:COPY its relationship to the others. Location (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is the peacock sentence about V, OR and NPOV, rather than whether COPY should be added to it. There are multiple factors (mostly documented in various policies and guidelines, though not specifically these three) that "determine the type and quality of material acceptable in articles". If we replaced that sentence with a simple factual pointer to the reader, saying that issues very similar to the ones discussed in this policy are also discussed in OR and NPOV, then I don't think anyone could find anything to object to in it. --Kotniski (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Location Would you argue that copyright does not in anyway affect content, if so why do we need the section you refer to? The problem with that section is that it by no means covers what it tries to describe (see Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_44). If we include mention of copyright in the lead as I have done, then that section becomes redundant and it can be removed as the nuances of it can be covered in the polices and guidelines covering copyright and plagiarism. If copyright is not mentioned in the lead then we need to expand the section you mention to include all the exceptions, so that it does not contradict copyright policy and the plagiarism guideline. By putting in the phrase I have suggested, or a similar one, in the lead  we can simplify the wording in this policy. -- PBS (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not definitively opposed to mention of copyright someplace within the lede; however, the current proposal is not accurate since copyright affects the expression of content/material, not the type and quality of content/material that is acceptable. Location (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that also not true of this policy also? The content of the article is affected by copyright or once could save a lot of time by just copying modern British biographies from the ODNB (which would change the type and in some cases the quality of the content of our articles). -- PBS (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else have anything to say on this? -- PBS (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Earlier today I rewrote several paragraphs of the article Conisbrough Castle I did not alter the contend because of a biased presentation or because it was original research or because it was not verifiable. Quite the contrary it was a copy violation of a source cited in the article. My rewrite, (which is nothing like as good a the text it replaces) was based on the same source, and was done for, copyright reasons, so copyright has a direct effect on the content of that article. So with that as an example I am reinstating the wording: ", in conjunction with the copyright policy," -- PBS (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright policy in the lead

 * see previous 

SV diff ->PBS diff ->Ki diff --> PBS diff ->Bb diff (13:58 2 March)

Blueboar how is your change a compromise? By that I mean what is it that you think is being compromised? I see your wording "Editors should also familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's copyright policy." as begging more questions E.g. Why is it there? (because one could also tag onto the end of your sentence ",editors should remember mothering Sunday and be careful crossing the road." and I don't think it would not affect the explicit meaning). -- PBS (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Philip, there was consensus against adding this to the lead, so it shouldn't have been added to the next sentence either. But every time the discussion goes again you, you start a fresh one, and when people link the new thread to the old ones, you remove it. Again, this page isn't about copyright, and it certainly isn't about it in such a central way that it's necessary to refer to it in the lead. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason for placing a new section at the bottom of the page is because that is where editors are likely to look for issues that are currently live and more eyes makes it likely that we will get a consensus. Why do you refactor my edits like that without asking me first? In future please leave sections and the names I give them alone unless on asking I agree to change them (Sauce for the goose is sauce gander.)-- PBS (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There were considerably more people in favour than against. I waited almost a week for you (or any person) to answer my points, and after the edit of an article the content of which met all the content requirements but did not meet copyright I thought that was a good example of why we need to mention copyright in the lead. I am very surprised that you do not agree when you defend the the inclusion of it lower down the V policy page "Be mindful of copyright: ..." How do you square that with not mentioning copyright in the lead? If this page is not about copyright, and I agree with you, why do you defend its mention in the middle of this page but not the lead? -- PBS (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw no "consensus against it". There were a small number of editors who were vocal on each side, plus a certain number of editors who were confused or conflicted about it.  An accurate statement of the situation is that there was no consensus in favour of my suggested mention of copyright in the lead, but little appetite for the status quo either.— S Marshall  T/C 22:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If a small number were vocal on either side, it means there was no consensus. This is a core content policy, and it has to be stable. It also has to stop growing, and it has to be written clearly. Therefore people shouldn't expand it unless they have clear consensus, and from more than just one or two people. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it should be perfectly possible to emphasize copyright while removing redundant repetition, resulting in a tighter, briefer policy that highlights the importance of obeying the law.  Without exception, everything in this policy about "reliable sources" is redundant with WP:RS, so more than half of the current policy could be replaced with a single sentence pointing to that page.  We could then add the half-dozen words about copyright.— S Marshall  T/C 22:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't keep changing the policy, SM, or reverting to versions that do. Gain consensus first. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In my recent edits I've removed an undiscussed edit once (diff), restored the consensus version once (diff), and reverted an undiscussed edit once (diff). I have added no language of my own.  I also note the number of occasions recently when you have been reminded of WP:OWN in connection with this policy, and I would just like to repeat that reminder.— S Marshall  T/C 22:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

