Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 46

Verifiability from another article
In Talk:Nude swimming/Archive 1 I'm asking for citations in the article itself for various trivia and another editor is saying they are not needed because they can be verified by looking at the appropriate wikipedia article. Could someoe come there please and make comments one way or the other please? Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This talk section is the best place to keep the discussion as the results should be relevant to all articles and not one in particular. The question at hand is this: if a particular fact is sourced in a main article - say a biography - do we have to repeat that source in every other article that mentions that fact and links to the main article? For example, if a biography states that someone was born on August 18th and sources it do we really need to provide that same source in the August 18 article next to that person's name under the "births" section, or is it enough that users have an article link to click on containing the appropriate source?  I'm opposed to imposing extra work in the name of "verifiability" when a fact is already verifiable and only one obvious click away.  Rklawton (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The same, by the way, would apply to trivia sections or other lists containing article links as noted above. If a fact is verifiably (and reliably) sourced in the linked article, then it would be redundant to reproduce that reference again in the list. For example, the Silver Star article contains a lengthy list notable recipients. Absolutely none of these are sourced in the Silver Star article, but every one of them is sourced in the recipient's article.  Dmcq's proposal would have us copying all these references over and adding them to the Silver Star article, and that's a lot of work with zero benefit.  Rklawton (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Its an old argument, and one that has been rejected. Information should be cited where ever it appears...  For two reasons: 1) Readers should not have to click through multiple articles to find verification.  2) The article where the information is cited may change, and the relevant citations may be edited out.
 * That said... it does not take long to copy and paste a citation... have you considered "Fixing the problem" by going to the other article, copying the citation and slapping it into the Nude swimming article yourself? Blueboar (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is an old argument, please provide a link so we can review it. The likelihood that a birth date will change is minimal, and yes, when it does change, someone eventually catches up to the relevant date article and makes the appropriate correction. And besides, if a source for a fact changes, we'd still have to update all the places where that source has been copied, so your argument that someone would have to update the fact is countered by the argument that someone would have to update the source - it's a wash. Now, do you proposing adding redundant citations to the hundreds of thousands of articles that use the convention I described - starting with all the date articles, city articles, and many more.?


 * Birthdates are nice and clear-cut, and we're used to having pages that link by birthdate, so the chances are indeed good that somebody will see a change on a bio and think "hey, maybe we should change the 'born on X date'" list". But with some other types of claim, it becomes problematic; if I discover a factual error in an article about John Doe ("wait, he wasn't left-handed!"), I'm unlikely to notice that he happens to be in List of left-handed people with made-up names, so I probably won't fix that. Combine with the fact that there are a lot more John Doe experts following John Doe than there are following List of left-handed people with made-up names, and the list article is a lot more vulnerable to error, so we do need to be careful about sourcing in list-type articles.
 * This is one reason why I recommend using categories in preference to 'list' articles for this sort of stuff. When we add, say, Ron Kovic to Category: Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal, that edit and the accompanying cite happen in one place where people knowledgeable about Ron Kovic are very likely to be reading. If somebody finds a problem with that claim, it can be thrashed out in one place, and when it's fixed on Ron Kovic the category page will automatically update to match it.
 * I'm not an absolutist on this. WP:V doesn't state that all claims must be sourced wherever they appear, only that they should be sourceable and that if challenged or likely to be challenged, then a cite should be given. A birthdate is not usually contentious (there are exceptions) so I wouldn't think it was automatically necessary to include birthdate sources in, say, List of people born on July 4. But if a claim in a list is likely to be challenged, then that claim needs to be cited there, no matter how well-sourced it might be on some other article.
 * As for the "the source might change" point - yes, this does happen, but external reliable sources are generally a lot less prone to change than WP articles, so citing the same external source twice seems to me like a lesser evil than internal citation. --GenericBob (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the problems with 'cited in the linked article' is that the linked article may not be included in offline copies of Wikipedia. I believe that Version 0.7 contains only 1% of our articles.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I did have a look at the first article in the list and it had a citation which wasn't of that fact but might corroborate it. however I have no access to it even with google and therefore do not feel entitled to copy over the citation. The other references there did not even mention the business. Dmcq (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So what are we to do with all our date articles that include events/births/deaths - and all our city articles that include "Notable citizens" sections (and much, much more)? Rklawton (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You are to use your judgment to determine whether it's really WP:LIKELY that anyone would challenge anything like that. If not, then an WP:Inline citation isn't required.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That leaves a *lot* of room for dispute and all the collateral wasted admin time sorting it out. Why not just make a clear statement on the matter that anyone can properly interpret?  Rklawton (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because no one can agree on what such a clear statement should say. Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

How about: "If a fact is reliably and verifiably cited in an article, repetition of that fact need not also be specifically cited so long as the sourced article is linked." See List of photojournalists for an example. All the names are linked to articles which make the appropriate citations. And editors who care about the subject visit and clean up the list periodically. Rklawton (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Three reasons:
 * 'Cited in the other article today' is not 'cited in the other article permanently'.
 * Offline releases frequently will not include the other article. In fact, if articles were linked randomly and chosen without respect to their links (neither of which are true) then there'd be a 99% chance that the linked article wasn't present in the offline release.
 * Both readers and editors are more likely to look at a source in this article than to click through to other articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This view isn't practical, it isn't practiced, and it runs contrary to the "use your judgement" suggestion you made above. Point #1: is non-unique and argues against the very principles of a wiki. Nothing is permanent, yet we manage to update our articles and keep them current anyway. Point #2 Offline releases are not our concern. In fact, offline releases rarely include an article's edit history even though it's required per Wikipedia's "share-alike copyright requirement to attribute the work (attributing Wikipedia isn't sufficient since Wikipedia isn't the content creator, we are). In short, Wikipedia simply doesn't let the fact that someone else might do something wrong with our work change how we deliver it. Otherwise, we'd have to list an edit history at the end of each article in order to properly attribute each editor's contribution just in case someone decides to publish the article offline or in print. Point #3 is entirely your opinion and you're welcome to it.  But in my opinion, people with an interest in a topic are more likely to click on an article link than a source link that may or may not take them to an online, and thereby easier to access, source.  Rklawton (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Offline releases are our concern, because we are the people making the offline releases.
 * On point 3, please note that my claim is that people are more likely to read what's on the page right in front of them, rather than to click on any link. I do not say that they are more likely to click on a URL than to click on a wikilink.  I say that they are more likely to read "Smith, Alice.  The Sun is Really Big (2009)" when it's right in front of them, than they are to click on a link, then scroll around until they find the right part of the new page, and then finally read "Smith, Alice.  The Sun is Really Big (2009)".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If they care enough about the subject and its sources, they'll quickly click over to the main page anyway. "My" way requires less maintenance, greatly reduces a grey area (thereby saving time resolving disputes) and is simply the way its done on Wikipedia regardless of this thread. Rklawton (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing here. If you permalinked to a specific version of the article providing the references that would alleviate #1, but there are stylistic concerns with that. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed small change re translating foreign language sources
From Verifiability – "“When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page.”" It is best in a footnote, since it will be hard for average future non-editor users to find in the talk page archives, if they even know what a talk page or its archive is. And it should always (not just on request) be done for inline citations, since a user may want to verify things years after the original translating editor is long gone, and the line will be then unverifiable, defeating the purpose of verifiability, a situation easily avoided. Proposed change – "“When citing a foreign language source, it is suggested that the relevant original material and its translation be concisely provided in a footnote, as far as reasonably possible, so English only speakers can quickly partially verify the line. The original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page.”" PPdd (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't object to the change, however, the absence of the footnote does not make the material unverifiable; it can still be verified by anyone with access to the source and fluency in the language of the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just modified it a little. PPdd (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do object to this change. It's a tendentious editor's wet dream.  If you seriously want to challenge a source but you don't speak the language and google translate's struggling with the nuances, then you need to ask a neutral third party editor who does speak the language.— S Marshall  T/C 21:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see what's being done here. This was already in the policy: "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote." SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, the change is to broaden verifiablity beyond only being for quotes. Everything at WP should be "verifiable by all" as much as reasonable, and not just quotes, and verifiablity should be not just for editors, but for all to have verifiability. 23:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The change was a pretty simple one, and one with which I wholeheartedly agree: the translation should not be on the talk page, it should be incorporated as a footnote in the article.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The policy already said: "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote." So what is the change? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The "if requested by other editors" phrase is an important check on the potential for griefing here, although I'm uncomfortable with the copyright implications of directly copying a source into an article or talk page and feel the whole sentence should best be removed.— S Marshall T/C 22:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The "concise" qualification shuold take care of cpyright problems, and rewording to improve this is welcome. The copyright implications are the same as already existed in the policy. "Griefing of editors" should always take second place to "verifiablity for all". If editors don't want to comply for "greifs sake" then the whole verifiablity is out the window. As it is now worded, "verifiablity for editors", not "general verifiablity", appears to be the backbone of WP. The policy as now worded looks like it was written by a rules committee thinking only of themselves as users. PPdd (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I object to this proposal.
 * The rules that we actually want are these:
 * When the source says, Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes, and you are putting a direct quotation of this source into the article, with the only difference being that it's translated into English instead of Latin, then you need to type, "I fear the Greeks, even when bringing gifts" in the main body of the article, and type "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" in the footnotes.
 * If you are citing—but not directly quoting—a source that is not written in English, then handle it like any other source that an editor might not have access to. For example:  If you cite a book that isn't available online, and someone asks for help verifying it, then you might type up a paragraph or two on the talk page, or you might put a relevant short quotation into a footnote.  Similarly, if you cite a non-English text, and someone asks for help verifying it, then you might type up a paragraph or two on the talk page (and perhaps a translation), or you might pout a relevant short quotation into a footnote.  And if nobody asks, you do nothing.
 * The rule that is proposed in this section is "whenever you use—not quote, but use—a source that isn't in English, even if it's a thousand pages long, then make up some sort of summary in the foreign language".
 * Not only is the proposed rule unnecessary make-work, but it simply doesn't work. Imagine that I cite a thousand-page non-English book as saying (e.g.) "Writing policy is far harder than it looks".  If you don't believe that the source said this when I typed it into the article, then why would you believe that the source said this when I typed it into the footnote?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I added the word "reasonably possible". Common sense would then take care of the particular 1000 page source example cited by WAID. An editor is not suppossed to just list a thousand page source in general, but to provide page numbers, to pinpoint the information, otherwise, by reasoning from this example, we should remove all suggestions to use page numbers in refs. Editors don't have to list page numbers, since WP is a work in progress, but it is very helpful for verification, the main idea of what we are trying to provide to noneditors and editors alike. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is not only for editors to read. General users often and justifiably view Wikipedia with sekpticism, and like the ability to independently verify things with reliable sources listed in the reflist at bottom. A problem with using google translator is, for example, how does one know what to try to translate in a source that is all in chinese script, when one cannot even find the page numbers. The sources at the bottom are not just for editors to use, but for everyone. If a chineswe language ref has to wait for an editor to want to verify it, this excludes most WP users, who are not editors. Saying what an editor should do does not mean they have to do it. But if they don't, it defeats the entire verifiablity concept, except for insider editors using WP. PPdd (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The way I see it is that as a content writer, there are two issues that aren't my problem. The first is if I have a print source and someone who doesn't have it challenges me. I can just cite the page number and the ISBN, and say, "if you don't have the source, ask someone who does." The second is if I have a source in a language someone else doesn't speak. I can just cite the source accurately and say, "if you don't speak the language, ask someone who does." It's simple. Personally I add a fair bit of content to Wikipedia that comes from translations and it's important to keep the process easy—this goes back to the systemic bias issue. But for a lot of the stuff I write, all the decent sources are in foreign languages. It's quite true that most English-speakers are hopelessly monolingual, but that isn't my fault and I'm certainly not going to bother embarking on a multi-thousand word serial copyright violation in footnotes or talk pages in order to comply with this proposed rule. I'd just have most of my material G7'ed instead. At the moment the status quo is that you can request someone to provide you with a translation, which is somewhat reasonable. Requiring the content writer to supply a translation even without a challenge will create a truly stupendous amount of work for the people who bothered to learn a few languages while we were at school.— S Marshall  T/C 23:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I can request a translation, but general readers who know nothing about editing, and certainly nothing about WP policy details, as a practical matter can not. As content writers, our focus should be on "verfiablity", not on "convenience for content writers". There seems to be an egocentricism among editors, and especially amoung policy and guidline editors, whereby there is a focus on their own past experiences as content writers, and not a focus on making WP best for all with verifiablity for users who are not editors. Things as they now are are reminiscent of a "rules committee" in an undergraduate university student senate. The "page number in hard to access hard copy sources" should also be suggested to be improved on. And as a work inprogress, content writers more interested in getting info into WP don't have to focus on the refs, as this can be left to others for later. "Verifiability for all" should override all editor convenience considerations, unless WP is to have a change of basis to "verifiablity for all editors". PPdd (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For the third time, the policy already said: "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote." So could someone succinctly explain what change is being made here? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. (1) Broaden "quoting" to "citing". (2) Provide "practical" verifiability to all readers, not just to editors or those who know obscure policy sections like this one, as far as reasonably possible. PPdd (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Quoting is already much broader than citing, so can you say what you mean? And I don't know what you mean by (2). It looks as though the policy is being edited by people who haven't read it, to be honest, because what you wanted was already there. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * PPdd: "Verifiability for all" doesn't mean I have to teach you German, any more than it means I have to drive to your house with a book from my bookshelves.  "Verifiability" doesn't mean anyone can verify it.  It means that anyone with access to the source who can read the language can verify it.  And the goodwill of good faith content writers is Wikipedia's only asset.  The rules do need to be supportive of them, considerate to them and respectful of the time and effort they put in. SlimVirgin: The effect of the change would be that if the source is not in English, the content writer would need to provide both the original language text and an English language translation by default (instead of waiting to be asked as is the present rule).— S Marshall  T/C 23:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Marshall, first, see subsection below, as there seems to be a semantics thing going on here.
 * Second, I am trying to make more work for myself, not just you. In fact, this issue came up in the bad faith start class article, where I summed up half of Sartre's Being and Nothingness, just like WAID's 1000 page book, with one ref to Sartre's book, and no page numbers. (It was also possibly a primary source, insofar as it was about Sartre's view, and not a secondary source with Sartre's analysis of bad faith as an expression out in the literature, which was another problem). My solution was to remove the ref altogether, leaving it for another editor to challenge with cit needed tags (unlkely since noncontroversial, but better for WP's readers, who might not know it is noncontroversial, and mistrust anything at WP they cannot independently verify from the reflist below).
 * Third, there are two kinds of editing, one is "speedy expansion", the other is "slow improvement". Both are valuable and necessary to be going on at the same time at WP. If an editor wants to ignore a policy suggestion for the sake of getting as much info into WP as quickly as possible, leaving others to claim BURDEN, or to add to refs easily read translations as a "practically verification" tool, they can. The second kind of "imporvement editing" can take time in providing translations of relevant lines supporting a given line. Both kinds of editing are valuable and necesary because WP:WIkipedia is not a finished product. PPdd (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For the fourth time, it already said: ""When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote." :) SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For the fourt time, it says when " quoting a source", not when " citing a source", so only applies to quotations, leaving foreign language lines with chinese language sources practically unverifiable (see section below). Sorry about the "bigs", you just seemed frustrated at not finding the subtlety there. PPdd (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, sorry, my fault. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * PPdd, I don't think that we want this change. We do not have any good reason to impose a (sometimes dramatically) higher burden on people who can read sources that are not written in English.
 * If you can't read the Chinese sources at, say, Acupuncture point, then you need to find someone who does, just like if you can't find an English source with full text free on the net, then you need to find another way to get at those sources. The point of verification work is to make sure that the original person actually got it right, not to see whether the original person was capable of typing the same thing twice in a row—and that's all your proposal would do.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't see a problem with adding this to the policy, because it's already widely done. If you cite a non-English source, you're expected as a matter of courtesy to supply the original and a translation in a footnote or on talk, and in fact I thought the policy already said that, which is why I got confused above. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For quotes, yes, but I see no necessity for sources unless challenged. In an ideal world it would happen, but if I'm translating something from French, I can understand the material enough to quickly summarize and integrate it - that doesn't mean I have to or should take the time to translate it as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That again raises the question, is WP an encyclopedia that tries to be verifiable for all, or a generally unverifiable encyclopedia for all, but verifiable for insider editors living in a WikiBubble, who have a right to challenge and demand verifiability if they know the insider rules? The latter seems to be what many are arguing for. PPdd (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That question has an obvious common sense answer for practical puprose alone: No, WP does not try to have any article verifiable by anyone. Simply because verification is not just a matter of access but context and domain knowledge as well. If you lack a certain domain knowledge you cannot verify an article properly regardless of how accessible (as in getting a copy) its sources are. In short this is not question of "mysterious intransparent insider rules" but staight forward common sense. And frankly the person the wikibubble seems to be you, if you are proposing a notion of verifiability that nobody (outside WP) would take seroiusly.
 * Now having said all that, WP should of course strive for having articles verifiable by large number of readers and keeping it reasonable simple.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, I mentioned the "bubble" because I am a relatively new editor and I keep seeing expressions similar to "an editor could verify this or that way", instead of "a user could verify this or that way". It looked like editors and meta-editors had lost track of the purpose of WP being for users, not editors. Verifiablity is never "perfect", but very simple things like suggestiong that foot notes have page numbers and brief translations helps make WP "more verifiable", and so should be part of the policy. PPdd (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Page numbers are a different issue and they are usually considered a part of the citation/inline reference anyway (at least if you cite a book).Being more (better easier) verifiable is generally good, but as far as mandating it is concerned, there needs to be some balance with a separate goal of WP, that is making contributions easy. Adding page numbers (aside from belonging to an exact citation anyway) requires zero additional effort adding additional translations however does. Since adding such translations may provide some convenience to other editors/readers for an intermediate verification step, but does not allow an actual real verification (which has to be against the sources), I consider it an unreasonable burden (if mandated).
 * As far as the terminology is concerned, there's some fuzziness we have to live with. Editor/author usually refers to people with an account willing to contribute/edit/correct themselves (10%), whereas readers is mostly used for people reading only (about 90%). Users might be used for eithers, i.e. (active) user as in having an account or (passive) user as in using WP (to read only). Occasionally some WP terms deviate significantly from the common usage, which can be problematic, but that's a separate issue (needs to be discussed elsewhere).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see how a Ugandan goat herder, with no fixed address, reading either a paper or CD copy of an article off of a computer powered by solar cells that is not linked to the internet, who speaks only broken English and can't type, could verify a 1956 medical article that is only referred to by PMID. I also don't think that should be our standard since references are for editors rather than readers.  An editor is very different from a reader.  Editors need to verify text if only for the fact that sources are the only way we really have to substantiate, document and resolve content disputes.  We are an encyclopedia, our goal is to convey knowledge.  References are gravy, not meat - they are secondary to the text and used by editors to ensure high-quality content.  If we could trust everyone and have an encyclopedia written by neutral experts, we wouldn't need reference.  Brittanica for instance, doesn't include footnotes as far as I remember - it may have vague references at the bottom in the form of "See this book".  But not references.  If readers want to look up references, good for them.  But references only become really necessary when an editor challenges the text.  Note that WP:PROVEIT doesn't require citations for everything, only material that is challenged, which I see as a manifestation of this.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 04:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kmhkmh appears to have arrived at exactly the same place where I ended up after reading comments here, and which I expect most editors to arrive at after some thought. As I said in the subsection below, It seems there are two forces tugging. First, not to exclude information that has a reliable source, even if the source is inaccessible to most readers. Second is to have WP be as verifiable as possible by as many as possible. Kmhkmh said almost the exact same thing above, "Being more (better easier) verifiable is generally good, but as far as mandating it is concerned, there needs to be some balance with a separate goal of WP, that is making contributions easy." There are two kinds of editing, "expanding" and "perfecting". Both are good and both are necessary. But they pull in opposite directions. I believe Kmhkmh's wording should be in the policy, since considerations of this tension between expanding and perfecting should always be in the mind of editors.
 * Re Kmhkmh's "mandated", I weakened the wording above with "suggested", so it need not be "mandated", so verifiability is suggested for general readers, not just editors, as WP:V says at the outset.
 * Re Kmhkmh's "fuzziness" and WLU's "references are for editors rather than readers ." - WP:V clearly says at the outset that - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." I just gave an argument by authority of existing WP:V, an argument style I am embarrassed to use. Better is to point to why WP:V as worded is good, and this is because verifiability is an ideal that is never fully achieved, only increased, and that the ultimate target audience of verifiability it readers, not just editors. PPdd (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all to me "my reading" follows from the guideline as it is, so I don't quite see a need for rewording or extensions here so far.
 * Second imho your are misreading the indtroduction line. It is about the difference between verifiability and truth not between editor and reader. Another way to phrase it, is that WP has to describe what reputable sources say on some subject and not what the editor thinks of that subject. For instance I may consider Rumsfeld a war criminal, however for WP it only matters what reputable sources (and not me) think of Rumsfeld. While WP cannot establish the ultimate truth about Rumsfeld being a war criminal or not, it can establish what reputable/reliable sources say about Rumsfeld. More importantly the latter (contrary to the former) is verifiable by checking those reputable/reliable sources. Editor and reader are merely used in that line to distinguish between 2 different parties, the editor that has added the content in question and a later reader (could be an editor too), who wants to verify/confirm the added content. It is not meant as dinstinction between different degrees of WP (insider) knowledge. If you read this as editor=WP insider and reader=WP outsider, you are totally misreading that line.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The rewording is to suggest (not mandate) that citations have translations for verifiability's sake. As currently worded, waiting for an editor request for this will leave out the majority of readers from the verifiability process, and general readers are the ultimate target auddience to be affected by policies. Also, as currently worded, it makes translation much more difficult, when it might be easy for the editor in china with the chinese book to provide exact citations and translations, it is very difficult to do years down the road when that editor and book are no longer availoable.
 * I read the opeing sentence wording to concisely achieve two goals, first that verifiablility not truth is the standard, and that readers not editors are the target audience for verifiability. Without verifiabiulity for readers, readers will simply dismiss WP as junk. I did, for many years. PPdd (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again you can only verify a content against the actual sources and you may be required to have some domain knowledge to do so, there is no way around that and the guideline should not create the notion that there is one or place "unreasonable" burdens on authors. Dismissing texts, the verification of which requires domain knowledge as junk, doesn't really strike me as a sensible approach neither for wikipedia nor for publications in general. On such grounds you could dismiss most academic literature as junk or simply any publication outside your personal range of domain knowledge. Treating WP with that approach would reduce it to an encyclopedia based on written popular (science) accounts on whatever subject. Personally I wouldn't even call such a thing an encyclopedia and it is definitely not what many people envision WP to be (certainly not me).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Domain knowledge is a reasonable requirement for verifying a technical article. Foriegn language knowledge is not domain knowledge. PPdd (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A foreign language is as much domain knowledge as some technical language such as math. If you write on a subject, for which most sources are in a foreign language, that language can indeed be a part of the usually required domain knowledge. If you write advanced articles on greek or roman history some knowledge of Greek and Latin would be considered domain knowledge, similarly for chinese history chinese is part of the domain knowledge.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"“When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page.”"
 * In light of the above comments, here is the existing wording –