While reverting to an old version is easy, does anyone have any arguments against, say, this version, which says "Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are often referred to as Wikipedia's "core content policies", describing how we aim to ensure that the content of Wikipedia's articles accurately and fairly reflects what reliable sources have to say about the topic. These policies, in conjunction with the copyright policy, should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with the key points in all of them." ? How is it worse than the less precise language that's been reverted back to?--Kotniski (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of case I mean in the "whiteboard" thread further down the page - we've had someone come along and restore an old version, without giving the slightest reason as to why they think it's better (or why other people's reasons for changing it are invalid). Does anyone actually have anything substantial to say on this matter? - if not, I suggest we restore the version that was arrived at by the co-editing process (as quoted by me just above). --Kotniski (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As mentioned previously by many others, the paragraph deals with the "core content policies" and WP:COPY is not one of them. It is not "more precise" to interject WP:COPY there. Location (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyright is a core policy that's about content. To quibble whether it's a "core content policy" strikes me as less than helpful; but even if we concede that point (and for the avoidance of doubt I do not), there's no intelligible reason why that paragraph has to deal with "core content policies" to the exclusion of everything else.— S Marshall  T/C 00:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean, "core content policies" is just a not particularly accurate name that's been adopted for these three policies - even if we concede that it's an appropriate name (I don't think it is), then we should explain to people what we mean by the name - what really links these three policies (and not imply that they deal with the full, very wide, range of issues concerning "content" in its many possible contexts). And the paragraph is really about which other pages should be read in conjunction with this one - seems to me that if we're telling people to follow sources closely, then a policy that tells them not to follow them too closely is something pretty relevant.--Kotniski (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * SMarshall, the quibble was about what text was more precise or less precise. The article already does caution editors to be mindful of copyright, so I'm not convinced of the necessity of COPY being located right there. Of course, I'm open to other suggestions. Location (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there are two separate issues here - one is whether COPY should be mentioned at this point in the policy; the other is whether we should say properly what we mean by "core content policy" rather than waving hands and implying that these three holy policies say everything there is to be said about content. When I said "more precise" I was thinking of the second issue; but in any case, once we've said that "core" has something of a conventional meaning here, I don't see it as particularly problematic to mention copyright policy as another of the policies that should be considered in conjunction with this one.--Kotniski (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Kotniski baby steps (lets get copyright into the lead and then later discuss further modification). I think they are two separate issues particularly as you have already re-raised the issue of merging two of the three. @Location see Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_44 there are real problems with the current wording of copyright in this policy for example it does not cover copyleft articles, mentioning the copyright policy in the lead simplifies the need to qualify this policy with copyright concerns within the body of the policy. See my example of Conisbrough Castle immediately preceding this section. -- PBS (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So can we be clear - is anyone set against mentioning copyright in the lead? If the only objection is that it makes the policy a few words longer, then we can compensate for that by cutting out the words that (rather misleadingly) attempt to say what it is that the "core content policies" do. (There's actually a page called WP:Core content policies that we could simply link to rather than attempt to define the term here.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliability vs. verifiability of foreign language sources
There is a discussion of establishing reliability of foreign language sources here. Some editors seem to be confusing verifiability of content from such a source, with evaluating whether or not it is a reliable source in the first place. As far as I have seen, once a foreign language source has content basis copied and translated per WP:V, its reliability is not often questioned. PPdd (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take it that you have never edited an article on a topic involving Israeli/Palestinian conflicts. Such articles often cite sources written in both Hebrew and Arabic, and these get challenged all the time.  In part this is because a) the topic is controversial and b) we have lots of Hebrew and Arabic speakers who watch those articles like hawks to ensure our rules are followed.  Obviously, this is not going to be the case for an article on a less controversial topic.  A lot depends on the obscurity of the subject matter and how controversial the specific claim being made is.
 * Personally, I am a believer in the mantra "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". If I came across a statement that seemed exceptionally odd to me, I would absolutely question it... even if it was sourced, and no matter what language the source was in.  If the exceptional claim is cited to a non-english source, I would find someone who understands the language to help me.
 * And that is the key... If it is possible for someone else to check a source for you, then the source is verifiable. Perhaps we need to make this clearer in the policy. Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did have a girlfriend who was a Jewish Israeli porn star who was a prominent PLO backer, then became a logician at a high end US university. I still have a copy of an Israeli newspaper article about her which I cannot read, but they managed to get a photo of her looking exceptionally loose. But I never questioned its reliability! (true story) :) PPdd (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually students/academics who formerly work in the sex or porn trade are not that rare, a particularly well known example from last year's news is Brooke Magnanti. Meaning as content it doesn't seem necessarily questionable to me.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * However, if we were talking about an article on PPdd's girlfriend we would have all sorts of BLP concerns to deal with. Close examination of sources would be a necessity.  The use of non-English language sources makes this harder... but not impossible. Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * PPdd, I didn't fully understand your question. Would you mind rephrasing? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked it over at the talk page at the link I provided. The question is, "How does one determine that a foreign language source is reliable when most references to the source are in a foriegn language and have not even been identified?" Even if an entire book was copied and translated for verifiablity, this would not help determine reliablity. The issue has arisen regarding numerous Chinese script medical books and articles as sources for one article alone. The best answer I have gotten so far is to ask at WP:China if a source is reliable. But if that had to be done for every Chinese source, WP:China would be overwhelmed from just the one article I am editing. PPdd (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a big problem. I dealt with one case recently of a BLP where all the sources were in Portuguese. So there was the issue not only of finding good translations, but also of determining whether these were good sources. In the end, I think a lot of non-English material should be written up on the Wikipedias of those languages, instead of taking the view that everything has to be on the English Wikipedia, which personally I find somewhat imperialistic, i.e. that if it's not here it somehow doesn't count. But others take a different view. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That leads to a possible idea that may help, and may even belong in the RS policy. "To determine if a foreign language source is reliable, one source of additional information on this may be to ask the question at the RS notice board of the wiki for that language". At least part of the work checking for whether a source is reliabley may already have been done there, so why duplicate it, when it can be checked against WPEnglish's standards. This is not a complete solution, but is better than nothing. PPdd (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding some (procedural) help and hintsfor editors is certainly a good idea.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is also imho a misunderstanding of the English Wikipedia (its editors, readers and resources) which is much more international than all the other Wikipedias, in particular due to English being the lingua franca in academics and the internet.
 * Although it is of course annoying if you cannot verify a particular piece of content and/or have problems to assess the validity of the sources, it is not required. WP does not work through individual editors/readers being able to check everything by themselves but by the community as a whole doing so and it is collaborative effort. Collaboration also means to be able to occasionally passing things off to more knowledgeable or better suited people. When people start operating under the notion WP can only work, if the fix any error or problem they come across themselves and right now, then they probably reach a point where some rethinking and a potential WP:BREAK is advised. So if run into a language issue with sources (or more generally any problrm where you lack the required domain knowledge to use sources for a verification) get help from a fellow wikipedian, who has the required language skills (or domain knowledge). Use the various portals, projects and message boards and don't expect to get everything fixed "right now". If you can fix a problem do so, if you just can recognize or suspect one without being able to fix it just tag it.
 * Note that en.wp is an (international) encyclopedia in English. It is not an encyclopedia that is written and maintained by "English only"-speakers, but it is written by an international often rather polyglot crowd. It is also not just a compilation of the established knowledge in English sources, but rather a compilation in English of the world's established knowledge.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * But in practice an over-reliance on non-English sources presents serious problems. The article I was talking about above accused a living person of several murders. It's absolutely right in a situation like that that we insist on sources most of our readers can evaluate. As I say, I personally see it as an example of imperialism to argue that the English Wikipedia is the "international" one, and all the others are provincial. I don't see it that way, and I think increasing numbers see the other Wikipedias as just as valuable as this one. And indeed the only way to make them just as valuable is to make sure they're viewed that way, then people will want to work on them. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also you seem to misunderstand my argument somewhat. I'm not arguing en.wp is "the" international encyclopedia and others are not or that en.wp is more valuable than the others. I'm just pointing out the fact, that en.wp is quite international (and that there is practical reason for it). The imperial thing would be to mandate english sources. The non English WPs usually have no problem in using reliable English sources (at least to my experience), so why should we have a problem with using reliable sources in their languages? Seeing it this way the only provincial one would be en.wp if it insisted on english only sources. Moreover the notion the other language WPs would need us or a decisions by us to make them worthwhile and interesting to authors/readers is completely false (as you can see by looking at their sizes) and actually downright offensive.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The aim should be for "all" the language versions of Wikipedia to strive to contain "all" Wikipedic human knowledge, regardless of what language the sources are written in. This constant talk about "foreign-language sources" is starting to sound a bit insular - out of the many problems that can arise with sources, the fact that they might be written in a "foreign" language is really a quite trivial one - there are plenty of people who can understand these sources and translate fragments from them. Of course, for accessibility, we prefer to cite something from an English-language source if we can, but otherwise, the only special factor that needs to be mentioned in relation to foreign-language sources is (the fairly obvious one) that when quoting directly from them, it's good practice to supply an English translation of the words you quote.--Kotniski (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kmhkmh that it is a very odd looking red herring to say that being an international wiki is a form of "imperialism" by non English speakers over English speakers. All wikis and the whole internet are international by nature, and English Wikipedia could probably do with being more international. In any case, it is probably not the most international wikipedia and no one has argued that it is or should be.
 * Concerning the subject at hand I agree with Kotniski but I'll say it a different way: There are several important types of inconvenient source, including rare works and works behind paywalls. They should all be treated the same way. If BLP implications are the real concern, then we should deal with this concern for what it is, i.e. the use of inconvenient sources in material affecting BLP related articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, fully agreed. And I think a source's being in a non-English language - unless it's some really obscure language - is a quite insignificant form of "inconvenience" compared with the other two you mention.--Kotniski (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This discussion is continued here. PPdd (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources
A recent discussion at the Aviation WikiProject, renewed concerns I had about the policy on Self-published sources. Let me focus on the spaceflight example of Encyclopedia Astronautica, which is a website made by a spaceflight enthusiast Mark Wade. According to this policy, it appears it shouldn't be used as a reliable source because Mark Wade hasn't been published in a reliable third-party publication on the topic of spaceflight (as far as I know).

The concerning thing is that there are plenty of sources which do count as reliable (see this Google books search) which cite this website for facts. So a published reliable source makes a statement, for which it cites a source which is not deemed to by "reliable". Is Wikipedia allowed to use this statement?