 * And here is a proposed addition to the existing wording –

"“When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page. It is helpful to general readers if this is done in a footnote even without such an editor request. It may be much easier to do this at the time of the original edits, rather than waiting until after a request by an editor at a much later date.”"
 * The rationale is that minimum standards of verifiability are not the only standards for verifiability, and editors are not the only target audience for verifiability. (1) There are minimum standards for making addition of content for expanding WP as easily as reasonably possible, and this should not be interferred with by a new mandate. (2) But minimum standards should not be confused with what are the best standards of verifiability, to be aimed at with subsequent improvements. This is especially the case if translation is easy at the time of an initial edit, when an obscure foreign language book is open to the page cited, but translation may be extremely difficult at some later time of editor request, in which case the original editor and obscure foreign language book may be long gone. PPdd (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a ridiculously bad idea. Anyone saying that it is already common practice needs to read Wikipedia more, especially articles about foreign topics. The are a ton of articles with hardly a single English source, and they don't provide translations for their sources. Example with 90% of citations being from non-English sources. All that I can see coming from this proposal is another inept deletion campaign (Not giving me a full source translation on-demand? I R deleting your text/article.) Tijfo098 (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Interpreting the “verifiability” core of Wikipedia.

 * There is a tension between wanting to improve WP by having minimum PROSCRIPTIVE standards on verifiability for editors so as to encourage expansion of content, and SUGGESTIONS for verifiability so as to either improve verifiability for general readers with domain knowledge, or to improve verifiability for general readers without domain knowledge. What should be proscribed for the former, and what should be suggested for the latter? PPdd (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To sharpen focus, discussion of a specific proposal regarding translation upon request of editors is in the super-section above. More general discussion of PROSCRIPTIVE minimum standards versus SUGGESTED ideal standards for this verifiability policy, and the extent to which verifiability should be for all readers or just for editors is discussed in this subsection. Both proposals will be updated to incorporate comments, so comments may appear to be irrelevant when in fact they were highly relevant and resulted in a modification of the proposal. PPdd (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability is a matter of degree, and is never absolute. Should WP seek to increase verifiability toward its ideal by making it more practical if it can easily do so, and have a wider number of people who can verify if it is easy to achieve, such as by providing original and translated original source material in footnotes for foreign language sources, rather than the current situation in which an editor can request it, hoping the original editor is still around to provide it. Does WP:V - "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" mean that translations should be provided in footnotes for readers, or only that editors can request translations on a talk page? How should we balance (1) a desire not to exclude information that has a reliable source, even if the source is inaccessible to most readers, with (2) increasing verifiability in two ways, (2a) that it is more practical for an individual to verify, and (2b) more individuals can verify it? PPdd (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC) If an editor who DOES both have and understand a given source, and uses it in an article that will later be read or edited by someone who DOESN'T have and/or understand that source, should we recommend the original editor provide quotations from it in the ref? How is a future non-having/non-understanding general reader or editor supposed to figure out if the original editor was just making it all up? More specifically, if an obscure and hard to find book is used, or a foreign language source, such as in Chinese script, should a quotation and translation of that quotation be provided so that anyone can easily verify it, or should such verification just be theoretically possible? PPdd (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As the above discussion shows, there seems to be 2 x 2 interpretations of the verifiability core of WP – “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.”
 * One is that “readers” in the above refers to just to either editors or those who know how to work the verifiability maze, while the other is that readers includes everyone, including those who have no idea that there even is policy detail on verifiability.
 * There are also two interpretations of "verifiability"; one is "theoretically verifiable", the other is "practically verifiable". As an example of the latter, citing a Chinese language source without translation means that theoretically, a "general non-editor reader" could learn to be an editor, happen across this subsection of the verifiability guideline, learn enough Chinese script to understand what pages of the ref are relevant, hope their translator for those pages works, read the translation, not understand it, and challenge the editor who put the initial ref in, and hopefully the initial editor who used the Chinese script source in the first place is still around to respond. This is not "practical verifiability". PPdd (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I favor "easy practical verifiability for all" as an end goal. I least favor "difficult theoretical verifiability for all editors and insiders" as an end goal to aim at, even if never ideally achieved.
 * "Theoretical verifiability" is really "pretended verifiability" for all practical purposes, is an unbefitting end goal for WP, and has a high potential for abuse. PPdd (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The idea that a reader must become an editor and understand the verifiability policy is a red herring; the verifiability policy is similar to the citation policy in a university class when writing a research report. The writer is expected to cite sources, and the reader is expected to know how to use a library (and these days, the web). Jc3s5h (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In a univedrsity class, I have never been required to read a chinese language citation, find a library that carries chinese script books, and then figure out how to read its contents, for verification. "Knowing how to use a library" is a red herring for "knowing how to read chinese script and figure out how to find and read chinese script hard copy books". In fact, if it a chinese script hard copy, even if one could find it in an English language library, one would not be able to use translation software to even attempt to read it. The policy as it is requires that in order to get verifiability, a reader must know this policy detail, become an editor, request another editor to translate, and hope the other editor is around. PPdd (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In a university class, I have never been told that the sources I cite in a paper I wrote had to be an English language source. I was just told to cite according to the style manual chosen for the class in question, and those style manuals never said anything about providing quotations or translations. The reader who does not understand a Chinese source is not limited to asking Wikipedia editors for help; the reader could find someone unaffiliated with Wikipedia to translate. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the core of the issue. How usable do we want to shoot at for WP verifiablity to be? I had an situation identical to what you cite arise in palo alto where I was grading finals papers for the first year mathematics doctoral students. There was one woman chosen from all of china for the department that year. To justify skipping steps no other students skippped, she would cite her text books in chinese script, and show them to me. I thought, "???!!??" Verification of her claims was practically impossible, so I did not know what to do. No one else in the department I asked knew what to do either. (My ultimate solution was to start dating her two years later! :) ) PPdd (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, I know you're new to RFCs. Usually, you want to be asking a fairly specific question, not opening a philosophical discussion. General chat about philosophies belongs over at the Village Pump.

The question you probably wanted to ask looks something like, "Is it ever okay for someone who DOES both have and understand a given source to use it in an article that will later be edited by someone who DOESN'T have and/or understand the source? And if so, then just how is a future non-having/non-understanding editor supposed to figure out if the original editor was just making it all up?"

And we're going to give you the answer: Wikipedia accepts all reliable sources, even if they aren't available online, even if they aren't free, and even if they aren't written in English.

If you need help verifying a particular piece of information, then try the WP:LIBRARY, any relevant WikiProject, or people listed at the WP:EMBASSY, who are often able to provide translations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I made it more specfic per your comment, and copied your suggestion for the opener. Your "we answer" is reasonable, but leaves open whether when a source such as one in Chinese script is practically impossible to verify, at least suggesting that an editor provide relevant translation to improve Wikipedia. This in no way stops an editor from not doing it, but is only a goal for improving verifiablity, especially at a time that it is easy to do. The idea is to make suggestions that improve verifiability beyond the theoretically possible. See my example of the chinse grad student I cite above. PPdd (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see how providing a translation is really improving the verifiability. If you take some other editor's translation for granted you might as well take his summary for granted.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really follow. It isn't "some other editor's" translation being trusted (or not), but rather "the" translation on the page. It doesn't matter who put it there. Many readers will understand the two languages well enough to find bad translations, and those who do not will still know that they can always choose to find their own translator. Many readers will be able to interpret whether or not the translated text supports the summary. Some will be able to do both. But by providing source, original text, translation, and summary we would remove (so far as practicable) the obstacles to verification. Keeping the quotation and translation sufficiently short to qualify as fair use would still be necessary, of course, but that's nothing new. LeadSongDog come howl!  05:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Readers who know both languages can and should the sources instead. And no the verification obstacles are not removed but merely shifted. Verification means verifications against the actual sources and not against some other texts produced by a WP editor.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PPdd, you say that verifying Chinese text is "practically impossible". I'm telling you:  No, it isn't impossible, or even very difficult.  All you have to do to verify the material is find an editor who reads Chinese and ask them nicely to help you out.
 * As an example, I had somebody translating a little Arabic for me recently, and I can't even tell where one letter stops and the next starts in that script. Just because *I* can't personally understand it doesn't mean that *nobody* can.  Wikipedia does not require that *I* be able to verify a given bit of material:  It only requires that *somebody* be able to.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:V requires that text can be verified, it does not, and should not, imply that it must be easy or that all editors and readers in all circumstances, must be able to do so. Consider a non-wiki example - if you get a reference out from the library, you only get one reference.  You do not automatically get out all the references cited by that reference, nor do you get relevant quotes from all citations - you just get the information you need to find the references that were cited.  We don't ask all foreign language sources to by translated by the editor who adds it because we assume it is accurately and neutrally summarized.  If I question a source provided by someone else in a language I can't read, I ask another editor for a translation (and did, see here).  Similarly, if you doubt the summary of a source such as a book, you get the book out and read it (which I've also done several times, including paying money out of pocket for interlibrary loans).  We place the burden only on challenged editors for the same reason we don't insist all editors read all sources on a page before editing - it's a waste of time.  In most circumstances the addition of reasonable information doesn't require a check of the source.  It's only when it's unreasonable, or you have an indication the adding editor is doing something problematic, that the  challenging editor has the burden of checking the source for an accurate summary.  It would be very helpful if all foreign sources were translated, but it's not necessary and places far too much burden on the editor adding sources - particularly if it's uncontroversial information.  The burden of heavy lifting should be placed on the editor who challenges a source, just we place the burden on the editor adding unsourced information when they are challenged (WP:PROVEIT).  I see this alteration to the policy as unnecessarily burdensome, and likely to be simply ignored.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case "verifiability", for all practicle purposes, would then mean "verified by one editor". And "assume good faith" would imply means "assume no mistake was made in interpretation". In fact, when I read WP articles and find chinese language sources, I consider that material to be worthless, as it is not verifiable. The "English Language Encyclopedia" is not "english language verifiable". PPdd (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * But again, your criteria would apply to every single reference used on wikipedia and also in essence insists that editors not be permitted to make mistakes. Most sources are verified by one editor, because most edits are made by one editor and not reviewed unless it's controversial.  It's still only a problem when someone says "I wonder if that is right" and then asks.  In which case it is still a minor bridge that should only be crossed when required.  All wikipedia insists on is that an editor theoretically be able to verify something - and that essentially comes down to providing the reference for any text that is added.  I don't equate theoretical verifiability with pretend verifiability.  Just because something must be able to be verified eventually when challenged doesn't mean it has to be verifiable immediately and part of being an editor who assumes good faith is, once presented with a source, leaving the text it verifies unchanged until the reference can be located and checked.  Neither source nor material are worthless because they can't be checked at internet-generation speeds.
 * All this goes out the window when an editor has demonstrated they're not worth trusting (i.e. history of POV-pushing and misrepresentation of sources), but that is a very rare case and must be handled differently. Good faith doesn't mean trusting once there is evidence of malfeasance.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup, you've got it: "Verifi able " means "verifi able by someone", not "verifi able by you". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * But you were arguing the opposite recently, weren't you? You said that a citation to an offline BBC documentary couldn't be trusted unless the editor adding it demonstrated that all members of the public had access to it, because we couldn't simply assume good faith.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that WhatamIdoing is wrong in what she said at 21:48 today, SV?— S Marshall T/C 22:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know which position s/he sees as wrong, but there's a contradiction. On the one hand, s/he said a BBC Panorama documentary isn't verifiable unless it's online, because the BBC won't supply transcripts to anyone who asks, or allow anyone to walk in off the street to view it; and we can't simply assume good faith of the editor who says he saw the documentary. On the other hand, s/he said we should assume good faith of editors who cite offline Chinese sources without supplying the Chinese text or a translation. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't immediately see the contradiction there. I think the difference is that a print source is available via a library service, but a BBC transcript is not.  In any case, regardless of whether WhatamIdoing has been wrong before, my position is that s/he is correct in this specific matter.— S Marshall  T/C 22:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct about which? That we should accept Chinese sources, without the text being offered and with no translation? I've never seen that kind of thing allowed. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has (unintentionally, I'm sure) attributed a position to me that I did not claim. I said that a citation to a broadcast isn't verifiable if zero members of the public have access to it. By "members of the public", you will recall that I excluded employees of the broadcaster and their friends. If some members of the public have access to it—I gave an example of those parts of the public willing to physically go to the broadcaster's s—then it is verifiable. If zero have access, then it is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You wrote (emphasis added):


 * "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.'"


 * You argued that assuming good faith of the editor who added the BBC citation, and who said "I saw this BBC documentary, and it said X," isn't good enough, even when the editor is an established one. But now you're arguing that a Chinese citation, in a language few of us here can decipher, with nothing online, no text provided, and no translation, is fine, because we should AGF unless we have reason not to. You say it's enough that I can print out a copy of the Chinese characters and take them to my local librarian, who will probably look at them helplessly, because in theory maybe we could find the source in a library, somewhere, if we could only work out what the citation said.