It's not relevant to my question, but in this case, the website Encyclopedia Astronautica is "reliable" in any normal English usage of the word (so much so that NASA points others to it for facts), but it's not "reliable" in Wikipedia jargon. Mlm42 (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The question keeps coming up, and I don't know the answer. It has happened a number of times at RSN that similar sources have been deemed reliable for limited purposes, although some don't credit those discussions.  Some point out that WP:V says "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published", not "who has previously been published" ... that is, the claim is made that V doesn't require that the guy with the website get his name on a book jacket, only that his work gets reproduced in other people's books. - Dank (push to talk) 04:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh.. interesting point.. Mlm42 (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a wording tweak will eventually be needed. This is shown by the fact that if you ask people whether someone cited as an expert in expert reliable sources is an expert, everyone seems to think this question is almost not worth asking. (They do not ask in which type of media the expert's frequently cited work has been published.) The problem is that even though most such experts have published somewhere where other experts publish, some have not. For example they might have a widely cited website of their own. Using the wording of WP:SPS to exclude such sources which are not excluded by experts in the fields we are trying to describe just seems like obvious wikilawyering and loophole seeking and we should try to close that gap in the logic. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The SPS guidelines are pretty clear that there are two separate criteria that must be met before a SPS can be used: (i) the person is recognized as an expert in the field; and (ii) their work in that field has been independently published in reliable sources. The first criteria can be met by examples of the person's work being cited in other sources; citation by third parties does not strike me as satisfying the second requirement of independent publication. To argue otherwise essentially eliminates that requirement. That being said, I can see an argument for a change in the policy such that, if we have multiple independent reliable sources which recognize the person as an expert, that their self-published works can be cited notwithstanding that they have never been previously published by an independent reliable source. I can see arguments pro and con for such a change in policy, but I would view it as precisely that - a change in policy, and not a mere clarification of existing policy. Fladrif (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For better or worse I started a new subject line below on the same subject, as I felt this one was more about a specific matter. It would be good to collect some opinions on this. To remind: my basic point is that WP:SPS does not cover all the cases that WP:RS's basic wording implies it should cover. It does cover most and it must have seemed very reasonable when written.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

SPS implied definition of an expert
I think the SPS implied definition of an expert needs to be refined. I've just posted on RSN about this, here. This is one of those questions which keeps coming up, and logically that strongly implies that the current text is NOT a good consensus. So please let's not have too many responses which try to bin the concern by saying "this has come up many times and we've never changed it so we should never change it". Here is what I wrote on RSN...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Per the discussion at RSN, I disagree (no need to repeat it all here). SPS covers this situation fine with its present wording; there is no need to weaken it to include hobby sites from editors who are not published in the relevant field, when more reliable sources are available and the hobby site contains errors. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia, with all due respect I see nothing in your posting on RSN or here which is not entirely being shaped by your position on the specific case there. Let's say that you are right in that case (I have explained there how that might in fact be the case) but let's consider whether SPS covers all cases of experts properly. Do you think it is impossible for an expert in a field to be widely cited as an expert but only published in places which might raise question marks if that person was not an expert? For example, let's say that a particular website is very widely cited by academics, but maintained by volunteers. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted a counterexample over there. How about if we let the multiple discussion on multiple pages wrap up before we attempt to change a core policy page?  We have some "opinions" from various editors that Baugher is an "expert", we have many questions about his expertise that are covered now by SPS, and that discussion seems to have become very personal to his supporters, but the issues here extend beyond one website and one WikiProject.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so why do you keep framing it in terms about Baugher?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you another example? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The same basic problem comes up on RSN every now and then, indeed. I am not sure it helps to focus on any specific examples. I think the most typical format of any such case is going to be widely cited website, but not obviously connected to anyone publishing elsewhere. Imagine a volunteer group collecting bird sightings, or counting car accident in a city. Of course if such groups are not taken seriously anywhere, we can't use them either, but what if they are cited quite often in specialist literature?
 * One case I am familiar with is human population genetics. Population genetics is obviously basically an academic field, but as it happens there are at least two non-academic websites which are cited in most articles about human Y DNA types. The background reason is that Y DNA happens to also be used by genealogists these days and genealogists are of course a very varied group of people, often retired, and often well educated. And they've become a part of the landscape in terms of the information resources the academics use in their articles.
 * One of the two widely cited websites is http://www.isogg.org/tree/index.html which is basically keeping record of Y haplogroup discoveries made elsewhere, and is run by an organization of genetic genealogists. It is cited sometimes also on Wikipedia, and I think this is uncontroversial when it is used as intended, the same way academics do.
 * Another is http://www.hprg.com/hapest5/ which is a webpage by Whit Athey that has a tool that is extremely frequently cited as the standard tool academics use to predict SNP haplogroups based on STR haplotypes. This website is not so relevant to WP because it is a tool used by researchers, and WP should not contain original research. (I think it is cited as a useful tool on genetic genealogy though.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Break 1
isn't one solution to this to cite an academic source that cites the web source WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. That way the citation to your "two non-academic websites which are cited in most articles about human Y DNA types" can be justified because you have cited an academic source and it is the judgement of the expert academic whether the content of the "non-academic website" is usable, rather than the judgement of a Wikipedia editor. -- PBS (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that would only give a solution in cases where the exact information you want to cite has been cited elsewhere. The question is which is the more basic rule in WP:RS - reputation for fact checking, or is WP:SPS so unquestionable that it stops us using sources which are considered to be at the highest level of expertise by the highest level of experts?
 * (BTW according to me your proposed method of basically pretending your real source is not your real source, which is a typical method used for challenged sources on Wikipedia, is plagiarism and arguably a copyvio, so it is a problem with current WP habits. Just because someone's SPS is not considered an RS on WP does not mean it has no right to be named as the real source? Should SPS's at least be named sometimes as places where better sources are cited? But this is another subject.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do think examples are helpful-- in this case, I would be concerned about using a lay organization to report medical info, when MEDRS requires very strong sourcing. I may be missing your point?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure I follow. Y haplogroup phylogenies, if you are specifically homing in on the examples you asked for, have no medical significance. But even if they did, or if we construct examples where there are medical implications, the same question arises as to why Wikipedia would have its own legalistic definition of an expert which censored mention of a source that all the highest experts use, all due to a historical choice of words and a growing traditionalism. If you saying that any wording change to WP:SPS would have a special effect on medical articles what is it? And can it be fixed by giving medical articles a special mention? But then do we need to put special mentions on every section of WP:V? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It affects politics as well. Suppose that an academic at Queens University Belfast issue a paper about the troubles in Belfast and in it she cites the opinion of a member of a previously proscribed organisation using a document published on their website. Does that give a cart blanch to use that web site as a reliable source? I think not. To cite the fact that it was mentioned in a paper put out by Queens is very different from citing it directly, let alone all the other material published on the website. Without a doubt the contributes to such a the website will be experts on the troubles (having caused a substantial percentage of the havoc), but that does not mean we should be using such websites as reliable source just because it has been cited a few times in sources we consider relaible. -- PBS (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this example is different from the ones I gave, where the sources in question are not just treated as primary sources, but actually treated as expert sources, by experts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Break 2
How is WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT "basically pretending your real source is not your real source, which is a typical method used for challenged sources on Wikipedia, is plagiarism and arguably a copyvio, so it is a problem with current WP habits"? In the example I gave no one is pretending. How is WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT plagiarism? How is it a copyvio? -- PBS (talk)
 * That is not what I intended. What I wrote was, I would say, in defense of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which I fear is being consistently breached on Wikipedia. And remarkably it is a case where the advice one sees from experienced editors is to break it. If you watch RSN you will advice given routinely to pretend you got information from a different source than you really got it from. But this is a side subject. Please start a new topic if you wish to discuss this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster, well, this got confusing because of the SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT issue, but back on your question about medical sources, no, we wouldn't need separate wording for SPS in that area, because we have WP:MEDRS already as a guideline for medical information. As I read it, I thought your example wouldn't be affected by any change to SPS because under MEDRS, we'd typically reject self-published sources anyway in favor of secondary journal reviews. If you're saying that site isn't used for medical info, my post was just an intrusion, but I read it as a medical issue related to genetics. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 08:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I think I understand.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The current implied definition in WP:SPS is:-