 * I see that as a contradiction. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How is that a contradiction? Here are the points, assembled for your convenience:
 * If zero people can get the source, then it is obviously not verifiable (say, a source whose last known copy was destroyed, or a source that apparently never actually existed).
 * If zero people can understand the source, then it is obviously not verifiable (say, random scribblings meant to look vaguely like an Asian source, or golden plates from Heaven, or whatever).
 * If somebody can get and understand the source, then its contents can be checked to see whether they match what we say it says.
 * If somebody can get the source, but doesn't understand it, then that person can ask for help from people who do understand it—say, like all the folks at the WP:Local embassy who speak Chinese. You can scan a page and e-mail it to one of them, or ask them if they can also get the source and check it for you.  You don't have to limit yourself to a single, non-Chinese-speaking librarian.  (The process is no different from checking WP:PAYWALLed sources:  If you can't get it, then ask someone who can.)
 * Where's the contradiction? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You said earlier of a BBC Panorama documentary (the flagship programme of one of the most respected broadcasters in the world) that: "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." So we can't cite it if it's not online, even if an established editor has watched it and has a copy, in your view. But now you are arguing that a source in Chinese that is not online, that no one on the English Wikipedia has heard of, that no one on the English Wikipedia can read, where neither the Chinese text nor English translation has been provided, somehow is verifiable. If you can't see the contradiction in that, I don't know how to explain it. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but where exactly did I say that the source must be available online? How do you get from "visiting the station and listening to the recording (the equivalent of visiting the newspaper's office and asking to see something in the morgue)" to "we can't cite it if it's not online"?  "Visiting the station" usually means getting in a car or bus and physically taking yourself to a building owned by the broadcaster, to see or hear the source at that building.  Physically going to a different location is not generally understood as being an over-the-Internet ("online") task.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I think I see the problem, and it's merely a failure to communicate:
 * "If it is impossible for every single one of our 50,000 editors to get their hands on a copy..." means "If every single one of our 50,000 editors attempt to get their hands on a copy, and every single one of them is unable to actually get their hands on a copy...".
 * It does not mean "50,000 out of 50,000 editors must have access to a copy". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * BBC Panorama is not online. If I see it and record it, and cite it, you were saying that wasn't good enough. Everyone else (or someone else) had to have access too. But you're not arguing this about Chinese sources that no one can make head or tail of. With those, you're saying AGF of the editor who added the citation, unless we have good reason not to. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't care if it's online. I care whether at least two editors—the person who originally added the material, and any other editor unconnected to that person—is able to verify that the source contains the material it is alleged to contain.
 * I have no reason to believe that your (or my) personal ignorance of Chinese means that zero of Wikipedia's editors are capable of verifying a citation written in Chinese. The mere fact that a source is written in Chinese, or Dutch, or Icelandic, or any other human language does not mean that we are absolutely unable to find somebody, out of our 50,000 active editors of the English Wikipedia, who can help us figure out its contents.
 * By contrast, I have good reasons to believe that a privately made recording of an alleged broadcast that is only available in your own (or my own) living room is not something that some other editor can verify. If the program's contents can be verified by somebody, then we're set.  I don't care how they do this second editor achieves this:  If verifying it takes flying to London, begging for an appointment, paying a million dollars, and watching the archival copy in a locked room after swearing to turn off all electronic devices during the viewing, I'm okay with that.  But if nobody in the world can actually see a reliably produced/known-not-to-be-Photoshopped copy of the source, then that source is not verifiable, full stop.
 * Let me attempt to make this clearer: If I say that page 1336 of this book in German—Aulbert, Eberhard, Friedemann Nauck and Lukas Radbruch. Lehrbuch der Palliativmedizin (Textbook for Palliative Medicine). Schattauer; February 2008. ISBN 978-3794523610—says that family pets pose no danger to terminally ill people, then you could actually find someone who reads German and determine that I'm making it up (because that page doesn't say that).  If it happens that you personally don't read German, then you just need to leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany or even WT:MED and ask for help from somebody who does.  I'm sure that someone would be able to tell you whether the source supports the claim.
 * But if I say that two minutes and thirty-six seconds into a broadcast that happened 27 years ago, _____ said a bad word on the air, and that all the known copies—except for the copy I made on my VCR in my own living room at the time—were "unfortunately" destroyed in a terrible fire, then you have absolutely no way to find out whether that actually happened.
 * In short, it's verifi able if some other editor, somewhere in this enormous project, is able to verify it, and it's not verifi able if zero other editors are able to verify it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC break
It seems there are two forces tugging. First, not to exclude information that has a reliable source, even if the source is inaccesable to most readers. Second, to have WP be as verifiable as possible by as many as possible. In the specific case of a foreign language source, it is possible to have both, simply by suggesting putting a quote and translation in the footnote, if reasonably possible. It does not have to be suggtested that failure to do so is cause for deletion, but any reasonale reading of BURDEN is that editors whould not have to know chinese to verify an english language encyclopedia. This leaves unresolved the general question as to whether "verifiablity" is only for editors, or also for general readers. PPdd (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're still under the impression that to be "verifiable", the material has to be available to anyone. That's simply not true.  For example, I happen to have on my bookshelves Dr F. M. Page's "History of Hertford", ISBN 0-952-2390-1-9.  It was published in 1959, and reprinted (once) in 1993.  I doubt if there are more than a few hundred copies still in existence.  But I can write material in an article based on it, even though it would be very challenging for you to check it.  The fact that I can use any published, reliable source that I can cite correctly is an old, long-established Wikipedia rule. I also happen to have on my shelves a copy of Maurice Grevisse's "Le Bon Usage".  My copy doesn't have an ISBN because it was printed in 1964.  It has never been available in English.  But I can cite it by page number, edition and publisher.  If I'm citing a long and complicated passage, then I cannot type it out in a footnote for you, in the original or in translation, because I'm subject to laws about copyright.  So you'll have to take my word for it, or ask someone who has a copy and speaks the language, or else go to your library, find a copy, and learn to speak French. If it's a sentence or a short passage and you actually ask me to type it out for you, I might do that.— S Marshall  T/C 00:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @PPdd: The problem is that what you are suggesting is no verification. If you want to verify anything you need to verify against the sources and not against other texts produced by WP editors. If you check whether the summary matches towards the translation, then you will not have verified the content for that you need to check the original source and the accuracy of the translations as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that "a verifiable English language encyclopedia" should be verifiable in English, within reason. A case in point is in a chinese medicine article I deleted questionable content after an editor did not respond to citation needed tags for weeks. The editor then returned, and within minutes cited chapters in a chinese language text. The speed with which this was done made it impossible that the editor was actually reading the chapters, but was looking at them topically, maybe in a good faith beliege in himself that he would make no mistake, but in a way that was practically unverifiable. Also cited were online Chinese sources, but with no quotes, so even these could not be verified. With simple quotesw, in the first case, the editor would have to self regulate, and in the latter, an automated translater could be used to verify. PPdd (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If by "verifiable in English within in reason" you mean, that sources are preferred to be in English, that's already in the guidelines, so need for a change here. And for the rest to me it looks rather like an unreasonable burden on authors to your convenience, which imho is not a good basis for formulating a general guideline and at least in some cases it also results in copyright concerns (as explained by somebody else earlier). To me that burden is "unreasonable" because it doesn't provide a real verification/verifiabilöity to begin with (that needs to be done by checking the actual sources) but it simply mandates a working style for authors, that might make him slightly less proned to errors. Though we can make recommendation for a working style, but mandating one is rather thorny issue and also a possible roadblock for attracting authors.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which means that if English-language sources don't happen to write about it, then we can't have an article on it. Similarly, if English-language sources are known to present only one side of the story, then we can only present that one side.
 * And would you be happy if the other Wikipedias adopted a similar rule? Should the Icelandic language Wikipedia refuse to include material from English-language sources?
 * This is a Bad Idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How would translating something into English stop it from being used? What are you talking about? PPdd (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Verifiable doesn't mean "verifiable by everyone"; indeed, the more specialized and arcane the topic, the more one has to stray from what's available to all. Is it mere happenstance that the vast majority of our FAs appear to be on obscure topics?  I think not. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:V actively discourages using translation software, and I'll take the translation of an editor who speaks the language over the translation software any time.
 * Your example of the editor who quickly cited some text you removed is off-base in my opinion. I may cite a whole book, then if someone asks "where", I can very quickly find the exact page where I read something.  Even easier if it's a chapter.  In that specific case, I wouldn't remove the text on the assumption the editor was lying, I'd ask any Chinese-speaking editors at WP:CHINA for their verification and patiently wait for their response.  If someone takes the time to provide a source, then we owe them the courtesy of AGF.  If they should be lying, then it doesn't really matter what they do after that as their reputation is pretty much toast.  AGF doesn't mean "bend over and take it", and when we've proof of wrongdoing, there's no reason to AGF anymore.
 * WAID's comment linked above by SV is off in my mind - WAID is saying material isn't verifiable if no editor can get a hold of it. There's a difference between "anyone can verify" (ideal), "everyone must verify" (the intent of this change IMO), "someone should be able to verify even if it takes a bit of effort" (not ideal but acceptable) and "an editor with a known POV and history of pushing it has just added a very-difficult-to-verify source that no other source seems to back up that is sufficiently surprising it makes a whole bunch of editors cite WP:REDFLAG" (probably something worth establishing a consensus on to keep or remove).  I prefer the policy stay as it is, and these items be dealt with on an ad hoc, as-needed basis (i.e. WP:UCS).  If a source only exists in a foreign-language version, with no translation, no scholarly commentary of any kind in any English research, and it's being cited in such a way that people are extremely concerned about its misuse or over-representation (pause for breath), perhaps that is something that falls into the "tiny minority" category of WP:UNDUE and should be removed for that reason.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 04:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd (and others), please explain how e.g. the Good Article Willy Vandersteen would look if your proposal was accepted. Its main source is a 280+ page book in Dutch, plus a number of other books and articles in Dutch and French. Often, two or three pages from the book are summarized in two or three lines in the article. The basics are verifiable from English language sources, but most of the details aren't. To enable you to verify this in English, and online, I would have to post most of the original book (which would be a massive copyright violation), and translate it as well. The other solution would be to reduce the article to a start class article. The former is impossible, the latter is a serious loss for Wikipedia (not this single article perhaps, but when applied Wikipedia-wide). Fram (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just read through the whole thread. It seems clear that the consensus is to not change the policy from what it states now, as Wikipedia's long standing policy is that Verifiability implies that something can be verified, not that it can be verified easily or verified by all. LK (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * exactly--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree, I just wondered how PPdd (and anyone partly or completely agreeing with him) would in reality handle such a case if their proposal would be implemented. Fram (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is how Willy Vanderstein is currently trying to be handled. It would have been much simpler if done at the time of putting the refs in, and hoepfully all of the editors who put in refs are still around. Otherwise there is a big verifiability problem that could easily have been avoided. In the first specific case that brought me here, I requested a translation many weeks ago, and the editor who originally put the many chinese language references in has apparently gone, a bad verifiability problem with the article that could easily have been avoided. PPdd (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) WP:V says - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." As currently worded, the verifiability of foreign language material says that editors can request a translation (perhaps long after the translating editor has gone). But it says nothing about how a reader can check. A reader (versus an editor) is not be expected to learn to be an expert editor, know obscure passages in policies, and know how to get a translation, if there really is such a way, and ultimately hopefully get a translation. So the wording is inconsistent with the opening sentence of WP's core policy, and the inconsistency is causing easily avoidable problems. 12:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (2) Assuming good faith does not mean assuming that if some "editors think it is true" and an accurate translation and summary, all in good faith, then it does not need to be verifiable. PPdd (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think WP:V specifies verifiability by reader or editor or expert reader or goat-herder reader or anyone at all. It is the principle that something can be verified by a reasonable amount of reasonably normal people that is enough, and that fuzzyish wording (people keep saying "reasonable" is not an objective term; I do not necessarily agree), though it might not satisfy all the people all the time, was I think quite deliberate. I think that is also what others are reporting to you. As I know you have an interest in logic and philosophical questions, keep in mind that Wikipedia policy writing specifically does not try to cover all cases and be logically perfect. That would never work. See WP:IAR. Anyway, WP:V is not written in a way that it says that what editors think is true is enough, so that concern does not seem well founded.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice. Instead of discussing here how this could be solved, you just quote WP:V for the totality of that page, ignoring the impossibility of fulfilling your request without violating the sentence following your selective quote. Rather WP:POINTy. Please explain how this could have been "easily avoided" without violating copyright policy? Fram (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Andrew Lancaster is correct, that it should be as best possible that "something can be verified by a reasonable amount of reasonably normal people", and that the fuzziness of "reader" and specificity of not just "editor" in the opening line is good. What is needed is to suggest this ideal as a target goal, though not mandated, and broadened from an ability of an editor to request a translation, to a suggestion that it is always better to provide it, though this is not mandated.
 * Fram, if you read my last comment in the more specifics focused super-section above, I agree with you that citing the authority of WP:V is bad argument style. It is good style to point to why the current wording of WP:V is good, and this is because the target of verifiability is readers, not just editors.
 * The way copyright his handled is the same way it is currently handled, i.e., with difficulty; there is already a requirement in WP:V that quotation and translation be provided if requested by an editor, so no copyright problem is being added at all. I am merely proposing that the WP:V policy suggest, not mandate, providing this even if not requested by an editor, so as to increase verifiability for all readers, not just editors.
 * The WP:V policy should also point out the tension between expanding and perfecting alluded to by Kmhkmh in the supersection above. PPdd (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, WP:V currently has a rule which is impossible to follow because of copyright policy, and you suggest expanding that rule. How is that in any way useful? First, indicate how the current rule can be applied to e.g. Willy Vandersteen, where you have explicitly asked for such quote+translation. If a solution is found for this, then perhaps an expansion of that rule can be considered. But to take something that doesn't work now, and change it without in any way solving that problem, is not useful. Fram (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed the posting at talk:Willy Vandersteen and really, really hope it's not a WP:POINTy effort as that's in very poor taste and will not be appreciated by the community. Clarification should be sought when it can be reasonably expected there is an error or a nuance missing, not to further an argument on a policy page.  Not cool, and also not helpful - is this really a request for essentially an entire book to be typed up on the talk page?  Is there a reason to suspect Fram's summary of the book?  If so, which summary?  There are 67 references in the article, most are not English.
 * Genuine issues like this can be handled with common sense. Attempting to impose an unduly proscriptive and burdensome requirement on the minority foreign language sources used on wikipedia is a terrible idea.  That's in addition to consensus being pretty clear that this suggestion is unlikely to be implemented.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for Noting that the request was pointy. It was only intended to make the example discussable here, as I could not check the sources to respond to it being cited as an example. I am striking the request. I will discuss the point on the editor's personal page, not here. Its likely we will ultimately find common ground, once the semantics are clarified, and I will bring any common ground back here. PPdd (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Many articles are hard or impossible to source without foreign language sources, yet these sources usually are copyrighted works and as such cannot be reproduced or translated on Wiki pages, so if someone wants to verify the article's information, they have to either be able to understand the language or find someone who does. That may seem like an unacceptably high hurdle, but really it's not much different from allowing (even preferring) scholarly sources and books that aren't widely available. The average reader probably doesn't speak Chinese, Dutch or Russian, but they also aren't very likely to have a subscription to Critical Reviews in Toxicology. We don't (and can't) provide copyrighted English language sources so readers can check for accuracy, and we shouldn't need to do so for foreign language sources. As others already pointed out that ideally, everything should be verifiable by everyone, but practially it can't, be it because of a language barrier or because background knowledge is needed, so it's actually mostly editors who will want/need to verify content. In order to do so, Wikipedia already offers lots of help via WikiProjects, WP:Translation and the possibility to tag sources with verification needed. I don't think we need more than that, but perhaps those possibilities should be mentioned in the section about foreign language sources so less experienced editors get to know them. --Six words (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC) P.S.: PPdd, please stop changing the RFC text. This thread has already grown quite long and people who want to comment shouldn't need to go to previous versions to understand what earlier answers are referring to.
 * OK, sorry. PPdd (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fram about, well, everything, but particularly the tension between what WP:V currently says and copyright policy. By the way, wouldn't it be nice if we were allowed to, yanno, mention copyright in the text of WP:V without being reverted?— S Marshall  T/C 18:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I created a supplemental essay WP:Verifiability standards, in which I attempted to incorporate comments of editors above. Feel free to add to it or to modify it. PPdd (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I rather think that essay belongs in userspace, for the moment.— S Marshall T/C 19:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, as i Understand essays are reserved for opinions shared by a larger number of editors not single individual opinions (see WP:ESSAYS)--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * “Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established.” In this case, there is more than one editor’s opinion, since I incorporated Kmhkmh’s comments as the nutshell, and as the core of the essay - “Being more (better easier) verifiable is generally good, but as far as mandating it is concerned, there needs to be some balance with a separate goal of WP, that is making contributions easy”. I also used Kmhkmh’s “WP should of course strive for having articles verifiable by large number of readers and keeping it reasonable simple”, and “Since adding such translations may provide some convenience to other editors/readers for an intermediate verification step, but does not allow an actual real verification (which has to be against the sources), I consider it an unreasonable burden (if mandated).” I also used comments of others from here on “proscription” (“mandated”) vs. suggestion, from Fram, Marshall, and others regarding watching out for copyright violations, as well as comments from other talk pages on this topic. All of these good comments by editors here and on talk pages should be available for others to benefit from, especially newer editors. PPdd (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, sometimes an essay is the advice of a single editor. However, if the essay isn't found to represent the views of at least a substantial fraction of editors, then it is either deleted at WP:MFD or WP:MOVEd to the editor's userspace.  Nobody has a right to put an essay in the Wikipedia namespace over the community's objections.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

close this RfC and reopen it with different wording
I'd like to suggest that we close this RfC and reopen it using different wording, along the lines I have suggested elsewhere. that would be something like the following:

The wording needs some work, but I think it captures the ever-recurring disputes over V that we see. -- Ludwigs 2 20:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WAID's statement of the discussion is much more accurate, and was added to the top. It has to do with (1) the limits of what is reasonably "practical" for verifiability vs. just "theoretical" verifiabllity, (2) who does the verifiing (just editors or any reader), (3) what is mandated vs. what is just suggested to be helpful, (5) making it convenient vs. more burdonsome for editors expanding content, and (6) verifiablity of foreign language sources. This has nothing to do with what you say as "this is primarily an issue about fringe and minority perspectives" as far as I can see, but maybe you have a 7th point to make that I am missing? PPdd (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It would help just to ask one clear question in the RfC so that people know what they're responding to. I still don't understand, even with this modified version, what is being asked exactly. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, I responded on your talk page here. PPdd (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c) well, honestly, I'm none to sure what PPdd was after (though I was trying to work with it). it seems to me that the one consistent dispute that manifests in so many different ways over this policy is this: do we verify things in sources so that we know they are right, or do we verify things in sources so that we know they are accurate?  the difference doesn't matter much on most pages, but on any contentious page the contentiousness will very often rise from this.  you'll get:
 * someone quoting a source accurately, while someone else objects that the source is not 'reliable' (meaning that it can't be trusted to be right).
 * someone quoting a source literally, while someone else objects that it's an inaccurate use of the quote that means something the author never intended.
 * arguments over uses of common knowledge and common sense logic because such things are rarely sourced.
 * Honestly, the real problem is that when editors start to get pissy, they turn to wp:V as their catch-all nose-tweak. one can pretty much use V to object to anything with a little creative interpretation of the policy, and it forces other editors either to cite-bomb the article (i.e., add seven cites for ever line, so that the references are 5 times longer than the article for no good reason), or to waste time with extensive (and never-accepted) arguments about why their source does satisfy V.  However, since we're not going to solve the problem of pissy editors in the near future, we should at least establish a consistent interpretation of V so that it cuts down on the policy-mongering.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Some precision of language would help, both in the RfC; in the policy; and in responses. Otherwise no one can work out what's being said, so inevitably the discussions lead nowhere. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Should WP:V say that non-English text and translation should be provided in a footnote?
When a non-English source is cited, should the relevant text and its translation be added to the footnote to aid future verification—so long as the portion of the text being quoted is not so long that it would violate copyright? SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments
(no threaded replies here, please) (no threaded replies here, please)
 * Support. The policy said until recently that editors must do this only when quoting a non-English source. But the issue of offline, non-English sources being cited is an increasing problem, particularly in BLPs, where most of our readers (and verifiers) are native English speakers. It's therefore reasonable to ask editors to supply the original words they are relying on, and a translation of those words, so long as this is a brief extract from the source, and not something that would violate copyright. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - per other editors' comments, subject to avoiding copyright violation (covered in another policy), and if it is reasonably possible (can't copy a whole book summed in a single sentence cited) which is covered by common sense, and perhaps as a suggestion not a mandate which is also covered in other policies. PPdd (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Add - (1) Verifiability is a matter of degree and is relative. There will always be counterexamples whereby it is not achieved, or has higher standards for one group but not others. But policies can still be improved to increase it in some but not all cases. PPdd (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Add - (2) This proposal can be either to mandate translations, or merely to suggest them as being helpful for general readers. PPdd (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Add - (3) There is a Systemic bias problem that this English language encyclopedia is already overly-weighted toward content based only on English language sources. Making inclusion of content based on non-English language source even more difficult by a mandate (c.f. a helpful suggestion) may worsen the problem. PPdd (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Add - (4) On the other hand, this policy already says editors can request copy and translation for footnotes or talk pages. This proposal would help general readers who are not editors, and who may be completely ignorant of the inner workings of WP. As a policy mandate, this proposal will increase the credibility of WP with general readers and will help them to verify. PPdd (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - Providing a brief snip of translation is needed.  Not just for WP:V reasons, but also to aid in detecting WP:NOR violations.  A translation will allow more readers to check to see if the source is being interpreted correctly. Blueboar (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but PPdd raises a valid point that it may not be possible to suitably quote the source in a concise manner, regardless of the language it's in. This could make it difficult to mandate a set rule and would seem more inclined towards an optional guideline. See my comment in the discussion section below. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Opposed This would impose a higher burden of proof on non-English sources vs. English sources. The equivalent is to require that whenever an "English source is cited, the relevant text should added to the footnote". Unless we change policy to do that, this proposal imposes a double standard, and will further exacerbate the systemic bias that already exists on Wikipedia. LK (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Opposed The proposal defines what I believe is understood as good practice, but if it becomes a policy I fear it is going to mean good edits being treated as bad edits, and assuming bad faith. That won't make bad editors go away, but it will make good ones go away, and specifically this proposal is biased against non English language sources and editors who can use them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose As someone else (Kmhkmh?) already said above, real verification is only possible with the original source (or a translated copy) anyway - there's no reason to expect a bad faith editor won't falsify or selectively quote a source so it appears to support them (and that's not even a problem specific to foreign language sources). --Six words (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've seen a medical FL of mine translated into Polish. Timeline of tuberous sclerosis -> Historia odkrycia i badań nad stwardnieniem guzowatym. I can't read Polish at all. But the article looks to be much the same and they used the same references as I did. Imagine if they had to supply a copy of the relevant text for all 77 of those English references. And knowing which bit to translate/quote isn't always straightforward. In another article I've worked on, ketogenic diet, I cite some papers 20 times. If that article was translated into Polish and had to follow this rule in the Polish Wikipedia, each one of those 20 citations would need to be split up so I could quote the sentences that affected each usage. And after I'd quoted those 20 paragraph portions, I probably would be breaking copyright. And my article would be twice as long. A source being in a foreign language is a hurdle to easy verification. But so is citing a source that requires an expensive subscription or an extortionate one-off payment (like $20 for a few sheets of paper) to read. Colin°Talk 09:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I see no reason to single out foreign language sources, when the difficulty of obtaining the source and a translation may be no worse than paywall sources or rare books. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This would require pointlessly duplicating text in both article and footnote space. Furthermore, this will often not be reasonably possible because a statement in the article may refer to an entire paragraph in the source. Besides, the same argument may be applied to paywall sources where you may demand that the "relevant text" be quoted along with the reference. Nageh (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, exactly per Jc3s5h.— S Marshall T/C 10:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggestion. Revise the sentence to say: "When a non-English source is cited in any place where it is challenged or likely to be challenged, then provided that the portion of the text being cited is not so long that it would violate copyright, please consider adding the relevant text and its translation to a footnote to aid future verification."  Then add it to a guideline, not a policy.— S Marshall  T/C 00:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose as a rule that's to be imposed on people on every occasion (since for routine facts it's just going to be a waste of time and space), but support as a recommended good practice especially for potentially controversial statements. So some kind of in-between wording would be appropriate.--Kotniski (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with what all the other opposers have said. Verifiability does not require that all sources must be verifiable by each and every reader or editior - all it requires is that somebody (who does understand the source language) can verify it. This proposal also violates WP:AGF by implying that all translators are liars until proven otherwise. Roger (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Add Adequate mechanisms for handling good faith doubts about foreign language source material already exist. The language reference desk is available to request translations and the article's talk page can be used to request someone with access to a particular source to check the doubtful material. Roger (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose any rule requiring this, although in some cases it may be appropriate, and the policy should be worded to reflect this. As others have noted, it's completely impractical to expect editors to quote and translate cited foreign language sources routinely. In the case of translated direct quotations within the article, editors should be encouraged to provide the orginal text either in the article body or as a footnote: translations/ original language versions of translated quotes are less useful in talk pages, which the reader won't normally see, especially if archived.Contains Mild Peril (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Heavy and unnecessary burden on contributors. Furthermore, as pointed out above, foreign language sources are only one case of a larger issue of verifying hard-to-get sources in general. Don't see why they should be singled out. Acer (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This idea strikes me as nice in theory, but probably not pragmatic in practice. Most of the reason's I think this is a dubious proposal have already been stated. I'll simply say that I agree with the "single out foreign language sources" & "Heavy and unnecessary burden on contributors" & "higher burden of proof on non-English" comments above.  Additionally, when foreign language sources are available on the web (i.e. when those sources are readily available), technology is such that interested readers/editors can probably be expected to use Google Translate or Babel Fish to confirm verifiability.  Requiring translations of readily available foreign language sources would do more to clutter WP, than to aid WP:V. NickCT (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This is English-language Wikipedia; it needs to be accessible to English speakers. Beyond that, it just makes much more sense to translate something once, up front, than to expect everyone who reads one of our articles, and who wants to verify its sources, to first find the source, and then find a way to translate it. I've seen comments below that say this requirement would put too much of a burden on contributors; it's my opinion that it's much more efficient to put "the burden" there, once, than to put it on every single one of our readers who's interested in verifying a source. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, absolutely. Often, in a sea of non-English, if the reader doesn't speak very fluently or doesn't know the exact keywords to search for in the source, it can be very hard to locate the non-English text being referenced.  As long as it is short enough not to violate copyright, the snippet should be added to the footnote as good practice, and always when requested.  It aids our readers in easily checking that the translation is correct, and our editors in verifying that text was added correctly and without close paraphrasing.  If the text is too long and violates copyvio, it should be placed on talk if requested.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This seems to me to impose an additional burden on areas of content which are already under-referenced due to lack of English sources. Additionally, why would this be limited only to foreign-language sources? You can make the same exact arguments for subscription sources, or for sources only available in print. That something is verifiable is not always the same as saying that something is convenient. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 22:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A translation of a WP editor does not allow a real verification (only checking against the real sources does), it just shifts the issue from the summary to the translations. If i have questionable editor whose summaries I distrust, then I usually wouldn't really trust his translations either. In other words this is an additional burden singling out languages without actually providing a real verification. In addition it creates potential copyright problems. Creating such an additional hassle for reliable and productive authors as well as for newcomers is imho a no-go. ´There is no need to create a largely ineffective rule to deal with a few problematic authors known for an improper foreign language citations or an invidual article where you might distrust a foreign language citation. Those can behandled on an individual bases with the current policies & guidelines. However the guideline may encourage such translations as a convenience service, but not mandate them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I have no problem with mentioning in NONENG, as an explicitly optional behavior, that editors are permitted to provide quotations in citations for any type of source (and indeed, doing so has short-circuited a number of disputes), but I do not want to increase the burden on non-monoglot editors.  We have enough of a systemic bias towards online English-only sources as it is.  Also, if you don't trust me to accurately represent the contents in the first place, why would you trust me to accurately quote the source?  If I'm capable of making up the "content", then I'm capable of making up the "quotation", too.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggestion It might be more pointful to include a link that will tell our monoglot editors how to get help with translations. Several of the Chinese-language sources that prompted this discussion included URLs, so "offline only" doesn't seem to be the problem.  Furthermore, I don't understand how dealing with an "offline-only Chinese-language source" would be materially different from an "offline-only English-language source" in terms of verification.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per Titoxd ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with this proposal is that it doesn't translate well to the lower end. WP:V is a policy that applies to all articles, not just FA, FL and GA. I'm uncomfortable with making it harder to counter systemic bias by requiring all non-english sources, even for stubs, to abide by this (although my view would be different if this were restricted to BLPs). I also agree with WhatamIdoing. To allow English books to go pp. 283–285, but require non-English books to give a full-blown summary of the three pages, being careful not to violate copyright, and ensuring that the summary backs up everything that the citation is citing, would be an unacceptable status quo IMO. —WFC— 11:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Having in the past trimmed the sails of many pop star articles where the references do not confirm the article statements (something like 1-in-3 references), I've been very frustrated by external links for Japanese and Korean pop stars, which I can see from Web layout are analogs of dubious Western sites, and highly likely to contain unbridled marketing. Placing the rhetoric in the Wiki article is liable to help marketing departments, as much as Wiki editors. I.e., they will be read by many readers, but acted rarely by only a few editors. In terms of example importance? This is high, because pop star articles are some of the most heavily read in all Wikipedia. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The benefits outweigh the detriments.  It puts the burden on the writer versus the reader and also given we lack peer review, have open editing, have a lot of promotion and copyvio and just poor quality on Wiki, think this is reasonable requirement that will cull and prevent some of that.  TCO (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose How many times is this going to get raised? Tijfo098 (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose in general For most cases, the reader who wishes to see the English version of the source can get a suitable rough idea, using Google translate, and other such programs. They work for most languages involved in Wikipedia referencing, They're better employed at the reader end, than to provide a translation directly to include in the articles, because they are rarely good enough without considerable editing. (They are very helpful as a basis for better translations for people who know the rudiments of a language in subjects they understand, and can even help a little with languages one foes not know if the material is suitably formulaic--but in general we shouldn't include them unedited as part of the encyclopedia  until they have reached much greater levels of sophistication. If the material is sensitive BLP, or challenged, then an accurate translation is necessary, and only an expert without NPOV can prepare one. The option to ask for this much remain availa le when we need it, but this is not the usual case.    DGG ( talk ) 10:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Duplication of content and needless complication, and a hell of a task for the good-faith writer. Dahn (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as any kind of policy or even guideline. This simply creates the meta-problem of verifying that the editor's translation is an accurate one. Likewise, the quotable material per fair use will often, especially in complex cases, lack sufficient context. Voceditenore (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I think it's often a good practice to follow, but I firmly disagree that it should be compulsory. Further, it doesn't really address the verifiability problem: if some POV-pushing editor chooses to add content plus a source which doesn't actually support that content, then the editor is also quite capable of satisfying this new requirement with a selective quote or distorted translation from the source. The same problem (and non-solution) would apply to any offline or subscription source - there's nothing special about foreign sources in this context. bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that offline, non-English sources are being cited is not a problem in itself - it's actually a good thing if we're beginning to use a wider range of sources. Wikipedia's sourcing suffers from a severe FUTON bias, plus a strong bias towards the anglosphere; if we can draw on other sources that will help us overcome systemic bias. There may be verifiability challenges to be overcome, but I think that the use of rich new sources is not a problem per se. bobrayner (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * This is a good idea in principle but seems difficult to enact in practice. Sources can be quite verbose in their language, and may divide supporting evidence across multiple sentences or paragraphs. As PPdd pointed out above, it's not feasible to quote large sections of the source wholesale, and if this were to be enacted as a rule (rather than a suggestion), I can see situations arising where editors are forced to quote excessive portions of the source simply because of the way the source has been worded. Are there any suggestions or thoughts on how to avoid this sort of issue? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The difficulty lies in people using, say, Portuguese-language sources that are not online, and then on top of that saying, "I'm sorry, the text is too complicated for me to summarize and translate." At some point we have to say that sources must be clear for readers of the English Wikipedia, and if something is so tricky that it can't be summarized and translated, should we be using it as a source, or is it better on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, where other editors and readers will be able to verify more easily? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 03:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, but what do you do in the case that something or someone is clearly notable, but the best sources are non-English? This also ties into the issue of coverage - a significant proportion of Wikipedia articles are on American/British topics, and there are very few well-sourced articles on African/Middle Eastern topics especially. Should we say that we would prefer that content, where present, be unsourced, or do we allow "tricky" sources, as you call them? As TS says, great idea in theory...but I can't see this practice being mandated effectively. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nikkimaria, "At some point we have to say that sources must be clear for readers of the English Wikipedia" is a recipe for reducing coverage for events that did not occur in, or people who did not live in, English-speaking countries. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there any opposition to weaker wording that “Subject to feasiblity and copyright, a brief copy with its translation in the footnotes is recommended to help general readers”, rather than the stronger “should translate in footnotes”? PPdd (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the current text already ask for this? If it is just a wording tweak, not a real policy change, then maybe you need to spell the wording out. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't see it in the current text for "citation", only for "quoting". 16:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Point is you are already saying it in the article what the source says. If you don't trust the writer being capable (or willing) of summarizing correctly then why should you trust his translation either? Clearly this is just moving around a problem which actually is none. Nageh (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) It is easier for an English language editor to make a mistake (in good faith) interpreting a foreign language source by making a translation error, which is an additional step in summarizing that does not occur using English language sources. (2) Nageh raises a fundamental question on interpretation of "AGF". Does AGF apply only to editors evaluating edits, or to all general readers using the encyclopedia? A purpose of verifiability is that general readers should be able to verify, and NOT have to AGF like editors do. PPdd (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * One may also argue that it is easier to misinterpret technical languages or other subject-specific jargon. Statements should be verifiable in principle: this is independent of (natural) language, technical language, and open or subscription-based access. And if you don't feel comfortable interpreting a foreign language you may always ask someone else for help – it's a community project. Of course, for readers the same is true: if you are not familiar with a technical language or don't have access to a subscription-based journal you'll either need to AGF or find other ways to verify the information. Nageh (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At some point we're essentially requiring original research in the application of translation--as any translator can tell you essential meaning can be lost or distorted if the person doesn't know what they're doing. If we follow this proposal to its conclusion, I don't see how it wouldn't be more prudent to ban non-English sources period. That's obviously not an option people want to consider. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Following this line of logic even creating surveys (that's what we do on Wikipedia) is "original research". Nageh (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, no one suggested "banning" anything. The proposal is to either say either (1) editors should provide a brief copy plus translation of the copy in the footnote, or (2) at least recommend that they do so. PPdd (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@OhioStandard: The problem is not when there are quality English language sources available, in which case I think everyone would give preference to these over foreign language sources. The problem arises when there is no equal source in terms of quality. Nageh (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nageh, if there is a problem and at least a partial solution (suggest, not mandate, a brief copy and translation in footnote), why not partially solve it? A suggestion puts no burden on anyone. (I think it should be stronger than a suggestion, but others appear to go for suggestion and not mandate). PPdd (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * SandyGeorgia, I think a lot of people down below saying "oppose" agree that this is an acceptable definition of a good practice, but should it become policy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? Where do you see these "lots of people" agreeing to SandyGeorgia's suggestion? Nageh (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Since I was asked for the rationale for my objection, here are three specific issues (in addition to what I said above): Oppose. Nageh (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you, as a reader, do not trust an article statement then you cannot trust the translation provided either. Arguing that it is needed to verify that the source material is interpreted or summarized correctly is ridiculous, IMO.
 * Statements may be summaries from several sentences, paragraphs, or even an entire (e.g., newspaper) articles. Are you supposed to provide the translation of an entire article? Paragraphs?
 * Assuming you provide a partial translation, how can you guarantee that the text is not interpreted out of context? By providing more translation again? How much more?
 * I agree. While motivation for translations is somewhat understandable and they might be encouraged as a convenience to readers, they nevertheless cannot provide a real verification but at best a partial one. For this and several other reasons stated above such a policy is poised to become a bureaucratic nonsense for the most part. Also I don't quite see why problems of FA reviewers with certain articles should result in general (and problematic) policy change for all. Frankly if a reviewer lacks the domain knowlege (that can include language) to review a particular article properly, then in doubt he/she should not review that article at all. If the FA process lacks a sufficient amount of editors with the required domain knowledge, they need to think of ways to attract more editors having that domain knowledge. And if for a particular article not enough reviewers are avaivable, then the article cannot be reviewed for the time being - period. FAs are only a tiny fraction WP and modifying a policy/guide for the convenience of some FA reviewers but creating a hassle and problems for the regular article work at large is not acceptable.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * [copying this to the Comments section] Suggestion. Revise the sentence to say: "When a non-English source is cited in any place where it is challenged or likely to be challenged, then provided that the portion of the text being cited is not so long that it would violate copyright, please consider adding the relevant text and its translation to a footnote to aid future verification."  Then add it to a guideline, not a policy.— S Marshall  T/C 00:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Marshall, that's already in this policy- "When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page." The challenging editor can move it from talk to footnote. The pupose of the proposal is to help verifiablity for readers, not just editors, who already have a right to demand copy and translation. PPdd (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it's already in this policy. It seems to me that the consensus here is that it shouldn't be, and if the outcome continues in the current vein, I propose to remove it and place it in a guideline.— S Marshall  T/C 09:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which guideline?--Kotniski (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably the relevant section of WP:CITE (which, incidentally, I'm just about to edit, because it seems that someone's decided to put the proposal we're currently rejecting into WP:CITE already).— S Marshall T/C 12:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, good idea. (Though about your edit to CITE, are you sure you're not confusing the cases of quoting and citing? The paragraph there speaks of quoting, whereas it seems to me (though I haven't been following the discussion in intricate detail) that what you wrote rather reflects the consensus as applicable to citing.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to whoever closes this: My edit to WP:CITE was reverted by SlimVirgin with the edit summary "Please discuss if you want to change it". If the consensus is that this wording doesn't belong on WP:V then it also doesn't belong on WP:CITE, so please would the closer of this discussion bring the wording on WP:CITE into accordance with WP:V, on the basis that the policy takes precedence over the guideline.— S Marshall  T/C 00:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again, and while again it would have been better had the revert come with an explanation, I have to agree with the revert - the relevant passage at CITE is only talking about quotation, not citation, and in this case I think we agree (not as a WP:V matter, but as a matter of general comprehensibility of our articles) that foreign-language text ought to come with a translation.--Kotniski (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Readers principally can do the same as editors here as editors, there no separate rights in this regard. Any reader can issue a request. There are some differences in right between editors and readers/IP editors such as editing semi-protected articles, creating new articles, forms of participation in internal matters, but those really matter to the question at hand. Generally speaking independent of the translation you can always question a source that appears suspicious to you.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Readers can theoretically do anything an editor does. But most readers have no idea about the inner workings of Wikipedia. We have to decide whether we want a goal that editors can improve Wikipedia by making it as verifiable as reasonably possible for readers ignorant of Wikipedia guidlines and policies, or to have verifiability a tool for the insiders' club of editors. Also, verifiability is always a matter of degree and relative to people and things. The verifiablity ideal is never fully achieved, only improved for some cases. PPdd (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't need to be aware of specific policy to ask a question post a request on an article's or a user's discussion page. Imho the discussion here tends to make a lot of things much more complicated than they actually are.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * General hint for translation help in WP and moreover how to get help/expert attention for suspicious sources is a good idea.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to know that there is a talk page in order to ask a quetion at one. Maybe I was dumber than most, but I did not know there was a talk page until after I started editing, and even then not until someone posted a message on it and I saw the dramatic message box at the top of the screen, and even then I would not know there was a mass of editors in virtual space who monitor the page for questions. Having brief-copy&transl as a policy suggestion would improve WP in that it will make it much more credible to dumb readers like myself. PPdd (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A tangential point
I'm concerned by this: "The difficulty lies in people using, say, Portuguese-language sources that are not online, and then on top of that saying, 'I'm sorry, the text is too complicated for me to summarize and translate.' At some point we have to say that sources must be clear for readers of the English Wikipedia, and if something is so tricky that it can't be summarized and translated, should we be using it as a source, or is it better on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, where other editors and readers will be able to verify more easily?" I would very strongly oppose any move to restrict the coverage of subjects based on foreign sources; it's totally incompatible with CSB. This is an encyclopædia, not a project to document only the anglosphere. The GNG only mentions foreign subjects to the extent that it welcomes foreign sources; WP:RS does not exclude or devalue foreign sources; WP:FIVE mentions neither nationality nor language, and rightly so. If efforts at verification fail - for instance, if another couple of lusophone editors try to verify the cite but cannot find the source, or find that the source says something different - then that should be actionable (just like dodgy use of online/anglophone sources), but at that stage the content doesn't really belong on the Portuguese wikipedia either. We have plenty of sources that are incomprehensible to lay readers despite being written in English; should cites in quantum physics articles include a footnote that translates mathematical physics into a form which is understandable to somebody who doesn't know a binomial from a banana? bobrayner (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I think translations in footnotes could be helpful, and I'd like to encourage their use for less-accessible sources, whether the barrier is one of language or location or jargon; but I think it would be unhelpful to make them compulsory. Some sources are just difficult. That's one of the challenges of writing an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Truth ?
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" is accurately stated, but misinterpreted in secondary sources (like the ever-misquoting press) as saying "The threshold in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", referring to both inclusion and deletion. WP:Commonsense, which is only an essay, not a policy, (or the scary IAR policy invocation) may use a truth threshold for deletion that is stronger than V policy, especially re BLP and MEDRS. PPdd (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am new to Wikipedia and a bit confused. Does verifiability mean that if someone can find a source for a truth-claim, then they can cite the source, and thus, the truth-claim becomes "true" for Wikipedia? For example, if I say, "all dogs are brown," and I have a source for that, is my truth-claim valid?  Also, what about historical sources.  If a primary-source historian writes something as true, can I cite that? For example, can I cite Herodotus as saying that the Babylonians were skillful fighters and put in the article? (I don't know if Herodotus made a similar truth-claim, but just for the sake of argument.)  The reason I am concerned with this is that anyone could cite anything as true, even though it may not be true. Any responses would be much appreciated.--Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent question - the other half of "verifiable" is "reliable". So yes, if it's both verifiable and reliable, you can cite it - even if it turns out to not be "true". However, "truth" and "reliable" correlate closely. If a source provides bad information, editors will quickly label it "unreliable" and... problem solved. We use V & RS as our gold standard to filter out cranks. It also filters out legitimate researches who want to publish their works here first, but since that's not really how academic research gets done, that's not much of a problem (except for a few genuine experts who've had their noses severely tweaked by high school editors following these rules). Rklawton (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Type and quality of material
The word "material" as it is used in the phrase in the lead "type and quality of material" seems to be used in a Humpty Dumpty way. Does it mean the external sources used to construct an article (which seems to me to be the usage that Location gives to it), or does it mean the written text that appears in an article (which seems to me to the usage that SV give to it)? -- PBS (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In reply SV wrote "It obviously means both, because the former determines the latter. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 13:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)" -- PBS (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Then the phrase is being used in a very unclear way and for clarity those two meanings need to be separated, as the content polices also cover content presentation which are not determined by sources. For example a neutral point of view. -- PBS (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm agnostic on whether this phrase gets fixed in the proposed revision, because I'm not aware of any evidence that "determine the type and quality of material" has actually caused any misunderstandings or confusion in practice. But if we do fix it, then I think the starting point has to be that WP:V is the only policy we have that sets out what editors are allowed to write.  WP:NOR and WP:NOT set out what editors aren't allowed to write—they don't "determine" anything.  The word for what they do is "restrict".  WP:NOT is the more problematic of the two, because actually it isn't a coherent policy at all.  It's merely a list of very disparate kinds of things that most editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to write in the article space.  WP:NOR is coherent but it serves to restrict rather than to determine. In any case, if revising this phrase is going to be a distraction from the copyright issue, then I think we should shelve it for the moment.  I think we should focus on the things that have actually created, or contributed to, problems for Wikipedia.— S Marshall  T/C 14:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is a separate issue from copyright in the lead of this policy. That is why I wanted to have it as a separate section, as the two issues were getting muddled up in the previous section about copyright in the lead. -- PBS (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. After some back and forth I have to say that SlimVirgin's position is reasonably clear now which is that "material" is intended to be vague and general and cover pretty much any meaning anyone might want to give it ("information, opinion, nonsense, right, wrong, good, bad, facts, ideas" 15:03, 15 March 2011). So we should move on to the next question of why we would want policy wording to be deliberately amorphous and unclear. The only reason I can think of is that this would then become an insider's loophole which can be used by experienced editors to wikilawyer and push around less experienced editors? Can anyone think of another reason?
 * 2. The only reason this "material" wording is being linked to the copyright question is because it came out during discussion of the copyright question that there is a to me surprising claim that the word "material", while it can mean "information, opinion, nonsense, right, wrong, good, bad, facts, ideas" etc, can apparently not be read to mean any exact wording, such as might be relevant in a discussion about plagiarism. Confusing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

By deliberately using a vague meaning for "type and quality of material" we imply the three policies tell us everything we need to know about what may be included and what may not be included. It might be worth mentioning that having passed the threshold of the three policies, the final test is whether the editors contributing to the article consider the inclusion of the material to be good writing. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment it only mentions two policies?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It mentions all three: V is one of the WP's core content policies, along with NOR and NPOV. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 18:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Back to the smaller / longer-discussed proposal
[continued from Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_44]

Ludwig2, again you do brilliant work, but I would like to still deal with the much smaller proposal of the discussions which, recapping, is:

replace the entire first (one sentence) paragraph with:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. No other consideration, such as assertions of truth, is a substitute for verifiability."

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * well, ok, but the problem with that particular line is that it doesn't make it clear what relation people should have to truth. I can see people following this kind of logic: "sure, assertions of truth are not a substitute for verifiability.  but assertions of truth are 'right' and so therefore have their own value  and place on project." We have to get something in here that dispels the idea that the project is aiming to express truth, but instead uses verifiability to ensure accuracy.  do you see what I mean?  -- Ludwigs 2  17:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with you 100%. (actually 1000%).   Right now this is only in the higher level Wikimedia statements, and wp:ver is merely a means to that end. WP:ver CAN semi-successfully be and is myopic of the bigger picture.  You are proposing to change / fix that 100% which is huge. What I'm promoting only fixes that 1%, that 1% went a long time in discussion here without dissent, and even then got reverted when I put it in.  Gotta start somewhere.  North8000 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As a thought: Accuracy on Wikipedia is objective and is determined per  sources, while truth is subjective. When using sources to illustrate truth one is actually creating OR because the editor and his opinions are manipulating the sources to an end "statement". I think one of the hardest things for a new editor is to understand that an encyclopedia is  not a research paper,  but is a compilation of information. Information by definition has to be found somewhere rather than newly created. Weight is an incredibly important aspect of Wikipedia since it helps determine the  the importance/significance of the sources. By determining their weight to the whole subject area  accuracy of the article is determined. As an aside editors quite often use weight when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't possibly because its a kind of second tier. Threshold for inclusion doesn't mean everything can be included just that the basic standard has been met then weight comes into play. Probably what is needed is a chart to set this down... a picture is worth a thousand words...yadyadyada..:o)


 * Actually the Policy as it is worded now does not define verifiability and its connection to what an encyclopedia is. It starts right in with verifiable as a descriptor of something else - sources.


 * Just brainstorming with this version. Not attached in anyway.(olive (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC))


 * Overall I think that yours is better.  But structurally I think we need to get in there that no other consideration is a substitute. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Making charts... you must be an academic - lol.  The difficulty with this is that saying "An assertion of truth, a subjective consideration" is likely to confuse vast ranges of people who don't see truth as subjective at all.  The whole 'truth' thing is such an ugly red herring...  how about replacing the last line with something like "Wikipedia editors should not write articles from the perspective of what they know to be true, no matter how well founded their knowledge is, but should restrict themselves to information that can be found by anyone."  -- Ludwigs 2  03:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. The word truth shouldn't be used because of its diverse relationship to multiple philosophical positions/theories/meanings... very red herring ish. Your wording is an improvement over mine... I'm not sure about "know to be true" another red herring, maybe "think to be true" would be better, and "found by anyone" reads well, but does't take into account sources that are only available to some editors. Maybe that's not a concern.(olive (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC))


 * I like the first sentence  as-is  &mdash; with the bolding for emphasis, and with the placement to stand alone as a first paragraph. Clarifications are best left for later. Wishy-washiness and weaseling should be left out.


 * Also, saying that editors should restrict themselves to information that is easily found would be to back off of longstanding policy. Ease of verifiability is a plus, evan a big plus, but is only a plus. I say this as an editor who lives on and is writing this from a small island having no libraries located in a country having few libraries; "verifiable" for me is restricted to what I have on my bookshelf or can access online. Having said that, I'll also say that ease of verifiability is not and should not be a requirement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with your thoughts on "easily found", but I believe that is not an issue because I don't think that it is in any of the proposals. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * [WP:Editing policy] states, "...on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information—Wikipedia's reputation as a trusted encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable." RB  66.217.117.98 (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright policy in the lead (March 2011)
The section Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 45 has now been archived. The last posting to it was by Kotniski

for which there has been no reply so I am reinstating the wording "These policies, in conjunction with the copyright policy, jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles." -- PBS (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, well done!— S Marshall T/C 11:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Philip and S. Marshall, there have been objections to your proposal going back to December. Please don't keep ignoring them as soon as the discussions are archived. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I just had a look but I see a lot of circular discussion by people who claim to be concerned about whether discussions are being done properly, editing going too quick, the subject has come up before etc etc, which seems to happen a lot on policy talk pages. But those are not objections as such. Can someone say what the objections are? The only one I could see seemed to be saying that copyright is not a policy relating to "content" which seems obviously wrong? Is there another?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Philip's edit means the paragraph makes less sense (my bold):


 * "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies, in conjunction with the copyright policy, 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 the key points of all three."


 * The copyright policy doesn't determine, or have any bearing on, the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose not; but then nor do these three "core" policies, at least, not to any significantly greater extent than other policies and guidelines (most obviously WP:NOT for type and WP:MOS for quality). As I keep suggesting, can we not simply drop the peacock language and just say that the issues raised in this policy are closely related to those in NOR and NPOV (and recommend that editors also familiarize themselves with the copyright policy)? --Kotniski (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * NOR, V, and NPOV do indeed jointly determine the type and quality of material that's acceptable. That's why it's written as it is. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? SV just really said that "The copyright policy doesn't determine, or have any bearing on, the type and quality of material acceptable in articles", and Kotnisky agreed?  Do you two think copyright policy only applies to pages that aren't in the article space, or something? Copyright policy has a very direct and immediate bearing on the type and quality of material in articles, in that copypasta or close paraphrasing of a source are unacceptable.— S Marshall  T/C 16:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Copyright law (and to the extent it mirrors the law, the copyright policy) determines the survival of Wikipedia. Gross and repeated violations of the copyright law would ultimately lead to United States marshals marching into Wikipedia's server location in Florida and auctioning off all the assets of Wikimedia Foundation. I would say that determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles, in that you follow copyright law or there will be no articles at all. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I see a major distinction between WP:COPY and our three "content polices". WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, are all set by Wikipedians and can change if there is consensus to change them... but this is not true of our copyright policy. Copyright restrictions are set by US (and specifically Florida) laws.  We can not change them based on consensus.  Our policy is essentially "obey the law", but it is the laws themselves that affect what we can and can not include in articles, not the policy saying we have to follow that law. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Blueboar can you just confirm that when you say "our policy is essentially "obey the law"" you mean that this is a policy about what content "what we can and can not include in articles" right? Of course this policy might be different in the way that it came to be, but it seems to be similar to the other 3 in the sense that all 4 determine what we should include in articles? Or is there a difference in this respect also and not just the reason for the policy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I do see a difference... the policy is about obeying the law... the law is about what we can and can not include in articles. Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) And copyright issues don't determine the type or quality of material we have in articles. Whether our articles are high or low quality is unaffected by copyright law; we might illegally copy something excellent or something terrible. The type of material we deem acceptable isn't affected by copyright law either; again, we might illegally copy any type of material.


 * The copyright situation is simply that we must not copy material from other publications in a way that would violate the law in Florida. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The law and the verifiability policy work in conjunction. The law forbids contributory copyright infringement, which includes linking to sites that are known copyright infringers. If we can't link to it, we may not be able to cite it (unless we can create a citation to a non-infringing version). If we can't cite it, we can use neither the text nor the concepts, because even the concepts would be unsupported by a citation. Even if the concepts were unlikely to be challenged, it would still be plagiarism for an editor who didn't already know the concepts to use the infringing site and fail to include a citation. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that makes sense, Jc. If we want to cite something that's a copyright violation, we can simply cite the original directly instead. Links are not required in citations.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * SV, you are saying that it is WP policy that we can illegally copy any type or quality of material. But that is not actually true is it? Policy tells us that concerning content that illegal content is not acceptable. Is Blueboar wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, not sure what you mean, Andrew. I said if we want to cite something, and we see it has been copied from elsewhere illegally, we can cite the original source directly instead. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Let us say there is a web site which is generally regarded as accurate but prone to copyright infringement. The web site publishes a copy of an internal document of some organization which the organization has never published. We believe it is an accurate transcription, but it is a copyright infringement, so we can't site the infringing web site, and we can't cite any legitimately published version. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no need to construct scenarios here, actually. It's established fact that WP:V has been used to justify serial copyvios, including by very senior editors.  Can we please replace PBS' edit now, thank you.— S Marshall  T/C 18:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Jc, it would depend on the material and the website. If the website were not a reliable source, we wouldn't use their material for that reason, and we'd regard the document as still unpublished. But if the website were run by the New York Times, we'd use their publication as a source, no matter whether anyone thought the document they'd published was a copyright violation. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @SV my question to you was very short and clear even if I do say so myself. The first sentence is a paraphrase of what you said, and then I say that this is clearly wrong. So I can only imagine you misunderstand which post of yours I am paraphrasing. What you wrote, just above, was "copyright issues don't determine the type or quality of material we have in articles [...] we might illegally copy any type of material". My paraphrase stuck pretty close to that, and I am saying that clearly WP policy tells us to avoid putting in text in articles which are of a type, quality etc which might be illegal?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The copyright policy and copyright law say nothing about type and quality. Type and quality of material are unrelated to copyright, because any type and any quality of material might be a copyright violation. Or it might not. There is no connection. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If the New York Times published material that some Wikipedia editors though infringed copyrignt, I think we would use it despite the opinions of the Wikipedia editors not because the Verifiability policy trumps copyright law (which it doesn't) but rather because most of us would think the lawyers on the staff of the New York Times are more reliable judges of what is or isn't infringement than some anonymous Wikipedia editors. Thus the material would be allowed based on the Verifiability policy and the Copyright policy being used in conjunction. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree, Jc. We linked to newspaper articles that quoted the contents of stolen Climategate emails, for example. No lawyer had decided they weren't violations, but they were newsworthy so we linked to those articles, per V. Nothing to do with the copyright policy. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree, SlimVirgin. Courts have sometimes found that the first amendment freedom of the press and of speech override other laws if the political importance of the speech or writing is high enough; see Pentagon Papers. I believe the only justification for following the lead of a major newspaper and including material in an article that appears to violate the black letter of the law would be an expectation that a court would ultimately find it is a protected exercise of first-amendment rights, despite any law to the contrary. The fact that a major newspaper decided to take the risk would be evidence that the risk is not all that high. Any discussion of when fundamental human rights trump copyright would be discussed in the Copyright policy, not the Verifiability policy. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly, I agree with your last point. This policy is not the place to discuss copyright. This policy tells us to make sure we have a reliable source for our edits, and it explains that how this works depends on words in the NOR and NPOV policy too, and therefore the key issues in all three have to be learned. There's nothing in this policy that can only be understood if you read the copyright policy. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This policy requires citations, and naturally editors will normally include the URL if the source is on line; all the major style guides and WP:CITE recommend that. But this policy has no link of any kind to WP:Copyrights. Thus there is no hint of the prohibition of linking to sites known to infringe copyrights. Thus an editor cannot understand when sources must not be cited, and any material that would require a citation from that site must be excuded from any article. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This policy says nothing about linking, and in fact a great many sources will not be online. This policy deals only with the need to supply a reliable source in the form of an inline citation. How you write the citation, and whether you include a link, is an issue for guidelines such as CITE. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So SV would you support the removal from this policy of "Be mindful of copyright: do not copy text from copyrighted sources except when directly quoting the material, or paraphrase too closely; when paraphrasing or using direct quotes, in-text attribution is required." If not why not? -- PBS (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't keen on its inclusion, but at least it's not in the lead, and it's not being added to a sentence in a way that would make the sentence false. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seem to me better to have one simple phrase in the lead then to embed copyright concerns in the body of the policy, particularity when mention in the body of the article it does not address the complexities of of copyleft etc. -- PBS (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Before I reinstated the sentence the time before last I wrote:
 * 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)

It seem to me this is a good example of how the copyright policy directly effects content. I do not agree with SV's argument that "The copyright policy doesn't determine, or have any bearing on, the type and quality of material acceptable in articles", and while I am not wedded to the wording I reinstated and would consider alternatives, I do think it should be mentioned in the lead as it simplifies the need to mention copyright elsewhere in the policy. -- PBS (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to get rid of this whole stupid phrase about "determining the type and quality..." It doesn't mean anything, or to the extent that it does mean anything, it's not true of any particular policies more than any others (except for those that are purely about behaviour). The phrase tells the reader nothing, possibly misleads them, and causes plenty of unnecessary argument about what we're implying if we mention other policies in that paragraph. Does anyone see any reason for keeping this phrase in? If we want to explain what the "core content policies" are, we can do so accurately, as I attempted to do before (and as usual on these pages, was reverted with no explanation).--Kotniski (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And bizarrely (but no longer surprisingly to me), I'm now being reverted with no explanation at the ESSAY WP:Core content policies) by... guess who... who insists on this exact same indefensible phrase being included in unmodified form there. It's like fighting some kind of religion on these pages - no attempt at rational argument, just "this is true because it is so written".--Kotniski (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You've made it clear here and elsewhere that your aim is essentially to decimate the content policies. You want to remove key phrases, you want to move material from one to the other, you edit war incessantly, and you want to merge V, NOR, and NPOV into one policy.


 * If you want to do those things, you must set up a proposal page, and start working on your new text, then gain wikiwide consensus for it. You can't do it piecemeal by trying to remove bits here and there. It has been incredibly disruptive; you don't so much ignore consensus, as fail to consider it in the first place.


 * The content policies were written by and for content contributors, and are intended to help those contributors resolve content disputes. Most of them sensibly don't hang around this page, but they nevertheless expect the core content policies to say what they said last time they checked. Therefore, no substantive change—nothing that changes meaning—should be made to these policies without an RfC. And the greater the change, the more the RfC needs to be advertised, and the longer it needs to remain open. These things can't be decided by three or four people on this page, including people who barely edit articles. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * None of what we're discussing now changes the substance of the policy, it's just about explaining things better. I'll ignore the usual nonsensical personal attacks and try to get back to the issue - can you say why you think it's true to say that these three policies "determine the type and quality...", when there are plenty of other policies and guidelines that also determine the type and quality?--Kotniski (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You keep coming at it from different directions, but you made your aim plain. You want to keep reducing what the pages say, reducing their importance as content policies, denying that they determine this or that, denying even that they are core content policies: basically, anything that undermines them, including any poorly worded bad edit, you have supported. Insodoing you're undermining years of other people's work, and their experience of seeing the current wording resolve disputes, which is the point of them. They actually work extremely well in practice; they keep the project safe and a great deal more sensible than it would otherwise be.


 * If you want to change them, by all means draw up a proposal, but you'll have to convince people—and not just people on this page—that your text is better than the texts we have already. In other words, please build instead of destroying. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Are we to understand you have nothing to say in defence of your position? (Normally when people start attacking their opponents instead of their oppponents' arguments, that tends to be the case.) Can anyone else do any better at justifying the inclusiion of the sentence in question? (Incidentally, I'm not trying to undermine the importance of anything - I wouldn't be undergoing all this rank unpleasantness if I didn't think these pages were extremely important - but it's because they're so important that I think it matters that what they say be clear and accurate.) --Kotniski (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * They are already clear and accurate. The three policies jointly tell us what we can add to articles. They tell us the kind of material that works, and they give us some minimal standards regarding quality of sources, and hence material. They do that by themselves. Every other policy that governs content is to some extent parasitic, or secondary, or repetitive; or like copyright deals with separate issues such as legal ones. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, just one example (not necessarily the best): we don't do dictionary definitions. That's definitely a matter of "type of content", yet it has nothing to do with these three "core" policies. These three policies relate to type and quality of content in a very specific way (or limited sense) - the old hands know what the policies are about, so don't need to be told - but a newcomer, on reading "they determine the type and quality..." will be misled into thinking that everything about type and quality is covered by these three pages. On the other hand we can say quite easily and succinctly what these three policies are really about - so why don't we try?--Kotniski (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Articles should rely on secondary sources that highlight and interpret primary ones, per NOR, so that rules out having pages that consist only of dictionary definitions. If that's not the best example you can think of, what is? You may as well give it your best shot. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * SV, as I understand it your argument comes down to an extremely esoteric and non-obvious distinction whereby "type and quality" are adjectives which can never be described within the category of legal/illegal. I should point out I have no strong preference here, but I wanted to try to contribute to the discussion and I just can't follow your logic. Clearly we do not choose esoteric and non-obvious categorizations when we write policy pages?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying, then, that wiktionary is original research?--Kotniski (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Why would you think I was saying that? Please come up with a better example than dictionary definitions. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you claim that dictionary definitions are forbidden by NOR, and you claim that the policies are clear (so presumably you think that the things forbidden by NOR are original research), so I don't see how you can not be claiming that what wiktionary does is original research. If I'm wrong, please explain. (Another example: MOS is about the "quality" of the material in articles - in a quite different sense - yet largely has nothing to do with the three core policies.)--Kotniski (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Per V, NOR, and NPOV (the core content policies), Wikipedia articles should reflect the majority- and significant-minority perspectives of a topic that have been published in reliable secondary sources. That wouldn't cover dictionary definitions. Do you have another example? SlimVirgin II (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Aren't dictionaries reliable secondary sources? For another example, see my previous post.--Kotniski (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to suspect SlimVirgin's unpersuadable on this issue. Who else objects to PBS' edit?— S Marshall T/C 21:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose I do, for the same reason as Slim, though I think it's retrievable by changing the wording - it doesn't have to be reverted completely.--Kotniski (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you mind posting your preferred wording, please?— S Marshall T/C 22:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything simple that just tells people what other pages they might like to bear in mind when reading this policy, without peacock language suggesting that particular policies are all-encompassing and matter much more than any others.--Kotniski (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So, for example:

Is this the kind of thing you had in mind?— S Marshall T/C 23:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I like this most recent proposal better... but it is not perfect. I would prefer the last line to read something like:  "Other factors can affect article content, for example US Copyright laws (see: WP:COPY)" Blueboar (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Both look good to me, and an improvement. North8000 (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the core content policies affect the type and quality of content, and COPY affects the expression of content, I don't see how see how stating "Lots of things affect content" without elaboration on HOW they affect content is an improvement. Location (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm responding to the comment above asking if anyone objects to PBS's proposal: "These policies, in conjunction with the copyright policy, jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles." I've voiced my objection previously, but I'm happy to do it again. WP:COPY states: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves." Thus, WP:COPY affects the expression of content, but not the type and quality of content. The proposed wording is inaccurate. Other than that, I'm still waiting to see why further elaboration on WP:COPY is even warranted. Location (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are giving "type and quality of material" a specific meaning that is too narrow, as by implication of the content of NPOV,V,NOR,V, it is not [just] the external material that is being described but the content/material in the article. -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I also object, for much the same reasons. V, NOR and NPOV are the key policies that "jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles". Lots of other policies and guidelines have an impact on the content of articles, but these three are the key content policies. Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My proposed wording does not say that Copyright is a content policy it says "in conjunction with", anyway there are two new proposals to concatenate a sentence rather than interject the phrase so perhaps you would like to comment on those. -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But even if we accept the POV that these three are somehow "key" policies in some sense, it's misleading to say that they "determine" the type and quality of material[...] (see my arguments above). In fact, it's misleading to say that our policies "determine" anything at all (though if anything, I would be more incline to say it about COPY, because of the legal-ish status of that policy). What these three "core" policies do, principally, is to explain and elaborate on our core principles. But even if we were to accept the half-truth that our policies "determine" things, then these three manifestly don't determine everything about the type and quality of material[...], which is the implication I get from reading the words "they jointly determine..." --Kotniski (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kotniski what if the verb "determine" were changed then? Concerning the posts above, I do not see how the English language distinguishes "the expression of content" (exact words) from "type or quality of content"? "Content" in this discussion clearly means both exact wording (expression of content) and also the ideas or information being expressed. The type or quality of any content can clearly refer to the type or quality of a certain exact way of wording. (Are the following examples of absurd English? "This type of wording"; "The qualities of this authors way of expressing things.")--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the verb "determine" were changed, it would probably make the statement more acceptable. Though better still would be either to omit it (it's not helping anyone) or to replace it with a more precise statement of the principal purpose/scope of the three "core" policies.--Kotniski (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps the other thing that needs to be considered is to change the words type and quality to words like ideas and information? I say this because now 4 different contributors to this discussion have insisted that this is the intention of those words, although it is clearly not what they say unless Wikipedia is going to completely ignore how English is used in the outside world.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly the extremely vague terms "type" and "quality" are not helping here.--Kotniski (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Break
Various things to discuss here. Location's objection: When you say, "The proposed wording is inaccurate", it would be helpful if you could please suggest wording that you feel is satisfactory. Location's question: When you say, "I'm still waiting to see why further elaboration on WP:COPY is even warranted", there's detailed discussion that's taken place previously, but what it essentially boils down to is the very substantial evidence we've produced that WP:V has been used to excuse serial copyright violations from very senior editors. This hasn't just been in obscure corners of the encyclopaedia either: it has affected featured content linked from the main page. In order to address this problem, and tighten the wording, I want to edit WP:V to explain that:- 1) There is more to Wikipedia content policy than the "holy trinity" of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT; and 2) WP:V does not require, or excuse, close paraphrasing of a source. This discussion has raised a third objective to the new version, which is to replace the meaningless waffle of "determine the type and quality" with something specific and intelligible. I have no problem with this provided the first two objectives are achieved. Jayjg's objection: When you say, "...these three are the key content policies", do you understand how it's this specific phrase that's caused all the problems? "These three are the key content policies" is, in practice, taken to mean that "these three are the only policies that matter". The situation: There is a significant minority of editors who support the current wording, and no consensus among the other editors about how to replace it. This combined with a very vigorous and determined programme of reversion and demands for further discussion of the proposed edit has led to the present, highly unsatisfactory wording remaining in place for much, much too long. I suspect that there might be sufficient consensus here against the current version to stick a "disputed" tag on it.— S Marshall T/C 09:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Location's statement "thus, WP:COPY affects the expression of content, but not the type and quality of content" would be true in an environment where citation of sources was not required. But because WP:V does require citation of sources, we are limited to ideas and concepts for which we can find a reliable source that can be lawfully cited. The restrictions on contributory copyright infringement will occasionally create situations where we can't cite a source, and therefore cannot use the ideas or concepts in the source (unless a lawfully citeable source can be found.) Jc3s5h (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what you have in mind? Which sources is it not lawful to cite? (I can see maybe with images, copyright affects the quality - or even the type - of material, since we can't use the best-quality images if they'd be a copyvio. But with text?)--Kotniski (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me give you a scenario. There is a controversy about whether Leap seconds should be abolished, and some parts of the ITU Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R) have a reputation for not providing public access to documents in a timely fashion. Let us imagine Dr. A, a world-renowned expert with many publications in scholarly publications, has access to the unpublished, copyrighted, papers of the ITU-R. He openly defies the ITU-R and publishes a paper on his personal web site, and explicitly states he did so without permission. The only effective way for Wikipedia to identify the source is to give the URL. WP:COPY only says that we shouldn't "link" to sites that we know infringe copyright, I suppose you could argue that supplying the URL in a way that clicking on it wouldn't take you to the site would not count as "linking", but that seems to be a hyper-technical distinction that could easily change in the future. So if we are not allowed to give the URL of the site, then we can't cite it, and if we can't cite it, we can neither quote it nor use the information in it (unless the information is available from some other acceptable source). If the paper was the only source for the claim "ITU-R proposes to abolish leap seconds in 2022" we could not put that claim in the Leap second article, no matter how we paraphrased it. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is highly likely that any statement using such primary source documents as a source would either constitute OR, or would give UNDUE weight to Dr. A's viewpoint on the leap second debate. So the information would be problematic and excluded no matter what WP:COPY had to say about the link. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Dr. A's reputation would allow us to regard his transcription of the document as accurate, and the hypothetical ITU-R document would be a suitable source to back up claims in the article, except we have no lawfully published version to cite. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * SMarshall, I think the current wording it accurate and satisfactory. Can you provide a link to the "very substantial evidence we've produced that WP:V has been used to excuse serial copyright violations from very senior editors"? Perhaps I can be made aware of the need for a rewrite after seeing what you're talking about. Thanks! Location (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see examples of that too, please. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 14:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's in the previous linked discussions, but on looking at it again, I see that I've assumed that readers are familiar with Wikipedia's drama boards. Location, do you know who User:Rlevse is, and do you know why his name is now a redlink?  (I think I can safely assume that SlimVirgin knows).— S Marshall  T/C 14:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You wrote there was "very substantial evidence" that V has been used to excuse "serial copyright violations from very senior editors," but you've offered just one example -- and it's unfair to discuss that example in terms of using an "excuse," but even ignoring that you still need to produce the very substantial evidence of other examples. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 15:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The CCI covered 1,000 articles, here:- Page 1, page 2. It has been going on since November 2010 and is still open. The evidence that it affected featured articles linked from the main page is here (a discussion in which I see that User:SlimVirgin was heavily involved). AN/I had a whole subpage devoted to it, here. To dismiss this as "just one example" misses the point. It wasn't one example. It was literally hundreds of examples, it's been ongoing for five months, and it's created a stupendous amount of work. But Rlevse wasn't alone. Other users currently under investigation are listed here. Archives of previous investigations are here. You can also read a comment by arbitrator User:Risker on this page in which he says "Realistically, I think that we could probably find a copyvio in the history of a good 80% of FAs", but the single comment of Risker's that really set me off on this quixotic crusade is this one. For emphasis, I'll quote Risker's final paragraph in full:— Finally, we need to recognize that there is a very significant tension between "no original research" (or no publication of de novo information or interpretation) and the requirement of verifiability, and the expectation that editors "put things in their own words". Editors have been pilloried for closely following sources even for factual information, and for rewording that same information so that it reads differently than ("is a new interpretation of") the original source. The failure to find a middle ground here, where editors can be reasonably assured their work will not be attacked, or the motivation to edit will continue to diminish."—Risker (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC) All the above, I respectfully submit, constitutes "very substantial evidence" that users including very senior users have committed serial copyright violations that are directly attributable to this policy. This is why I want to insert a very brief mention of copyright in the lede of WP:V.— S Marshall  T/C 19:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You wrote "serial copyright violations from very senior editors". Apart from the one you named, who are the very senior editors? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that your only response was to quibble my use of the plural, can I take that to mean that you accept the rest of what I say?— S Marshall T/C 20:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a quibble, but a crucial distinction. If you have just one example it doesn't advance your case, so you exaggerated, and this is what's happening throughout this discussion, to the point where it's getting hard to see the point of it. Less is more when it comes to policy and policy talk. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And if I can point to other senior editors who've been responsible for serial copyright violations, will you agree to my proposed change?— S Marshall T/C 21:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the case of one senior editor is enough - we don't need evidence that something is a vast problem before making a change that won't in itself cause any problems. If one senior editor has been underrating the importance of copyright, think how many junior editors must have done the same (and will do so in the future) - mentioning copyright here might possibly help with this problem a bit, while not having any downsides, so I don't really see the big issue. As I say, if the objection is that we don't want to add any new words to this policy, then I can easily rephrase the whole paragraph so that the result is shorter, still mentions copyright, and doesn't lose any information (it's become clear that "jointly determine the type and quality of material..." communicates either nothing or a falsehood). --Kotniski (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, it's not just Rlevse.— S Marshall T/C 19:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Does all this apply to the other core policies too?
We're all discussing this in relation to WP:V, but similar phrasing (in an even more peacocky version, going on about how the policies "work in harmony") also appears in the same position in WP:NPOV and WP:NOR - presumably the changes being proposed here are also desired in the other two policies? If so, perhaps notes could be left on those talk pages?--Kotniski (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing at a time, Kotniski! Changing Wikipedia policy is like eating an elephant, you've got to break it up into bite-sized chunks.— S Marshall  T/C 09:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't say "changing policy", you'll give people heart attacks ;) We're just talking about a small presentational change to the wording of a policy page; and while we're at it it makes sense to do the same thing in three places rather than have the same discussion all over again twice.--Kotniski (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Two points: SV see how much more conversation there has been about this topic, with the placing of the section at the end of the talk page rather than placing it near the top? My second point is that copyright became an issued before Christmas, probably in part because it did not have enough presence on the content pages. Mentioning it in the lead of this gives it that presence without the need to go into details. The the limitations placed on us by US copyright law does directly effect the content of our pages. As was shown by my edit to the article Conisbrough Castle described above and it prescribes how we can present information when we are summarising sources, that seems to me to have a direct effect on "the type and quality of material text acceptable in articles". SV do you have any objections to the two proposed concatenations: -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Other policies, such as Copyright, also affect article content". (by SM)
 * "Other factors can affect article content, for example US Copyright laws (see: WP:COPY)" (BB)


 * The copyright policy isn't a content policy, it's one of the legal policies. So why not mention them all too? In fact, why not mention anything that affects content, which is practically every policy and guideline? Throughout all this, you've not once explained (that I have seen) why you're singling out the copyright policy. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 12:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you think being a legal policy is incompatible with being a content policy? It's surely both - it deals with legal issues as they relate to our content. --Kotniski (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (Incidentally this also applies to Template:Content policy list, where Slim has just tried to remove WP:Copyrights as one of the content policies - apparently against the consensus I can see here, where no-one's actually denying that it affects content.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't try to remove it. As you know, you just tried to add it, though it says at the top of its page that the copyright policy is one of the legal policies. This is really disruptive behavior, Kotniski, running around changing multiple pages so you can use their new contents in new arguments to change other pages. I'm going to stop responding to you soon, because it's not a legitimate way to edit or interact with people. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 12:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I added it, you removed it, whatever. I had no intention of using the new content in new arguments - I'm rather tired of these ridiculous unsupported personal attacks from you. I don't know why you call my behaviour disruptive, when you yourself edited that very same template a few weeks ago to promote this "core content policy" idea. You can edit whatever you want; when anyone else does anything you disagree with, that's "disruptive"? Why does it always have to be you that decides what's right, even when you can see that you're in the minority and your arguments are consistently shown not to make sense?--Kotniski (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not "whatever". You presented a fundamentally misleading description of the sequence of events. Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (2 x edit conflicts) It's just a structure that explains how the policies interact. Everything relates to content in one way or another; the difference between the legal and content policies is that the former are forced on us from the outside. If you want to edit policies, the best thing would be to become familiar with them first as a whole, and how they interact. Changes to one trigger the need to change others. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 12:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because a policy is "forced on us from the outside", I don't see how that stops it from relating to content. "Legal policy" and "content policy" are not mutually exclusive descriptions.--Kotniski (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See the separate legal policies list . We regard them as separate from the content policies, for a variety of reasons.


 * All your edits to policies for weeks now have been about trying to reinvent the wheel -- not reading sentences you're editing, not reading the policy as a whole, not reading how other policies interact with certain wording, not reading archives, not caring about the structures other people have created, not respecting objections. If you want to change things, that's fine. But you have to know that you're changing them, and not be a bull in a china shop. Please propose new texts, or new structures, and try to gain consensus via RfCs, and not only from the couple of people who happen to be hanging around this page at any given time.  SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 12:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your personal attacks are getting so nonsensical that I'm not going to respond to them - but you still haven't explained why you think a legal policy can't also be a content policy. "A variety of reasons" you say - let's hear at least one.--Kotniski (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We could call the legal policies behavioral policies too (don't libel people, don't steal their work). But we've decided to give those policies their own category, to ring-fence them, to signal that they're special, because they're imposed on us by the Foundation and the law in Florida. That's a decision other people made a long time ago. If you want to change it, you'll have to discuss it elsewhere. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 12:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't want to change any of that; but the point being made here is that membership of one class (e.g. legal policy) is no bar to membership of another class (e.g. content policy). --Kotniski (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * All the policies, and categories of policies, relate to one another. But there's no point in not observing the distinctions between them that others have created over several years, because they serve a purpose, and no purpose is served by ignoring them. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 13:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In terms of logic though, Kotniski is right, and that is just an observation from outside. If "type and quality" means "ideas and information" then the words are just badly chosen? I am not at all sure there is any real policy disagreement here, just a wording question being made very confusing by some rather confusing debating styles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Well, the practical upshot seems to be that (in your view) we aren't allowed to tell people about a policy that has a significant bearing on content, simply because it's been placed in a policy category other than "content policy". So it seems that in case, a valuable purpose would be served by ignoring the distinction, as it would allow us to inform the reader better about what other pages relate to this one.--Kotniski (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

SV you wrote "The copyright policy isn't a content policy, it's one of the legal policies. So why not mention them all too? In fact, why not mention anything that affects content, which is practically every policy and guideline? Throughout all this, you've not once explained (that I have seen) why you're singling out the copyright policy." -- PBS (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not claimed it is a "content policy" I have suggested that it affects content in conjunction with the content polices.
 * I do not think there is any need to mention guidelines. Which other policies directly affect content?
 * (See my postings of 07:59, 6 March 2011 and 20:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)) including one phrase/sentence in the lead with a link to the copyright policy, means that copyright does not have to be mentioned in the body of the policy. Copyright became an issue towards the end of last year, copyright violations are clearly a problem within Wikipedia (along with with libel they are potential show stoppers).


 * I'm glad you're not claiming COPYRIGHT is a content policy, but Kotniski is trying to. Non-free content and libel are other legal policies that directly affect content. A great deal of policies and guidelines affect content. But they don't determine the kind and quality of material we're allowed to add to articles; the three core content policies do that. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 16:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't get bogged down in this, folks, it's a red herring. Copyright is a core policy.  It affects content.  "The kind and quality of material" is vague waffle and I don't think that phrase will survive this discussion.  There are more than three policies that affect content and it's reasonable to mention others.— S Marshall  T/C 16:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @SV: I have not claimed it is a "core" content policy because the content policies have been defined to be a specific set of polices -- hence my use of the use of the words "conjunction with", but copyright does affect the content of articles. If not how do you explain my edit to 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. Now if you do not agree me that copyright had a direct affect on the content of that article, then please explain to me under which content policy I was justified in altering the content so that it was no longer/less of a copyright violation. -- PBS (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * But it would be easy to rewrite that article so that it was as good as the material you removed. That's just a question of writing skills, nothing to do with the policies. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 16:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is clearly a question of the "type and quality of material" which is allowed by policy, in this case what you refer to as a legal policy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't understand the question. Could you rephrase? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You mentioned that it would be easy to re-write that article in order to avoid breaching the copyright policy. Correct? I understand that for any normal use of the English language this could be expanded as saying it would be easy to change the type and quality of the material in that article in order to avoid breaching policy. So then policy is involved in this re-writing, which you said it would not be, and so is the "type and quality of material" which is what would be needing to be changed. If my interpretation is wrong, at least please explain why, because as I said this is just how the meanings of the words you used work in the English language. Re-writing means changing "material" and the specific re-writing under discussion in the example would be a re-writing in order to meet the requirements of "the policies" and so it would be wrong to say it has nothing to do with the policies?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, not change the type and quality of the material. I meant write it better. Use the same source, respect its copyright, and summarize clearly what it says using good writing skills. Not being forced to copy it because we don't know how to summarize.


 * I find this inability to understand basic English, and to express ideas clearly, of concern in people who want to write policy, to be frank. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 13:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strange accusation coming from someone who's trying to defend the inclusion in policy of a sentence which manifestly fails to express anything clearly (and indeed almost seems to have been designed for that purpose).--Kotniski (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * K, you know as well as I do that a great deal of the writing on this page is less than coherent. You may be using it as cover because it gets you support, but imagine if it were unleashed on the policy, all of it. Think on. :) SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 13:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh? I'm trying to work constructively on the process of developing some good wording. Certainly the current wording of the paragraph in the policy is not only less than coherent, it's blatantly misleading (yet no disasters have yet occurred because of it, so changing it to something else that's also slightly imperfect wouldn't be catastrophic either). It would be far more helpful if people like you, who can surely see the problems with the current wording, would accept that it needs to be changed somehow, and join in the discussion on how best to change it.--Kotniski (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm always happy to act as an on-tap writer if people explain what they need. But no one has explained what they want the sentence to say that it doesn't say already. Some of the writing here is so obtuse that I literally can't understand more than a few words of it.


 * This page and the NOR talk page have attracted people over the years who were thwarted from adding their opinions to an article, so they turned up on the talk page of the policy that thwarted them, and tried to change it to help them with their content disputes. When they're stopped from doing that, they continue to hang around opposing the person who stopped them, so if that person says black, they will say white, even if they're not sure what white means.


 * Perhaps the best approach is to let them make the edits they want, so that the policy goes to the dogs. Then other Wikipedians will step in, even if it takes them a few months to realize what's happening. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 14:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any such people taking part in the present discussion, so no need to worry on that score. As to what we need - as far as I'm concerned, just a brief and precise statement, clear and meaningful to someone who doesn't know already, as to what the combined scope of these three interrelated policies is. Not "determine the type and quality..." as we have at the moment, since "determine" is untrue, and "type and quality of material" could mean almost anything.--Kotniski (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * SV, you contrast "change the type and quality of the material" with re-writing. Re-writing means, for any normal English speaker, a kind of changing the type and quality of material, at least to the extent that the latter term means anything identifiable at all.
 * Second, you seem to say that the intention of how the policy page text should be read is "Use the same source, respect its copyright, and summarize clearly what it says using good writing skills." I think that is exactly how all the people you are saying you can not understand also understand the intention of text. Do you notice that the current text does not say that you should respect the copyright? (I guess you are going to say it is intended but does not need to be said because everyone just obviously knows it is between the lines?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * SV you wrote "But it would be easy to rewrite that article so that it was as good as the material you removed. That's just a question of writing skills, nothing to do with the policies" So if as you say the changes I made had nothing to do with the three content polices -- A point I had already made -- but the text was changed because of copyright, then the copyright policy had a direct effect on the content the that article, (and all other articles) because to paraphrase the NPOV policy "[Copyright] policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it". As such it is a key constituent policy of what is and is not allowed as the content of articles. Indeed we could add the sentence to the lead that says "The Copyright policy is non-negotiable and the content of all articles must comply with it." -- PBS (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Philip, I have literally no idea what you and Andrew are saying. I'm having difficulty even parsing the sentences. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 13:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There I've edited the comment above that starts "SV you wrote "But..." is it clear to you now? -- PBS (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's try this as a simple word choice problem
Does that at least make it more correct?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Better, but I still don't like "jointly determine" (for reasons given above).--Kotniski (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This definitely is a step in the right direction... the shift in wording is much more accurate. V, NOR and NPOV focus primarily on what information we may or may not include, while COPY focuses purely on how information is presented. Material (ie information) that is not verifiable, that constitutes original research, or gives UNDUE weight to a minority viewpoint can be removed.  But material (ie information) that violates copyright laws should not be removed, it should be re-written.   Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggestion:
 * ... These policies are informed by the core principles governing Wikipedia, and together are used to determine what material is acceptable for being used in articles. ...
 * --Lambiam 13:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, in this case it is the other way around... the statement of our core principles was written after we established WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV... so the statement of principals was informed by the policies. Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Still fundamentally misleading because it still implies that those three policies are the only important ones.— S Marshall T/C 14:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are the core content policies. Every other content policy and guideline has to be consistent with them. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 14:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is also a red herring. Every other content policy and guideline has to be consistent with the three policies you mention, but they also have to be consistent with copyright policy and BLP policy.  It's illogical to exclude all mention of all other policies than this "holy trinity" from the lede and it's led to real problems for the encyclopaedia.— S Marshall  T/C 16:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The proposed sentence isn't an improvement. The policies don't determine information. And it's not information, it's material; information implies it's correct. And acceptable for inclusion in articles means the same as acceptable in articles; the extra words have no function.