This is followed by two sentences, one in a separate paragraph emphasizing caution, which no one is proposing to water down or remove. But compare to WP:RS, which I understand to be the guiding principle behind this sentence (which has a mirror there also):-

I believe that WP:SPS should be tweaked so as to allow for other ways of having a reputation for expertize, than just having a publishing history apart from one's self-published works. Such cases might be rare but there seems no logical reason to block Wikipedians from using them. It would not be consistent with our basic principles in WP:RS and other policies. My proposal also would make clear that the implied definition of an expert is meant to be one. (The wording is actually not very clear now.):-

Comments please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Case in point - Edward Tufte, whose work is almost entirely self-published because he's very particular about the technical side of the publication process. As the policy stands he barely scrapes into the acceptable SPS definition because of occasional third-party publications e.g. . But I tend to agree that even without those third-party publications, he ought to qualify as a RS because of his reputation in the field.
 * However, I'm not entirely comfortable with the "it's an expert source if other experts treat it as one" definition - I think that opens us up to "well, A is published so he's an expert, and he vouches for B, and B vouches for C..." arguments. --GenericBob (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I find agreement with you, I think, that calling someone an expert for "indirect" reason should require strong indirect reasons. In one of the examples above I cited a website which is cited in the methods sections of nearly every academic article on a subject in the years since it was set-up. The author of the website has published, but just not in the highest academic journals, except a letter or two. So it is a case of saying that citations are a type of evidence which can be called upon to make a case that someone is an expert, but not maybe the best. If you look at where these sentences would fit into WP:SPS though, they are surrounded by cautions, don't you think?
 * Coming to your second point, I wonder if Wikipedia can ever go beyond saying that things are expertly written because experts say they are. Isn't this just another version of our normal approach to WP:TRUTH? This approach is often considered controversial and counter-intuitive, but it seems to work?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's always going to be some level of circularity, yeah. I'd just like to see the self-reference made a bit less explicit (to deter abuse) and maybe the wording tightened a little so it requires a consensus among experts in the field (rather than just "well, I found one guy who'll vouch for him"). If I understand correctly, that's pretty much what you're already aiming for, just that I don't think the wording quite matches that intent. --GenericBob (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do think we are agreeing on the general principle that "I found one guy who'll vouch for him" is not enough, but I don't think "consensus" is a practical definition of what's required for a few reasons:
 * As you know, stating that something is consensus in a field on WP normally requires us to actually find a source that says there is a consensus. In reality you often see soft wordings implying consensus when the sources are "clear enough". But I don't think the community is to keen on the approach where you sometimes see editors try to list up a bunch of sources themselves and demonstrate a consensus, because that is effectively original research.
 * Actually, I do not think being called an expert by lots of experts makes one more or less of an expert. If Albert Einstein's work is full of references to someone's website, then I do not think it matters a lot if Stephen Hawking does not ever talk about that website. I think that, consistent with the normal WP approach on things like this, what we are trying to define is the minimum requirement that someone can be considered a possible expert source by involved editors, but as with any source that satisfies the basic criteria of WP:RS and WP:V, whether that source is an appropriately notable source for a particular subject is something that always requires review in the context of what is being sourced. I don't think we can write a rule to cover all cases.
 * Remember that even the personal website of Albert Einstein himself is not something we are encouraging to use here. The general recommendation is to avoid self-published sources if we can.
 * To get a feeling for how tentative the general proposal still is, below is the current text, now expanded to show the context where the implied definition of an expert appears, and then a proposal for a new version. I've tweaked a bit. In my opinion this is hardly a license to go out and use self published sources by anyone who has been mentioned by anyone, so to speak?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

New addition
I've removed some words that were added because they lacked precision:

What's wrong with the current wording? SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 13:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see discussion above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked through it, Andrew, but I didn't see consensus, but it doesn't explain some of your changes. For example:


 * "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable ..." changed to "Self-published sources may be considered potentially reliable enough for use ..."
 * Why the extra words?


 * " ... when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article ..." changed to "when they are produced by an established expert on the topic being cited ..."
 * Was the change of meaning intended?


 * " ... "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" changed to "An author or publication is an established expert source if they are clearly treated this way in the relevant field."
 * A big difference, undefined ("clearly treated this way"?)


 * New sentence: "Concerning authors [as opposed to what?], common indications of expertise are citations as expert sources in reliable third-party publications, and having had other work published by reliable third-party publications."
 * Any reliable third-party publications? That would open the floodgates. We have set a very low bar on WP for what we mean by "reliable." But you propose to allow any source that fulfills those minimum requirements to determine who the experts in a field are, even though no one has published the latter's work. That would lead to situations where someone being interviewed by a newspaper as a knowledgeable person was enough to make that person an "expert" on Wikipedia, which would mean we'd have to allow that person's self-published website to be used as a source.
 * Do they have to be identified by these publications specifically as expert sources? The proposal doesn't say.

SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to discuss like this but I fear the more detailed explanations one gives in cyberspace the more you just don't get read! :)
 * Why the extra words? You mean "potentially"? Because I think the aim of policy pages is to delineate the point at which editors have to start finding consensus and stop quoting rules at each other. Anyway, as this particular extra word adds caution, it can hardly be seen as adding a problem? It is not critical to what I was proposing.
 * The extra words don't add extra meaning, so it's best not to add them. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good principle. Not sure if it is true these words do not change the meaning. I will bow to the consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Was the change of meaning intended? Again not the core of what I am proposing but just I think more clear. The context of sourcing is not defined just by the title of the article we are editing, and that is obvious. If you are writing an article about a celebrity, but a section on a medical condition, different types of sources are needed than the section about the movies they were in?
 * Okay, fair point. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A big difference. This is the whole point of the above discussion. I do appreciate the detail questions but still it is very hard to write meaningfully to someone about a complex proposal when that person shows no signs of having tried to get the overall gist of it first. It means we can not easily distinguish discussions about bad wording from discussions about controversial intentions. So it is more interesting to me to know if could see any merit to the basic aim described above?
 * I did read the discussion, and I saw lots of objections, for the reasons explained. If you allow a minimally reliable source to determine who else has expertise, even though the newly dubbed expert has never been published, you're opening up the floodgates to anyone who has ever been interviewed as some form of knowledgeable person about an issue. I can see what you're trying to get at, but it would need a lot more thought so you can define what kind of experts, what kind of publications. Who do you have in mind, as an example? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can agree that the trick to the wording is avoiding this flood gates problem, and that this is the concern of others also. But the question then is how to avoid that. I think the intention is certainly not to open a flood gate. BTW 2 examples given above, one by me, one by someone else, have been published elsewhere. There are all kinds of permutations, and I think aim has to be to allow people to "add up" different types of evidence of expertise. As I am sure you realize, the fine points of all policy pages are used mainly by people trying to find a rule which will trump what normal consensus would dictate.
 * What kind of experts are you wanting to allow in, that's the question. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do read how I presented it above. We use sources with a reputation for fact checking. WP:SPS is written to correspond to that but it does not quite cover all cases. Examples are given above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * authors [as opposed to what?] The other types of sources. See WP:RS. Just a wording issue.
 * No such thing as "just" a wording issue. :) Words are all we have here.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds verifiable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Any reliable third-party publications? That would open the floodgates. No it won't. Forgive me for saying this with some confidence but this is already how WP:RS is written and interpreted. We use reliable third party sources for confirming everything, or what else do we use on Wikipedia when something is contested?
 * RS isn't policy. And yes of course it would open the floodgates. You're saying that if a reliably published book -- Animal rights now! published by Routledge -- interviews the owner of the website Down with animal testers as an expert on animal testing, that means we can use that self-published website from now on as an expert source on animal testing on Wikipedia. That's what your proposal says. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I must have said that deep between the lines? Can you show me where that is and then we can remove it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not between the lines, but an obvious meaning of this sentence: "Concerning authors, common indications of expertise are citations as expert sources in reliable third-party publications ..." SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not thinking interviews in any kinds of sources were citations in reliable sources. Maybe we need to tweak "Concerning authors, common indications of expertise are citations as expert sources in reliable third-party specialist (or expert!?) publications ..."?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That would lead to situations where someone being interviewed by a newspaper as a knowledgeable person was enough to make that person an "expert" on Wikipedia. I think the wording has been chosen to avoid this type of thing, and sits in a context which is highly tentative to begin with. It is saying (I hope) "if these conditions are met in a strong way then you can start to consider that it might be possible..." Also note the addition of "considered opinion" which is another "non core" part of the proposal which is meant to general tighten this whole passage and make it work better.
 * It doesn't say that though. Having that in mind when you write policy doesn't mean that's what it says. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See next.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do they have to be identified by these publications specifically as expert sources? The proposal doesn't say. If you mean that a source literally has to use the word "expert" that would make this whole discussion pointless, because obviously we can't have something like this depend upon the luck of what words are used. If you mean that the source has to make it clear that a person is being quoted as an expert, and not for example an example, that is the intention of the current wording and I thought that was in there.
 * No, it's not there. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From the proposal: "clearly treated this way in the relevant field. Concerning authors, common indications of expertise are citations as expert sources in reliable third-party publications". Wording improvements, although just wording, would be welcome of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't address how they would clearly treat them, or cite them. Do they have to say "this person is an expert"? Any proposal like this needs a high degree of specificity so that you get what you want, and nothing more. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't think policy pages can define what it means to say something "clearly"? People have to have some common sense. Would "very clearly" be better?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * With those points in mind I think it is much more important to ask if you see the background reasoning and sympathize with it. Because my wording execution might not be perfect, but if my intentions are something people can agree upon I am confident we can find the right wording?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I kind of see what you're saying, and I half sympathize, but I don't think you've thought it through. You're thinking of it from the position of how can we include certain sources? But you need to think of it from the opposite direction, as in "Who else, apart from the intended targets, are these words going to include?"
 * I beg to differ. You seem to be not reading it through, but thinking "what types of concerns would people normally suggest about any change to SPS". :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW the background to this is spending time watching and participating in WP:RSN discussions. You can check my log. This thread starts from a discussion on WP:RSN, which was certainly not a source I claim any strong feelings about. I just see the same types of discussions hit the same walls time and time again. The overlap between being an expert and having published in the best expert sources, is no longer perfect if it ever was.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind that I added replies inside your post. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. I like this way of discussing. Just hope others can follow!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is lack of specificity. You need to come up with a list of the kind of sources you want to let in with this proposal, then it has to be written so that only that kind is allowed in. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Examples, and their common attributes where discussed above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to help you write it, but I'd need to know what you have in mind. I saw two names mentioned above, but I'm not seeing enough to know what you're aiming for. The first step would be to write something with a high degree of specificity, so it doesn't open any loopholes unintentionally. The second step would be to seek consensus for it here, and probably beyond this page too, because it's a fairly major change. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Permit me to ask for some evidence that this is not just a "knee jerk" answer which could have been written for any proposal at all? I've tried pretty hard to answer you now, but you do not seem to be reading it. What ARE the concerns. WHY is it a big change? See above where I noted that people already work as if clear, or let's say very clear citations by experts, very clearly as an expert, makes one an expert. This falls out from the basic logic of all policies and guidelines about how we verify things on Wikipedia. I wrote above "We use reliable third party sources for confirming everything, or what else do we use on Wikipedia when something is contested?" On this question and others you just dropped it and answered with generalizations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's up to you. As I said, I'm willing to help you write it, but it would be a fair bit of work, so I'm not going to beg for the chance. :) It's a big change, because as things stand, the policy is very clear on that issue, and therefore disputes about this kind of thing are sorted out easily. You want to add another rider, something that I think a lot of people would object to, so it has to be done carefully and written very clearly. This is a core content policy, so it can't be changed in significant ways after a brief discussion between a couple of people, because changes here have knock-on effects elsewhere, and because people rely on this to say what it said the last time they looked at it. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My preference is that you read what has been written and continue discussion on a more informed and useful basis. If the only discussion of examples you see above is "two names mentioned" you simply have not read it. I do not think it is a big change because I think people already work the way being described, seeing serious citations as meaning something. SPS simply does not cover this. The basic CLEAR idea on Wikipedia is that we get our guidance about what we should write from reliable sources. We do not make up rules that disagree with what outside sources would agree with, do we? WP:SPS should be consistent with that, shouldn't it? The problem with SPS right now is that it is an example of a policy text trying in good faith to explain in concrete detail what real examples will happen. This never works. It needs to be written in a way which explains what sorts of things editors should look for and consider, because real world examples will all be very different from each other. In contrast your way of seeing this so far, I think because you have not thought it through or read it through, is as an attempt to define all possible cases in even more detail, which I think is the wrong approach. We can never write rules to cover all cases and attempts to do so always cause loopholes and confusion. Don't you agree?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a new proposal, and also a more detailed comparison of what is being proposed. I am being deliberately wordy now in order to make the aims transparent. I am thinking that paring down the wording is a relatively easy job, while keeping people's attention is relatively difficult! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What does "if they [self-published source material] clearly represent a serious publication which has had its facts checked" mean? SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 13:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The words are not complicated ones with lots of different meanings, (unless we start making questions like "what is fact checking?", "what is a publication?" etc, demanding a definition of every word). Please don't take this the wrong way but I don't see multiple ways of reading it. Can you explain where you see ambiguity?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't care for these suggested changes. The extra wordiness seems to open another door for Wikilawyering.  What does "clearly established" mean?  What's a "serious" publication?  What's a "good source"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * [inserted later as direct response] Please note that the third column version is extra wordy, and not a real proposal for now. It is trying to over-specify due to the fact that the earlier discussion kept being held up with circles of questions about what everything was intended to achieve. I think we would be looking to compress from something like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not that I see ambiguity, I just don't know what it means, particularly "clearly represent a serious publication". I don't know how self-published source material could "represent" another publication. Could you rephrase it? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * [inserted later as direct response] OK, the verb represented is probably the problem. How about "and if they are a serious and considered publication". The point is to try to avoid things like people citing off the cuff comments from interviews. If we really want to expand on this we could try to list criteria that might show something is probably considered. For example one good sign would be clear referencing to other sources where appropriate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the proposed wording is not ideal, with lots of room for interpretation. The problem I see with the current wording is that it avoids answering the question: "What does it mean to be an established expert?" Instead of answering this, it gives an exclusion criterion (the author has to be published in a third-party source), which rules out most self-published sources. But just because they have a third-party publication doesn't mean they're an established expert. So the current wording is good for resolving disputes - if they author hasn't got a third-party publication in the relevant field, then they're out; if they do have such a publication, it doesn't necessarily mean they're in.


 * The objection is that there appear to be some authors who are "widely considered to be established experts" (whatever that means), but they don't have any third-party publications in the field.. in the cases of the "amateur experts" Joe Baugher and Mark Wade (discussed above), the desire to include them as sources is that they have websites which have accumulated a huge amount of information (in Mark Wade's case, not all of this information is available elsewhere); these websites are considered to be good quality resources by others in the field, and they are cited by reliable sources for details and information. The problem with allowing sources like this is that, without good wording, it could "open up the floodgates" for bad sources. I suppose one of the things that makes third-party publications reliable is they have a reputation for fact-checking. SandyGeorgia said that she would be more comfortable allowing Baugher as a source, if we knew that he fixes mistakes on his website once they are pointed out to him. It appears that currently WP:SPS doesn't require the source to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and yet the websites of Baugher and Wade (might?) satisfy this. Mlm42 (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO, the phrase "reputation for accuracy and face-checking" supersedes SPS. This is why I have absolutely no problem citing Snopes.com on urban legends.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not really familiar with it, but Snopes.com is a SPS? So I can deduce that the authors have had some third-party publication? Mlm42 (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * {EC}After reading Mlm42's post, perhaps the solution isn't to modify the existing words, but to add alternative criteria. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Mlm42: Yes, Snopes is an SPS. AFAIK, no, they have not been published.  But they are widely cited and widely praised for their fact-checking of urban legends. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent; well, SlimVirgin was looking for more examples, and Snopes.com appears to be one. Because at the moment it fails WP:SPS, in the same way that Baugher and Wade fail WP:SPS. Mlm42 (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @A Quest for Knowledge. IMO, the phrase "reputation for accuracy and face-checking" supersedes SPS. This is also how I work. But some people seem to see WP:SPS as an alternative and different way of seeing the world. Main problem is that these two ways of working are in conflict. Any solution to that conflict would be an improvement on the current situation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would favor adding alternative criteria. Something like, "A self-published source may also be considered a reliable if it is widely cited by and/or widely praised by third-party reliable sources."  I don't know if that should be an "and" or an "or".  With the case of snopes.com, both conditions are met.  I'm not sure about the other two sources (as I have not followed those discussions).  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that let's in too much. For example, Wikipedia itself is a self-published source, and whatever criteria we have, Wikipedia should probably be excluded (even if it's widely cited and widely praised!). Mlm42 (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How about, "A self-published source may also be considered reliable if it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking among third-party reliable sources."? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "widely cited by and/or widely praised by third-party reliable sources".
 * "Widely cited" might apply to a source which is widely cited as an example of something "stupid".
 * "Widely praised" is too narrow.
 * Concerning Wikipedia and other sources, they are excluded for other reasons: first in the case of Wikipedia itself and any sources mirroring it, this would create circular referencing. Second and probably more relevant to this discussion: the content is from user contributions and not individual authors whose name and expertise and contributions can be carefully tracked back.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

So Andrew's comment then (indirectly) refutes the proposal to add "A self-published source may also be considered reliable if it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking among third-party reliable sources." because there is no requirement for the author to be an "expert". This could be fixed by changing the first few words to "A self-published expert source ..". With this change, it seems like a reasonable proposal to me, but I would be interested to hear objections that others may raise. We are still avoiding the question of what exactly we mean by "expert", but I guess that's okay because it leaves room for consensus to separate the good sources from the bad. Mlm42 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow how you've written this. First, I am not quite sure how my proposal refutes the sentence you mention. Second, my proposal did suggest that a better definition of an expert is called for given that SPS is being used in ways which can conflict with WP:RS overall.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just meant that you said one of the reasons Wikipedia isn't a good self-published source is because its authors aren't necessarily experts. This made me realise that A Quest For Knowledge's proposal lacked the requirement that the author is an expert. Mlm42 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And although I realise your proposed changes included an elaboration on what it means to be an expert, I'm saying that this is unnecessary, since it's going to come down to a judgement between Wikipedia editors anyway. It might be better to leave the word "expert" undefined so consensus can decide. Mlm42 (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The way I understand the intention of SPS is to define what to do when a source is not published in a third party publication. It is this characteristic of self published sources which means that they are NOT going to be useable according to any normal policy or guideline pages outside of SPS, because they always mention "third party". So it is only publications like this which we need to consider, but if we do not consider them, no other text than SPS helps us know what to do about them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree.. I'm not sure what your point is? I'm saying that I'd tentatively support the addition of the sentence "A self-published expert source may also be considered reliable if it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking among third-party reliable sources." to the current version of WP:SPS. Maybe this could be reworded to clarify that "source" refers not to the author, but to the actual source, and that "expert" refers to the author. Mlm42 (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes this approach might be better. I hope others will also comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Break 3
Any comments? If my type of proposal is not ideal, it still seems clear that most people do see a logical problem needing solving, so what are the other alternatives? I believe SPS's implied definitions need to be made more clear (they are already being used as if they are sometimes) and also need to be made consistent with "reputation for fact checking" being our key guiding light.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which implied definitions in WP:SPS are you talking about? It appears that the "new simpler approach" is considerably stronger than the current version of WP:SPS.. how does a publication show "clear signs of fact checking"? Do experts blogs often show this, for example? The suggestion we were talking about above, was to add a single sentence to WP:SPS, and not replace the entire thing by that sentence.


 * To me, there appear to be two issues; the first is that some people believe WP:SPS should be expanded to allow for a few more sources. The second is that WP:SPS could be reworded to ensure it is being interpreted "correctly". As SlimVirgin pointed out, this is a core content policy, and both changes are going to be difficult. I suspect we should discuss them separately. Mlm42 (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought it worth proposing one more approach precisely because, as you say, people keep trying to raise vague concerns (and then not spending any time on actually explaining them or reading reply posts). It almost seems impossible to get discussion going, and "tradition" seems to be becoming the most important argument? However I'm not sure I fully follow your decsription of this new proposal:-
 * Can you explain why you say that there is a separate issue which is about making sure SPS is applied correctly and which is NOT at least potentially about trying to make sure the definition covers a few more of the obviously possible types of reliable sources?
 * Not sure what you want me to explain; one issue is changing the policy itself (including the meaning), and the other issue is rewording the policy (without changing the meaning, but increasing its clarity). Mlm42 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the only proposals in discussion are clearly about changing the meaning of the words of SPS, because they currently do not correspond to the basic logic of WP:RS, nor the way people work in practice.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you think the new proposal is more strict than the current understanding? You mention blogs which do not show sources. But I think it is precisely fear of such sources (and also things like casual interviews) which are scaring people away from making changes to the current text?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, under the current WP:SPS policy, if an author has publications in third-party sources, and they are considered an expert, then any self-published source from them (like blogs) are okay, (if I have interpreted things correctly..). You are proposing to no longer allow these sources, unless the source itself shows "clear signs of fact checking". This is a major change. Mlm42 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the latest proposal, the last sentence could simply be dropped without changing the meaning much. It only says "for example".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the idea of completely rewriting the WP:SPS policy, and seeing if it sticks, before having a clear idea of what one wants to change. What A Quest For Knowledge and I have suggested above is not to change anything, other than the addition of the sentence "A self-published expert source may also be considered reliable if it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking among third-party reliable sources." Smaller changes like this are much more likely to gain consensus than a complete rewording - since a complete rewording is more likely to introduce new problems. There hasn't been any explicit opposition to this single sentence yet, but I suspect not many people are following this relatively long-winded conversation any more. Mlm42 (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't take this the wrong way please, because I know your replies and those of others are friendly and trying to be helpful, but in my honest opinion this conversation is very slow because the replies are very un-focused, not because there has been no attempt to define the aim from the proposal side. The main argument that keeps being repeated is, effectively, that I should propose something else because change itself is a problem. So we go in circles, because every something still proposes changes. And this lack of progress is despite the fact that nearly every comment is basically sympathetic, and no one seems to see any basic problem with the basic aim. So let's try another something: can you please write out how you think the incremental edit you think would get more positive reaction would look?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've suggested: "A self-published source may also be considered reliable if it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking among third-party reliable sources." Mlm42 suggested "A self-published expert source may also be considered reliable if it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking among third-party reliable sources." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry yes. And I also said above that this might indeed be a good approach. No one has said anything about this idea yet, negative or positive, which was why I tried the more radical approach. If we do not get feedback I wonder if it is acceptable to try putting one of these in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, small, incremental changes instead of big, radical changes are definitely the way to go. The changes you've been proposing are too drastic (as evidenced by the number of problems people have found with them). I suppose adding this sentence into the policy is consistent with the WP:BRD cycle.. but I'm not a regular editor to policy pages, so I don't know the standard procedure. Mlm42 (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's fine. People make changes to the policy pages all the time.  If someone doesn't like the change, they can simply revert and then proceed to discussion.  So moving forward, the question is: Which of the two suggested wordings we go with?  They are identical except for the word "expert".  Obviously, I prefer my text but won't get hung up on it if it prevents us from reach consensus.  Basically, I'm concerned that the word "expert" introduces the possibility of WikiLawering over whether source is really an expert.  To lesser degree, I see this change as simply recognizing the fact that all sources which have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking may be considered reliable.  IOW, it's just restating the first definition of reliable but saying that it also applies to SPS.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; my concern with not including the word "expert" is that it opens the door for sources like Wikipedia.. that is, sources who's content is user generated, but nevertheless have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking (such as specialist open-wikis, for example). Mlm42 (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought that issue was solved when we dropped "widely cited by and/or widely praised by third-party reliable sources" I think Wikipedia has a poor reputation for accuracy and fact-checking.  There's also WP:CIRCULAR which specifically states that articles on Wikipedia should not be used as sources.  But CIRCULAR doesn't other open Wikis.  But like I said, I don't want to hold us up. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see; you're right, I suppose we should be allowing any source which has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so the word "expert" isn't necessary. Mlm42 (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Break 4
My concern is that Andrew was involved for a while in trying to argue that self-published sources such as T. Whit Athey, Pitfalls in Determinations of Y Haplogroup F*, Jogg.info, 2005, be regarded as acceptable. For example, see him adding it here, and see discussion here.