A small number of editors seem to want to make changes for the sake of it. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 14:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And an even smaller number want to block all change for the sake of it. Whatever we do, I think it's been clearly enough demonstrated that the current wording is wrong, for various reasons (policies don't "determine"; these three don't relate to "type" and "quality" in any readily understandable way; it's not only these three policies that address these matters).--Kotniski (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That has not been demonstrated. The sentence makes perfect sense; it's in the three content policies; and there's no reason to change it. Blueboar suggested adding COPYRIGHT in a separate sentence if it must be there, but for some reason that's not good enough for you. Or add a separate subsection for it. But there's absolutely no reason to try to force it into that sentence. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 14:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No-one said the sentence didn't make sense; but what it says is so misleading that it needs to be changed (reasons to change it have been presented here ad nauseam). And as for me, I'd be perfectly happy with copyright in a separate sentence.--Kotniski (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) You keep saying it's misleading, but you haven't explained why; you understand what it means, as does everyone else. And if you'd be happy with copyright in a separate sentence, why are you trying to force it into this one? SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 15:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * SV, the wording change you are commenting on no longer contains the copyright bit? I started this section simply now as a wording question, trying to make the wording say what others here are saying it is intended to mean. The wording right now is definitely unclear, and that is perhaps what leads to these questions coming up so often.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) I understand what it's supposed to mean, and I understand what it might mean to someone reading it who didn't know what it was supposed to mean, and the two don't coincide, which is the problem. (I and others have been explaining why for ages.) I don't know why you think I'm trying to force copyright into this sentence - I don't think this sentence should exist at all in its present form - whether copyright belongs in it or after it would depend on what form the equivalent sentence (if there has to be one) finally takes.--Kotniski (talk)


 * SlimVirgin, the distinctions you are making between categories are simply wrong. Now you are saying that the words "information" and "material" are mutually exclusive. They clearly are not, just as "type and quality" clearly are not mutually exclusive with the concept of an exact wording, and also "material" can refer to an exact wording (as opposed to the intentions of a wording, which it can ALSO refer to). I see no reason to insist on unclear or non-standard English? So if "information" is wrong because it implies truth, which is what you seem to be saying, then the other word which was mentioned above by the same author who first mentioned information, was "ideas". Is that better?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) "Material" covers all the words you're looking for—information, opinion, nonsense, right, wrong, good, bad, facts, ideas—which is why we use it. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 15:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And yet you and a few others say that the intention of this sentence is to exclude any term that would cover a choice of exact wording, because if it covers that, then what was the problem with mentioning the copyright policy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Andrew, I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. Could you rephrase the second sentence below?


 * "Now you are saying that the words "information" and "material" are mutually exclusive [note: I did not say that]. They clearly are not, just as "type and quality" clearly are not mutually exclusive with the concept of an exact wording, and also "material" can refer to an exact wording (as opposed to the intentions of a wording, which it can ALSO refer to)."


 * SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 15:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Above, you wrote "it's not information, it's material; information implies it's correct". Since then you've made this more clear by saying that "material" covers "information" and can include text which is true or false, while according to you the term "information" implies truth, which is an implication that should not be there. You also objected to any mention of the copyright policy specifically because this would imply that "the type and quality of material" refers to the exact wording being chosen, for example plagiarism. So in one sub-thread you have pointed to how vague and general the word material is, and in the other you seem to be arguing that it is very clear and particular. What I think non-stupid people are telling you, and what the text should really reflect is...
 * "type and quality of material" can definitely be read to include "exact wording of text" which would therefore mean that copyright policy implies in a strong and very important way.
 * "ideas or information" might be a way of describing the content in a way which avoids any implication that it could mena "the exact wording" and therefore make the non-mention of copyright policy less inexplicable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I was wondering what you mean by: " ... just as "type and quality" clearly are not mutually exclusive with the concept of an exact wording, and also "material" can refer to an exact wording (as opposed to the intentions of a wording, which it can ALSO refer to)."


 * That is, what is "the concept of an exact wording" and what is "the intentions of a wording"? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Exact wording" is a specific set of words. Exact wording is important for discussions of plagiarism and copyright, and in such discussions it is sometimes distinguished from the "ideas and information" intended to be communicated by those words. It is not clearly distinguished from the vague term "material", which can refer to both.
 * "The "concept of exact wording" is what people conceive in their mind, or communicate in a discussion, when they discuss or think about "exact wording" in general, for example if they are talking about plagiarism, or if they are talking about the difference between and exact set of words and "the spirit" of those words.
 * The intentions of a wording would refer to the spirit or intended meaning of any particular set of words, or as someone put it above, the ideas and information as opposed to an exact set of words. Sometimes for example you might hear someone say "I can see how you would misunderstand me that way, but I did not intend it that way; I intended another meaning than the words have been understood by you".
 * Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no. :) I think we should steer clear of new ways of expressing old ideas. The sentence in question is a very simple one. These three policies determine the type and quality of material we can add to articles. It couldn't be simpler. To try to argue against it using ideas like "the concept of exact wording" and the "intentions of wording" is adding complexity without function, words without a role. And there's no need, because I think every single person on Wikipedia understands the sentence in question. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For several posts in a row you have asked questions which feed back to posts a few steps earlier as if you did not understand posts you had already seemed to understand and answer, asking me to explain my words again. My explanations were attempts to explain the logical reasons various people are telling you that the current wording is simply not clear, and I replied in good faith, trying to use terms connected to the words you have been using and that other editors here have been using. Now you are referring to those explanations about explanations, requested by you, if it is those which are being proposed by me for inclusion in the policy page?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The way it seems to me "type and quality of material" is an extremely vague set of words, which by a very reasonable reading implies that the copyright rules should also be mentioned here. If on the other hand "type and quality of material" means, as someone has argued above, "ideas and information" and is intended to explicitly NOT mean exact wording, then this intended meaning might mean no mention of the copyright policy is needed, but this option requires the vague wording to be replaced with clear wording.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm generally OK with this suggestion in that the phrase "ideas and information" appears to be consistent with what is noted in WP:COPY (i.e. "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves."). I like the prescriptive wording here rather than the proscriptive wording in the suggestion below. Location (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record I think I also prefer the above proposal to the below one. It is simpler and avoids the copyright issue for both sides of the discussion. And the only concern raised so far is that the word information implies that the "material" is correct or true. Personally I do not see that it strongly implies this, and even if it did just have an indirect implication this seems no problem at all. Terms used throughout our policy pages imply the same thing ("quality", "accurate", "fact checking", "reliable", etc) but always indirectly and practically, not in a way which could cause problems in the sense explained at WP:TRUTH. The key term "verifiable" basically means that something can be confirmed as being known as true, or is in other words a kind of indirect but practical version of truth. (veritas, the key root of the word verify, just means truth.) So I find this one single concern a very odd and unconvincing one, and it was raised by someone who apparently does not like any proposals for improvement in principle.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Next try at treating this as a good faith wording selection discussion
The changes to the previous suggestion are based on various remarks by others in the section above. Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be progress, at least. "They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another" → "They should be read together", or any other alternative that (a) converts the negative phrasing to a positive one and (b) cuts the word-count.  Remove parentheses around reference to copyright.— S Marshall  T/C 00:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot see how any of those changes make the policy more clear in any way. It has already been pointed out, for example, that "material" is superior to "information and ideas" - that's just one example. And there's still no particular reason to include a description of one of the legal policies in the lede of a content policy. Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with Jayjg; I don't see why any of the proposed changes are better than the current wording. Mentioning copyright here in the lead seems unnecessary, and not particularly helpful. Mlm42 (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, Mlm42, You might be right (I don't know, because you do not explain your points) but as mentioned above the proposal is based on a reading of what everyone else has said about the current text and other proposals. I think you need to at least read what people are saying. I did not find any place where the superiority of the very vague term "material" has been explained, in comparison to ideas and information. OTOH there are a lot of explanations about why the term material is extremely vague and general, and indeed that seems to be its intention. The problem with it being vague and general, is that this logically implies that copyright should be mentioned. By my understanding all defenses of the current wording rely on the assumption that if people experienced at discussing policy pages understand the text's hidden meaning that is enough, and no improvements should be attempted, but I do not believe this is a widely accepted principle.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're not here to communicate something to people who already know it. If we're going to have a statement that is so vague that you need to know what it's going to say before you can understand it, it would be better to simply omit the statement. For me, it's not "material" that's the main problem (though that's vague too), it's the "type and quality". (And of course the "determine", which is clearly wrong, though I don't like "limit" either - we should be aiming for a short and reasonably brief description of what scope is covered by the subject matter of these three policies - "these policies concern..." or "these policies describe...") And this insistence that a policy classified as a "legal" cannot also be a content policy (or even be mentioned in the context of policies affecting content) seems to be irrational wikibureaucracy at its worst.--Kotniski (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Shall I explain why we need to mention copyright in the lede again? These remarks that "there's still no particular reason" to mention it makes me wonder whether I might need to write in a larger font.— S Marshall  T/C 11:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Folks, there is some pretty appalling writing being suggested here. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 13:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * SV, can you point out to folks, what you are calling appalling? This interjection is a little unclear, except that it is clearly negative about something.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

See below --PBS (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It obviously means both, because the former determines the latter. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 13:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To fill in the dots, you are referring to the discussion below where you have said that "type and quality of material" refers to both the "external sources used to construct an article" and "the written text that appears in an article". However this second option was rejected, I thought, by you and others above, when you argued that copyright policy is not relevant to "type and quality of material"??--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Um... I don't see any contradiction between saying that the term "material" can refer to both the "external sources used to construct an article" and "the written text that appears in an article", and saying that WP:COPY is not relevant to the "type and quality" of that material.
 * But perhaps this is because we all have different understandings of what is meant by the terms "type and quality" (as opposed to the term "material"). Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the point. The term can certainly be used to mean different things, and that is the source, it seems to me, of the circularity of this discussion (which was going in circles before I dared enter it and try to point to this fact). My point is that those claiming it can be interpreted in a way in which WP:COPY would be relevant, whereas the current text implies it is not, are logically and linguistically correct. I think there must be a way to respond to this problem more constructively than the answers so far.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The policies determine the type and quality of material that's acceptable in articles. This refers to the sources we use and to article content. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 15:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and round and round we go. Repeating things over and over is not likely to lead to improvements in wording. This approach means treating good faith and non-stupid concerns as if they are bad faith and stupid? It does not seem a good approach to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen anyone able to say why the sentence is unclear, or explain why their suggestions are improvements. You've posted around 95 times to this page in the last month, and I've had real difficulty understanding your points, even when I break them down into single phrases. Policies can't be written that way. They have to be succinct and clear, because they have to be understood by English and non-English speakers who are quickly scanning them. No one wants to have to study them. People need clarity to resolve disputes.


 * If I knew what you wanted, I'd be very willing to suggest some phrases or sentences, but I honestly can't see what you're getting at. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 16:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies for being hard to understand. But I think there is an obvious difference between the difficult job of explaining and re-explaining my explanations to you on this talk page, and the actual draft I wrote above? Or are you saying my draft above is hard to understand? That would be strange because it is a very slight tweak from something you claim to be very clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I should perhaps correct myself. There are in fact two drafts proposed by me above, not one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and I think I should add that I do not actually want anything concerning this matter. I entered a discussion which was on going. The logical problem being pointed out to you by other people seemed reasonable and seemed to me to be possible to fix by looking at word choice. I think others have understood me. I think you OTOH have misunderstood others and not just me. That's why I suggest hesitating before posting another repetitive response which just says everything is clear already. I think you need to make an effort to see what others were saying, and not just me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not hard to understand, but it's not an improvement; there's no explanation of why it might be; and the writing isn't good. "These policies together limit the information and ideas that are acceptable for articles." Limiting ideas and information? And why ideas and information? The latter implies it is true, for instance. So it lacks clarity and specificity, but also isn't broad enough to be inclusive. If you want to improve writing, you really do have to improve it, and I don't mean that in a dickish way; I just mean there's no point in endlessly fiddling if the result is not demonstrably better. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 16:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see much need to harp on this since we're in general agreement about the current state of the page, however, I'm not convinced that "information" implies that what is presented is true. There is good information and bad information and we typically use citations or references to show from where the information is coming. Location (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My point is only that information is a subclass of material, so it's better to use the more general term. The word "information" carries an implication of accuracy, though I know people talk about good and bad information, but it's colloquial. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * SV, this shows that you pretty much understand the point others are making, which is that if a general word is used, then it is implied that Copyright policy is also relevant. Not mentioning the policy when such wording is selected makes it seems like the policy page is deliberately telling people Copyright is NOT relevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not propose the term information and ideas. This term comes from someone who was trying to clarify what type and quality of material means. Type and quality of material is a problem for the simple reason that by very reasonable readings it should then also mention copyright policy (and, if you accept that reading, by not mentioning copyright policy we imply that this policy is not relevant where in fact it is). Anyway, I note that SV first complained I was making over radical proposals and now complains for the opposite. Strange.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

SV you wrote in the edit history "(pls don't tag policies, and it's not disputed just because three people want to use different words to say the same thing)" how did you come by a total of three? -- PBS (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Books which are self-published for legal reasons
Occasionally a book is self-published not because of any lack of merit, but rather because the threat of vexatious lawsuits scares off publishers. In other words a government or large corporation may use its resources to attempt to suppress an unwelcome point of view by threatening lawsuits which it knows it cannot win but which it knows the target cannot afford to fight. These cases aren't really covered by our policy on self-publishing. In fact people reading it might well decide that it states that such books are not valid sources. We need to make it clearer that such books may well be okay, particularly when there are confirmatory primary sources. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 16:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please could you give us an example of a book that's been self-published for legal reasons that would also count as a reliable source?— S Marshall T/C 16:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Derek, a self-published book can be used as a reference if the author is an acknowledged expert in the field previously published independently, though not in biographies of living persons. Or, if the article in question is about the author of the book, it can be used as a source subject to these limitations. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 16:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Billion Dollar Monopoly Swindle by Ralph Ansbach is self-published via Exlibris and describes Ansbach's research into the origins of the Monopoly Board game and the associated court case where-in Parker Brothers tried to stop him selling a Monopoly variant. It's important for Wikipedia as we use it as a source for our article on the history of the game. It's a straightforward account which can be verified against the primary sources and trial transcripts. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 21:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons we rely on independently published sources is that we assume they've gone through a process of fact-checking and checking for legal issues, by publishers who have libel insurance. Is there no one else who has picked up the material he published that you want to use? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of "want to use". This material has been in use for several years now. If we need to replace it, we could find that difficult. There may well be other sources which cover some of the material but they will likely be based on Ansbach's book since he did the research. He is the expert on this topic. And his research was verified by the US court system since it formed the basis of his defence against Parker Brothers. This material has been very strongly fact checked not only by Ansbach but by the lawyers employed against him who would have used any holes in it to defeat his case. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 21:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If he really is the expert on this issue, secondary sources will have picked up what he wrote, and they can be used as the sources. If they haven't done that, we really shouldn't use him for anything contentious. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And they have to some extent. But it is a very small and special interest field. There isn't much money to be made out of publishing "history of Monopoly" books, particularly when publishers are nervous, rightly or wrongly, about Hasbro's reaction to them. So, sure, we may be able to cover some of the material using secondary sources but for other parts our only alternative would be to link to online court transcripts which are really primary source material. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 21:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If I were writing this, I'd try to find secondary sources for everything, then make a list of the things I couldn't find elsewhere. It could be they're not contentious and would be in the primary source (the court document), and usable if non-contentious. Hard to judge without seeing examples. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A side question about plagiarism