Athey is someone who writes for a website called The Journal of Genetic Genealogy, which is largely run by people without relevant qualifications who write about genetics and genealogy as a hobby; more info about Athey here. I would say this is the kind of source we don't want to admit under SPS, unless that person has been independently published as an expert in the field, so I'm wary of the changes being suggested here. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the Journal of Genetic Genealogy have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? If not, then the suggested change still won't allow it. Mlm42 (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but how would we judge? The content policies were written to resolve content disputes, not to create them. I think this change would do the latter, because it lacks precision. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose this is a problem when evaluating any source, not just self-published ones. The only reason WP:SPS applies is because Athey was an editor of this journal; but the real issue is whether or not the journal is a reliable source.. this isn't something that WP:SPS would be able to resolve anyway. My understanding is that journals like this can be considered reliable when they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reiterating this point in relation to WP:SPS doesn't change things; in fact the addition of this sentence doesn't actually appear to be a shift in policy, but rather a clarification. Mlm42 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is why SPS avoids those issues, and keeps it simple. An SPS can be used if written by an expert in the field who has previously been published in that field by independent sources.


 * Like all policies it should be applied with common sense, so when you see snopes.com, you don't need to check whether independent sources have published it. We have a similar exception for a widely used website that researches Scientology. But these exceptions are rare, precisely because most expert sources are regarded as experts because someone other than themselves has chosen to publish them. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are the authors of snopes.com published in third-party sources? I was under the impression that they hadn't published elsewhere. Mlm42 (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but my point is that we don't have to know, because they're widely fěted as perhaps the only experts on urban legends/cyber memes. Ditto with Clambake and Scientology. But these exceptions are rare. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But that's my point: WP:SPS says that we're not allowed to use snopes.com. Yet you're saying we should be allowed to use snopes.com. I understand exceptions are rare; how exactly is one suppose to determine whether or not sources (for example Mark Wade) are exceptions? If editors are allowed to shoot down sources based on WP:SPS, I don't see how we can allow for exceptions. Hence the reason for my interest in this discussion. Mlm42 (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, your reasoning above seems odd to me. Now you are implying that your real concern is to try to stop Whit Athey being used as a source, but when asked whether you think Whit Athey is a reasonable source you say you don't know, and you leave it to the mysterious wisdom of the people who made WP:SPS in the past? I am proposing that the wording is imperfect, that it encourages different interpretations including non common sense ones, and can be improved. Are we allowed to try? How can someone whose personal website is cited every month in the top scholarly journals, (not just as an off-hand reference, but as a source in the methods sections), not be an expert in that field? More generally how can it be that SPS is inconsistent with the more important principle all over WP that we judge what to put in WP based on what is verifiably and notably from sources with suitably strong reputations for fact checking? Given Wikipedia's WP:IAR philosophy, I would say it is not good that we can have a POV pushing editor feeling comfortable to admit that a source might indeed have a strong reputation for fact checking, but "sorry the rules are the rules", which is what happened the one time that Whit Athey's status as an RS was questioned on WP? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And, by the way, as I mentioned above, this subject comes up frequently on RSN, for different sources. I certainly do not see it as being about one source. Whatever the merits of each of those RSN discussions, anyone who has observed this will see that there is a definite pattern of conflicting policy interpretations and difficult discussions caused by the wording of WP:SPS and the way it can come into conflict with WP:RS more generally.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Andrew, you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say I didn't know whether he was a reliable source. He's not, according to SPS, and I don't think the community would want to see non-expert self-published sources used in areas where there are independently published academic expert sources for us to use. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I misread what you said SlimVirgin, but honestly it is hard to understand what your point is. Let me try another summary: are you saying Whit Athey is not an expert because he is not an expert according to your reading of SPS, and no other reason? I have often seen people on WP work according to my understanding that citations in expert reliable sources are to be considered in determining when a source is reliable. (If you are rejecting the proposals of Mlm42 and A Quest For Knowledge then that's you insisting on this I guess.) It seems very odd that we on Wikipedia should be making up a bureaucratic definition of an expert which you think should specifically be written so as to exclude an author who is cited constantly in the top journals of a field, and has only ever been mentioned as potentially coming under SPS because he was an editor in the main journal that published him. Since when does a person on Wikipedia start telling the rest of the world how to define who the experts are in specific fields? That is quite obviously not the intention of the original authors of WP:SPS, and not how WP works at all?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat my point in case it wasn't clear. The community is wary of self-published sources. It is easy to set up a website and start writing. And we have lots of independently published sources to use, so as a rule SPS are not welcomed. There are exceptions to that, e.g. when the SPS is truly an expert whose work has already been published independently. The latter tells us that someone other than the writer values his work sufficiently to have put money behind it, and to have validated it. So the policy explicitly allows those self-published sources, though still with caution; see WP:SPS.


 * There are rare exceptions outside the policy, where common sense tells you that the website has become an "expert" without the prior-publication criterion. Snopes.com is an example of that. Clambake is another. They are unusual enough that they can be accommodated by common sense and IAR. But as a rule of thumb—when writing about academic issues in particular—the community would prefer to see independently published or academic sources, not self-published websites, which is why the policy is worded as it is. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm swayed by SlimVirgin's arguments. I no longer think we need to change WP:SPS. I didn't fully understand that even though WP:SPS is strictly worded, there may be some rare exceptions; and there is provision for exceptions within Wikipedia's policies, as per common sense and IAR.. these exceptional cases should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Mlm42 (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a stifling tendency on some WP policy related forums to first pigeonhole arguments (inclusionist, etc) and then answer generically. So in the above there seems to be something between the lines about this proposal being AGAINST the idea that Wikipedia should be careful of self-published sources, which is nonsense. I absolutely agree, and some of my proposals above were questioned for making SPS stricter! But, to quote SlimVirgin "There are exceptions to that, e.g. when the SPS is truly an expert whose work has already been published independently. The latter tells us that someone other than the writer values his work sufficiently to have put money behind it, and to have validated it." So, that is what this discussion is about?? SPS already does make this exception explicit, so I am/was asking the community, if they disagree that citations as an expert are not also to be considered as potentially useful evidence in such cases. What is the answer? I have not seen anyone say no. (Asking the community to rely on IAR is hardly meaningful, as it is not taken seriously anymore, unfortunately. Wikilawyering to get things removed is now a much more common and successful strategy for POV pushers than using questionable sources to add things in. So if we can define uncontroversial criteria to help discussion we should do so IMHO. Are citations a controversial criterium?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the answer to your question is simple: yes, citations as an expert can be used as "potentially useful evidence" for showing some source should be an exception.. but of course citations alone aren't enough to prove much. Since each exception to WP:SPS are rare enough, they should be treated on a case-by-case basis; therefore there isn't much point in changing policy. Mlm42 (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (btw, you asked two questions, phrased in different ways.. I was answering your first question) Mlm42 (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mlm40, well this almost seems to be a consensus: citations are relevant. What no one has explained yet is why, out of the two consensus criteria of expertise which everyone seems to accept, only one should be included in WP:SPS with a wording that implies it is the only one, and the other not, as if SPS is a definition, while you and SlimVirgin apparently argue that common sense and WP:IAR will mean people will understand that it is not. I am tempted to suggest we should therefore at least reword SPS to mention as per your reasoning that SPS is not meant to be taken strictly, but of course no one will ever accept that! Suggest a suggestion might even come across as WP:POINT-making behavior. And yet this is the interpretation logic being presented as something which is going to be possible, thus making no change necessary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone really argue that serious citations are not a criterion for consideration concerning the reliability of a source that has been challenged because the author might have been involved in the fact checking? There must be thousands of sources treated as reliable on Wikipedia whose fact-checking procedures are unknown, and might involve the authors themselves, but which no one is going to challenge under a literal interpretation of SPS because the sources themselves are treated as reliable by reliable sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a really bad idea for someone to try to change the Verifiability policy just so they can get a specific website (or specific material from a website) declared a reliable source - particularly if that person has a COI regarding the website in question. Jayjg (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously this post is both ad hominem and also uses innuendo (because it is implied by Jayjg that something is going on, but he does not say what it is). This appears inappropriate to me. Many examples are mentioned above, and the principles are laid out for rational discussion. If there are errors in the reasoning it should be possible to point to them. It is clearly not about one example, not about any source I was the author of, and very clearly not about any particular material at all which I am supposedly trying to get into Wikipedia.
 * Jayjg is presumably referring to the Journal of Genetic Genealogy, because I published an article in it. But my article is not under discussion anywhere, and the JOGG is not self-published so not directly relevant to this discussion to begin with. The reason it is very relevant to Jayjg is that the journal published just one of the sources disputed in the Khazars case for which Jayjg was sanctioned some time back for very bad behavior. And (here is the connection) Whit Athey, mentioned above, was an editor of it and also published a few very widely cited articles in it. (Another editor wrote a review article once cited on the Khazars aritcle. Jayjg has argued on different occasions that these come under SPS because it should be considered the personal self-published website of any of the individuals who were in the editorial team. From what I can see on RSN this approach is not normal on WP. Jayjg's approach on the Khazars article certainly did not seem to be one the community agreed with.) Is this indirect and contentious connection enough to justify implying that this attempted rational discussion about the wording of WP:SPS should be ignored or stopped, because someone with their own very obvious axe to grind says so?
 * This is not the first time Jayjg has jumped into a conversation about the JOGG, throwing around innuendo and ad hominem, and pretending to be neutral. It took me some time to work out why I was being treated in ridiculously aggressive and dishonest ways by him when I first came into contact with him, because he literally emphasized his non-involvement as one of his ways of trying to stop knowledgeable editors from being allowed to discuss the source on RSN. My "crime" here is to be a sometime editor of articles concerning human Y DNA phylogenies, which are (shock horror, but only within Wikipedia) studied by both population geneticists and genealogists. There has been an historic problem on Wikipedia coming not from the field's own characteristics, but from people on Wikipedia defending, in their own mind, particular ethnic groups. The only thing that makes Jayjg unusual in this respect is that he knows the grey areas in WP policy much better than the average POV pusher.
 * Obviously if these policy pages have a purpose it is to avoid exactly this type of deliberately concocted wikidrama. If it can be avoided, then neither me nor any other editor should go through the crap that people like Jayjg can put together when they feel the need. That's why loopholes should be allowed to be improved. Jayjg is an experienced editor but he is also on my watchlist (and I suppose many peoples') and as shown by the Khazars case, he is a disruptive POV pushing editor for anything to do with claims about Jewish genetic ancestry, no matter how strong the sourcing. The JOGG has incurred his ire simply because it was one of the weakest sources opposed to him in that Khazars case, even though it was not a particularly important one, and as a result he has employed every strategy he can think of to attack anyone and anything connected to it. Attempts at rational discussion have failed, and indeed Jayjg edits other people's talk pages postings on this subject.,, , , ,, , , , , , , --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree with what Jayjg said. I don't see any reason for further discussion on WP:SPS. Andrew, you appear to have a COI in this matter; in particular, it appears to be in your personal interest to have the Journal of Genetic Genealogy declared a reliable source. Getting angry and attacking Jayjg isn't going to make things better. Mlm42 (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, Andrew, the lengthy conversation you had with Jayjg here on his talk page does not cast you in a favourable light; in particular it shows that you have a history of personal attacks on Jayjg. Mlm42 (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No honestly I think criticizing a person's arguments and behavior is not a personal attack by any normal definition. Anyway, this is off topic so if you really believe what you are saying I would welcome your explanation on my talk page. I started this discussion based on problems which get raised constantly on RSN, and on this talk page, not just by me, but by others also. The same subject had only just come up here and on RSN, raised by others, when I started this new thread. And the JOGG is not an example, because it is not an SPS. Other examples were mentioned above. And before this thread was interrupted I asked a straightforward and legitimate question which appears to being put aside in favour of a red herring. I asked: Does anyone say that citations are not one of the normal and legitimate factors we look at on Wikipedia when deciding reliability in sources that have been questioned? What do you think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already responded to this (here). Andrew, I'm going to leave this conversation now. Mlm42 (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give a diff on which comment of yours answers the question?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for adding the link after I requested it. It was here and you said "I think the answer to your question is simple: yes, citations as an expert can be used as "potentially useful evidence" for showing some source should be an exception.. but of course citations alone aren't enough to prove much. Since each exception to WP:SPS are rare enough, they should be treated on a case-by-case basis; therefore there isn't much point in changing policy.".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't read all of the above and don't entirely understand it, but I see Andrew left a similar post on my talk page. I think there is a concern that a particular SPS is the focus of this discussion. Certainly I would regard Jogg as an SPS, in the sense that a small group of people have started a website on which they write without payment about a topic that interests them, and in which they have no formal expertise. But I think there's no consensus to change the policy anyway, so it's a moot point.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, there seems to be a consensus amongst the small number of people who have discussed this that the current wording concerning what to do with questionable sources means that we effectively have to resort to WP:IAR for all worthy cases except one very specific type of case. Do you disagree with that summary? I'll address less on topic aspects of your post on your talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What you and Mlm42 are saying is that this is good enough, but both of you admit of knowing examples which seem to need this appeal to WP:IAR. Your approach is justified, as I understand it, because you are saying that such cases are rare.
 * What I am saying is that it does not seem so rare to me judging by RSN discussion, that relying on WP:IAR seems to leave a big chance of wikidrama, and that this seems like something that can be improved without too much hassle.

Snopes.com versus Fox News
Dare I say that Snopes.com is more reliable than Fox News? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS seems to apply in spades here, more so to Fox. Not checking on the original sources under the guise of using a (unreliable) wp:secondary source because that's the Wikipedia (FA?) way always make me chuckle. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that all sourcing questions should be discussed with a context in mind, concerning what is being sourced. I know that does not necessarily disagree with anyone else, but it seems to me to be a point worth reminding ourselves of in order not to confuse ourselves by starting to talk in terms of reliability as an absolute property.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)