 * A side question about the policy implications of this type of advice. This type of advice is common on WP. However, if you (1) find information, then (2) the source gets questioned, and so then (3) you successfully search for the same information in better sources, and then (4) deliberately and knowingly remove mention of the source where you originally found what you wanted to put in WP, is this not both clear plagiarism and also a breach of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. It's called research. :) SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 13:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Andrew if I read an review of a book in a newspaper such as "The battle of Berlin" by Antony Beevor, and then purchase the book and read it. I see no need to cite the original newspaper review when I cite Beevor for a detail from his book. Similarly if I read a general history, which cites another work and I read that work to check a fact, I do not see the need to cite the general history. The time when WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT comes into play is when I read one book that cites a second more detailed one, unless I read the second one then I should cite the book that I have read not the second one that I have not read, because I have verified the information through the first book but I have not verified the information is contained in the second source. That is the point being made by WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT it is not intended to be an audit-trail of how an editor came to a citation. -- PBS (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 13:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you are effectively arguing that when plagiarism is hard to spot, it should be ignored. Using a review article to get a good balanced reading list and bibliography is already something most definitions of plagiarism cover, even if it is not a serious breach. I think a lot of us believe that you should ideally even say where you got your reading list, even if it was from a review article, but I guess we'll never get perfectionism on such a relatively unimportant type of source usage. However putting such cases aside, some hard-to-spot plagiarism can be a lot more significantly against generally accepted norms than just using a bibliography without citing it. For example a good review article can give a lot of good ideas about exactly how to compare and contrast and structure your citations of more primary materials, and such good ideas should (by the normal standards) certainly be cited? I believe many of us make at least some effort to work in this way, anyway. But the problem comes on WP if the review article you got your ideas from was for example on a blog. The normal advice given on WP in such cases is not to bother trying to argue the case for mentioning a questionable source, but rather just to pretend you never read it. Am I wrong? In fact, I think we all know I am right and that this can be proven just by looking through talk pages like this one, where such behavior is frequently deliberately proposed. In my opinion, if WP is serious about copyright and avoiding deliberate plagiarism, then we will eventually need a new way of handling questionable sources (which can still come under their own copyright BTW!) which have been used in very uncontroversial ways, for example as inspiration on how to structure a comparison of primary sources (editing decisions which do not even need sourcing are by definition not controversial in terms of sourcing, but they can be editing decisions which come under copyright), and deliberately not mentioned. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What does this thread have to do with plagiarism? SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 15:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the relevance is explained above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Had it been explained, I wouldn't have asked. :) What's the connection between this thread and plagiarism? SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 15:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * First, I noted this as a side subject. If you are complaining about side subjects on principle, then just say so perhaps.
 * Second, what I noted was that the type of advice being given above in the original thread comes under the category of advising wikipedians that when they see something useful in a questioned source, and want to include something in WP which they would not otherwise have thought of, they should pretend they got no inspiration from that source, not mention it anywhere, but go to that source's sources and mention those as though you found them yourself and got all ideas from those.
 * ...and I said that is a form of plagiarism.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you misread it. It says nothing about pretending. It says to use the most reliable source available instead of self-published ones. Instead of "John Smith said" (sourced to Thoughts of John Smith by John Smith, published by johnsmith.com), we should look for secondary sources, and write "John Smith said" (sourced to The New York Times, which has read John Smith's work and decided it's worth mentioning). SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 17:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it advises to pretend. Read it again. Just because it does not use the word pretend does not mean it does not advise pretending. Look at how you and PBS reacted to a description by me which includes the words "deliberately and knowingly remove mention of the source where you originally found what you wanted to put in WP". You both said that such deliberately and knowingly removing mention of your real source is acceptable and "research", apparently not original research. That is pretending. Check the dictionary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what "it" refers to, so I don't know what I'm being asked to read. I'm getting the impression that you're arguing for the sake of it, Andrew. Someone came here to ask for help, and look what you turned the thread into. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * SV, "it" in my first sentence is obviously the same "it" as in your first sentence in the post I am replying to, i.e. "this thread". Are you trying to make it impossible for me to ask a question here? It does appear so. Please WP:OWN. You do not even have to attempt to answer questions on this page if you do not feel you understand them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Andrew, there's nothing wrong with seeing a reference in a source, then accessing and reading that reference and using it instead. It's not a violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, because you got the second source too. Removing the first source in favor of the second source is not "pretending", nor is it "plagiarism" in any sense of either word. I don't understand the argument you are making here. Jayjg (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, deliberately not saying where your original source of information is, is by definition pretending. What I said above is that I do accept that if your only inspiration from a review was a reading list, there is not much point arguing about plagiarism. I think that is your point and as a practical issue I agree. However that is clearly not the only type of inspiration which WP editors get from reviews. There are clearly also cases where WP editors get the idea for a way of presenting information from stronger sources in WP. An idea about how to present, how to edit, does come under plagiarism, or "information and ideas" if you prefer. OTOH, because this particular type of idea is an idea about editing as such, it should not come under WP:OR, but in practice WP editors are not making this distinction. There seems to be a working assumption that writers whose publications are not RS according to a couple of Wikipedians have no copyright, but this is not correct. Sources for editing ideas are often simply not cited on WP, but they are normally meant to be cited according to most norms of plagiarism.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Andrew, it is only pretending if you have never looked at source you cite. We all agree that if I go on line and find a website that notes the fact that "In his book, X says Y" (and stop there), I should cite that website when I discuss the fact that "X says Y" in an article... I should not cite X's book because I have not actually read it.  However, if I subsequently do some additional research (which is not the same as original research) and I track down and actually read X's book, I can then cite that book.  I am not pretending.  In fact, the book is a better source for this information than the website.  I am going to the original source itself and not relying on a pass through that might misquote what X says or take X's comment out of context. (a caveat to the however... for an interpretation or analysis of X's comment, I should not cite X's book, but look for a source that contains the interpretation or analysis, which might be the website). Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@Andrew: WP:SAYWHERYOUGOTIT says doesn't say you need to cite the reference where you've seen some information for the first time, but you can cite any reliable source (preferable the "best" one) that you read yourself and that conforms the content in question. So you can always replaces sources by better sozrces confirming the same content, provided you read them, i.e. personally checked that they indeed confirm the same content and are considered more reputable/reliable. As far as plagiarism goes, you are nowhere required to cite all sources from which you've could have taken some content bust just one of them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Kmhkmh and Blueboar if I understand correctly I agree with both of you and I think you misunderstand me about the way a review article can be a source of original editing ideas, quite separate from the subject being discussed itself. It is actually very hard to know how influenced you are by a good review article, but I have certainly seen cases where talk page discussions make it absolutely clear that material in Wikipedia was known to be inspired by a review, and then mention of the real source was removed deliberately and knowingly. One which Jayjg and I were involved in concerned a comment from a review which more or less said "the word African can mean different things in different contexts". This is of course a non-controversial sentence which we would not even need to source, if the wording had been invented by a Wikipedian writing for Wikipedia (i.e. not under independent copyright). However in this case the sentence was quite a useful but simple observation which resolved an old dispute about how to explain the most reliable sources on that topic itself (E1b1b). So as a compromise a comment was left in, which was very openly based on the original, but mention of the source was knowingly and deliberately removed, in order to stop back and forth edits due to Jayjg's personal concern about the review article involved (which was, along with many sources, once removed by Jayjg from Khazars, during a much discussed drama I was not involved in and not aware of until more recently). Please consider that example and let me know if that is not plagiarism? Do Wikipedia rules (or perhaps Wikipedia unwritten traditions) demand plagiarism in such cases? That was the claim as I understand it. I have never felt comfortable with that compromise, nor similar ones I see on RSN reasonably often, so when I saw similar advice come up here I dared bring it up. Let's see if SlimVirgin or Jayjg now try to cut off discussion here again. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, Blueboar and Kmhkmh are correct here. If someone suggested on a Talk: page that an editor should look in a certain source for specific information, and they do so, and then uses the information in an article, the citation simply lists the source of the information; it does not say "retrieved from source X based on a recommendation from editor Y". Similarly, if one finds a citation in a source used in an article, then finds and read that citation, and replaces the original citation with the new one, it is not "pretending" or "plagiarism" in any sense of the terms, nor is it in any way a violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As expected, a side-track from Jayjg (accompanied by bullying on my talkpage trying to stop me from posting here) which pretends to be an answer but is not. No Jayjg, that is clearly not the type of example I am describing above, but as I have already said in the post you are replying to, I agree with you about the type of example you discuss instead. I am talking about editor ideas coming from review articles, and which are not to be found in the reviewed articles, like for example Ellen Coffman-Levy's clarification, in a non-technical review article meant for genealogists, about how the word African can mean different things in different contexts in the academic/technical literature. Concerning technical information the author cites, I see no problem going to the sources. But the point taken from her article is not technical, just a very simple wording remark, but quite an important one if you look at the history of the article. And mention of her article as a source was deliberately and knowingly removed as if it was WP:REDFLAG material. I guess what I am thinking is that there needs to be a WP:WHITEFLAG concept in Wikipedia in order to avoid deliberate and obvious plagiarism in such cases. BTW, please stop trying to distort and interrupt me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, let me see if I understand Andrew's scenario and question:
 * An Editor adds material to an article and cites source A. The language in the article is based heavily on the language of source A (a possible plagiarism situation)
 * Later, someone (either that editor or another) reads another, better source (source B) that supports the information, and changes the citation without changing the (possibly plagiarized) language in the article..
 * The question is: Do we need mention source A in the citation?
 * If I have the scenario and question correct... then my answer is: No... we should choose the best source for any information, and if that is Source B we can cite that. However, we still do need to rewrite the language of the article so it is less directly taken from the language of source A (ie remove the plagiarism).
 * Please correct me if I misunderstand the situation. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Blueboar, but let me adjust your example. It needs to go a few steps further...
 * An Editor adds material to an article and cites source A, a review (secondary source), in a non technical publication, so not a good strong source for a technical subject.
 * The language added into Wikipedia is based heavily on the language of source A. (But this is not likely to be plagiarism because source is cited).
 * Later, someone (either that editor or another) reads another, better technical source (source B) that was in fact the source for source A, and replaces both wording and citation of source B with source A. This is where your example stops. I can accept that this is probably acceptable until here.
 * However, the editors of the article notice one day that one of the most difficult to word paragraphs in the Wikipedia article, a subject of frequent edit warring, vandalism etc, is explained very well by that secondary non-technical source A. Talk page discussions show source A is the source of a particular wording solution, a way of putting a tricky point, that makes a long edit war finish and everyone is happy. Source A is cited only for this one paragraph, basically as a source for an editing idea, not facts or figures or something we would call original research.
 * Another editor arrives who does not like the source A, maybe (or maybe not) because the Wikipedia article is about a specialist subject and the review was not in a technical journal, and demands mention of source A should be removed.
 * After some new back and forth, the paragraph is now deliberately changed in order to get a stable consensus: direct quote changed to a similar but tweaked wording, and the source, though discussed as the source on the talk page and obvious from the editing history, is deliberately no longer mentioned.
 * What do you think?
 * It seems to me Wikipedia's policy pages are written as if there is no fourth option apart from (a) poorly sourced original research which should be deleted and (b) strongly sourced original research which may be kept (c) editing decisions which are not original research and do not need to be sourced. The fourth option is however obvious: (d) editing decisions which are not original research, but which were also not made originally by Wikipedians writing on Wikipedia. The obvious way to handle case (d) is to cite the writer who was the source. This is the way such things are handled outside of Wikipedia. I think copyright and plagiarism norms tell us that editing decisions might not be original research as per Wikipedia norms, but they can be considered original work in terms of the rights of authors?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have difficulty imagining a substantial case of type (d) that is not plagiarism. If you substantially copy the organisation of a source, then it is plagiarism whether you cite the source or not. (Exceptions happen when the organisation of the source is obvious or when most sources agree to do it that way.) If you do cite, you are more likely to get caught. If you don't cite, you are less likely to get caught, but if you do get caught the consequences are potentially more severe since you can't plead to having misunderstood the concept of plagiarism. Hans Adler 16:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't understand what the options are. Original research is never allowed, so neither (a) nor (b) may be kept. And (c) and (d) I don't understand at all. The best way to avoid all these issues is to use in-text attribution. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * An example of (c) would be a couple of editors on a talk page saying "hey, why don't we write about the Brown et al review first, and Smith et al last, and somewhere in there we need to point out the authors are using the technical term Strumpfenhosen with differing definitions". Such editing decisions do not need a source. These are original ideas, but not original research as per WP norms.
 * An example of (d) would be two editors on a talk page saying "hey I saw a great blog about this where the blogger used the Brown et al review first, and Smith et al last, and somewhere in there the blogger made this great point that the authors are using the technical term Strumpfenhosen with differing definitions, why don't we do exactly the same thing?" And the other says, "great idea, but make sure you do not mention where our editing ideas came from, just name Brown and Smith, because WP rules say we can't cite blogs, and we want to do the right thing".
 * As your difficulty in following perhaps shows, while WP claims its plagiarism and copyright norms are based on norms from the outside world, the WP-specific world of concepts like "original research" have actually made many people confused, so that they think anything original for copyright is "original research". That would be simple, but it is not true verifiable .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Strumpfenhosen point would need a source, so it would be OR and couldn't be used anyway. If a good source could be found for the same point, there's no harm in using the better source. Issues arise only when you're doing historical research, and you want to use the first good source who made whatever the point is, to show provenance. But choosing to use a better source than a blog for the same issue wouldn't amount to plagiarism, at least not on our part.


 * This discussion would make more sense on the plagiarism page; there might be editors there more used to handling these complex examples. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's say instead of Strumpfenhosen, the word defined differently by the different authors is an everyday one, but just happening to be important for making sense of the two strong sources (Smith and Brown). For example the word "large". Obviously for the two definitions of the word large you should cite the two strong sources. But the editing idea of pointing out that you should read the two definitions of the word large comes from a blog.
 * Concerning your proposal to shuffle this question away, I want to point out that this type of problem is actually clear in plagiarism terms. It is plagiarism, but is caused by a way of reading WP:V and WP:RS, not because of how people read WP:Plagiarism. There has been repeated discussion about whether WP:V and WP:RS should not shuffle such questions away. If we shuffle such questions away WP can not say we are taking them seriously. It would look like we are leaving in loopholes on purpose.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If the idea of comparing definitions of the word is only in a blog, which can't be cited, it can't be included in Wikipedia, because it's OR i.e. unattributable: no reliable source exists for it. So there's no need to think of it in terms of plagiarism, because it wouldn't be allowed in anyway.


 * I don't understand your point about "caused by a way of reading WP:V and WP:RS". There are no loopholes that I'm aware of. Do you have a real example instead of these made-up ones? A real example would demonstrate whether there's a real problem. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Like you said then, you do not understand the point being made. You are confounding original research with original editing choices. They are not the same. We do not delete things like "the two sources use two definitions" because they are not sourced. This is because they are editing choices and not "original research". We can not source every word choice. The problem I am talking about is only concerning editing choices such as decisions about word choice or the order in which we handle subjects.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Then it's not a verifiability issue. It would be better to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism, though even there I'm not sure what they could say. People do research by reading; that's how we educate ourselves. For example, I've learned a lot about writing by reading Philip Roth, but it's not plagiarism not to mention his influence on me whenever I write something; indeed, it would be impertinent of me to mention him because it would assume I'd learned enough. People learn, people mimic, people absorb. Plagiarism is actual theft, and the line between education and theft is not as vague as you're making out. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with SV on this. I have a problem with the entire concept that we need to source where we got an idea on how to best phrase something.  Good research means we read lots of sources on our topics, and we will probably get ideas from several of them.  Getting an idea is not plagiarism.  It is only plagiarism if we express that idea using language that is overly similar to the language used in a source. Blueboar (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

plagiarism - random break
I think you have to understand that plagiarism is one of the things not defined by consensus on Wikipedia. It comes from outside in the real world. You can't just wave it away on the basis of Wikipedia consensus or tradition. The examples I described are plagiarism. Blueboar's comment that taking an idea and not citing it is NOT plagiarism can be easily compared to WP:Plagiarism to see the problem here. SV, I am obviously not talking about being vaguely inspired by Philip Roth's writing style. I am talking about deliberate and clear recorded decisions, even cases of pressuring editors who did not like what they were doing, to use a good phrasing or structuring idea, but deliberately not cite the acknowledged source, simply because the source was being questioned, which is important on WP. Saying that we all have to forget the outside world whenever someone says "source being questioned" is a debatable Wikipedia faction insiders thing, not essential. In fact there is nothing stopping WP taking the outside world seriously because sources simply do not have to be either original research or not needing to be sourced. There is nothing in policy saying that, nothing essential to Wikipedia's past success which requires this. This simplified logic is an irrational tradition and not a policy. The hieratic idea which has developed that anyone claiming to be questioning a source has reached a kind of sanctuary from logic and common sense was never in the spirit of WP rules anyway (WP:IAR). Post links wherever you like to this discussion, but I am still saying that the problem is not arising from misreadings of WP:Plagiarism, (does anyone read it?), but rather from quasi-priestly traditions which have developed about the supposedly true way of reading what is between the lines of the badly written parts of WP:V and WP:RS. My proposal is that we require some "whiteflag" way of citing questionable sources for original editing ideas, which are obviously not original research.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not really following what it is you want, specifically. Are you proposing a change to the policy? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * SV, a suggestion. If nearly every post you make on this talk page basically starts by saying you do not understand, and centres around emphasizing this fact, why do you feel the need to post so often and so quickly? I mean that was 5 seconds minutes. I do not think I myself could have read my own long post above in 5 seconds and thought of anything worth writing. Indeed you also failed. One wonders what the aim of such "contributions" are. Why don't you read it, see if you understand, comment constructively (and assuming good faith) if you do, or else leave posting for a little while if you do not understand clearly?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you should say whether there's a proposal. Someone posted here for advice about using a self-published source. Since then you've posted 13 times about plagiarism, a different topic, in a way that's quite hard to follow. It's not unreasonable to request some specificity. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, only you do not understand. No wonder. That was seconds minutes again. Bravo.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstand too. It seems to me that if you find a "non-reliable" source and check it's whole bibliography in detail, you have two ways to go. If you use those sub-sources directly to support your own writing, integrating with other sources, aren't they all just books you read? Eaxh source is judged on its own merits, that indeed is normal research; if you slavishly adhere to those particular sources, and most especially reproduce the method and/or conclusions of presentation of the relevant information from the first source, then I would call it plagiarism. Are you talking about a situation where you got all your information from one book/website's reading list? (from PLAG talk page) Franamax (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I am not sure I understand either. I don't mind discussing plagiarism issues, but it probably would help if some specific language was proposed. That is the purpose of this talk page after all. Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Franamax, Blueboar, there are examples discussed above, and there are some starting points for proposals mentioned above, although they are being swamped by the "I do not understand" posts. This post is therefore going to repeat material from above. Sorry.
 * Concerning examples, I have tried to give enough examples to show that I am not talking about being influenced by a biography, or a writing style. As discussed above, and example would two editors on a talk page saying:


 * Citing Brown and Smith for their definitions, and not the blog, is probably OK, but the editing idea of structuring those citations in a certain sequence, and making sure you mention Smith's and Brown's definitions of the word "large", should be cited as coming from the blog, if avoiding plagiarism were important, but would not normally be cited on WP right now. The reliability of the blog is not an issue because what is being sourced is a wording idea.
 * Concerning proposals, I was hoping for constructive feedback, but "talking to myself" and going a little further than what I wrote above...
 * We need some sort of reference to copyright and plagiarism on WP:V and WP:RS, because these priorities clearly effect how WP:V and WP:RS should be used. It seems pretty clear that the community needs to learn about more about it, and how these priorities sometimes conflict with the common interpretations of WP:V and WP:RS. That experienced editors struggle with this can be seen in the discussion above.
 * There needs to be more explanation on the policy pages about the difference between Wikipedia's native concept of "original research" and the outside world's concept of original writing. These overlap very imperfectly, whereas the working assumption on Wikipedia is that there is no such thing as any kind of original writing which is not original research, so no case not covered by (a) poorly sourced original research which should be deleted and (b) strongly sourced original research which may be kept (c) editing decisions which are not original research and do not need to be sourced. The missing fourth case (d) is the Smith and Brown example above, where ideas about article structure, and how to present a topic, which would not need a source if the ideas were developed by Wikipedians editing Wikipedia (i.e. they are not OR), are found outside Wikipedia, but the source gets questioned, and then mention of the real source gets deleted. The blog in the above example is not being used to source original research, but it will normally be treated as if it is right now.
 * I've said that in cases I see, the policy pages which are being used to justify plagiarism are mainly WP:V and WP:RS, and what we perhaps need is a WP:WHITEFLAG point (in parallel to WP:REDFLAG, in the "Other Issues" sub-section) within the topic of what to do with questioned sources.
 * I think that psychologically there is a problem to discuss this because there is a tradition amongst some on Wikipedia that questioning sources is always good, or should be treated as if they are. For this reason it seems, there is extreme difficulty maintaining any constructive discussion on the policy talkpages despite repeated concerns raised about the fact that WP:RS and WP:V should give more discussion about the different issues involved with questionable sources (i.e. not only the expert exemption, but more types of case).
 * Nearly everyone seems to have their own examples of questionable sources which they think are allowed under WP:IAR, but there is an odd resistance to defining what makes them usable, for future reference of other editors under WP:NOTRS. I think there should be more attempts at trying to define more categories of questionable or non standard cases and not leave everything to IAR and "case by case". Clearly, the topic I have raised here fits as one such special case to be included in a future expanded version of WP:NOTRS.
 * So I suggest we can consider adding a warning to remember plagiarism and copyright within "Other Issues".
 * I also suggest we should consider putting more comments about justifiable exemptions within NOTRS, which currently only mentions (a) the expert exemption, which gives an odd Wikipedia definition of what experts are in the outside world, and (b) the exemption concerning questionable sources being sources for their own opinion. In particular I think a whiteflag needs to be given to citations of sources for noting the sources original editing ideas which are not sources at the same time sources of "original research". If a non technical editorialist has a good way of wording something, WP has no right to deliberately and knowingly use his/her writing and deliberately and knowingly remove citation just because he/she is not an academic for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK... I see where the flaw in your argument is... lets go back to the discussion on the talk page in your example...


 * My reply at this point would be...
 * My question has two possible outcomes... a) there is not another source that supports the statement... if so we must either cite the blog or not include the statement. Or b) there is another source that supports the statement (ie notes that the two groups are using different definitions).  While the "idea" for the statement may have come from reading the blog, we can use use this other source to support the statement.
 * It is this last outcome that shows the flaw in your contention that we must cite "editing ideas". No... we must support statements, not ideas.  Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My question has two possible outcomes... a) there is not another source that supports the statement... if so we must either cite the blog or not include the statement. Or b) there is another source that supports the statement (ie notes that the two groups are using different definitions).  While the "idea" for the statement may have come from reading the blog, we can use use this other source to support the statement.
 * It is this last outcome that shows the flaw in your contention that we must cite "editing ideas". No... we must support statements, not ideas.  Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sticking with me! Blueboar, I think you are not yet seeing which element of creativity it is that I am worried about how to source in the example. Concerning the definitions themselves I see no problem. The normal way on WP to cite a source for the two different definitions of "large" is to cite Smith and Brown, not the blog. As I made up the example, I can guarantee you everyone agrees those are two good sources, and they are easily accessible and in fact every thinks they are brilliant, and so the definitions get sourced, and by citing them, we can even use direct quotes to show they use different definitions of large in a clear way (1+1=2 does not need sourcing). So, no problem so far, and that fixes the problem you mention above. But the talk page shows our imaginary Wikipedians talking about a blog and saying what a great idea to compare and contrast the Smith and Brown papers in the exact way the blog did, so as not to create confusion amongst Wikipedia readers - for example making sure the differences in definitions are pointed out clearly up front, but maybe a few other tricks are also taken over. If they had come up with this idea themselves we would not demanding sourcing at all, because these are just ideas about presentation, but the ideas were from elsewhere and they are creative in an editing way. Not using them might hurt Wikipedia, and why not use them when they are uncontroversial? Generally I think on WP no one would dream of demanding our editors try to write in a way that shows they forget good ideas they got while reading around. That would be bizarre and impractical. In academia you would just say try to make sure you mentioned who you read. But on WP the problem is that there is an interpretation of policy that actually says we are not allowed to record where all editing ideas came. Do you see it yet?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see it... you are saying that the original inspiration (the "editing idea") for comparing and contrasting Smith and Brown comes from the fact that the blog did this, and so we need to acknowledge that fact. I disagree.
 * I don't agree with your contention that we need to cite sources of inspiration... what we need to do is cite sources that directly support what we state in our articles. If we include a statement in the article that compares and contrasts Smith and Brown in a particular way, we need to cite a source that directly supports that statement.
 * I agree that if the blog is the only source to compare and contrast Smith and Brown in this way, then we must either cite the blog or not include the statement... BUT... my point is that there could be another source that compares and contrasts Smith and Brown in the same (or similar) way... If so, that other source can be used to support our statement...  Even though it was the blog that inspired us to include such a statement in the first place. It does not matter where the inspiration came from, what matters is what we actually use. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I am not sure if you've got my point yet. I work through your description and I agree with everything but I wonder what you suggest should happen if a very useful creative editing idea can not be found in a better source. You can not tell people to forget it, and then find the same solution again. What I believe normally happens now is a kind of trick where the wording is changed and the footnotes removed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give a real example of that? SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 16:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the only way to act upon a useful creative editing idea is to include a statement that is supported by an unreliable source, then we must forget the idea. We can get ideas from anywhere... but to implement an idea we have to craft a statement... and that statement is what must be supported by a reliable source. No reliable source, no statement. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, I think this happens all the time. Watch RSN: Wikipedians giving advice to people whose sources have been questioned normally say that you should not even bother arguing if you can just cite stronger sources that say similar things (and obviously you remove direct quotes). No one ever says that we should consider the rights of the weaker sources, and what they were being sourced for, and whether that use requires this deleting approach, or whether this approach is plagiarism. Mention of such sources is simply routinely deleted, so it is hard to know the details of each case. Because this is the basic Wikipedia procedure, we can however be very sure that many sources which have been deleted from mention are the real sources of ways of presenting ideas in Wikipedia articles which would not otherwise appear in Wikipedia. As long as WP's priority is clearly to make removing questionable sources a "no questions asked" matter, we are effectively putting plagiarism on a lower and "expendable" level of priority.
 * I wonder if my example above, or my description of how such cases are handled, strikes you in any way as unrealistic?
 * I also already mentioned the concrete case that got me interested in this problem on E1b1b, where the solution to a long standing explanation problem, a source of much past edit warring over years, can be seen from the talkpage to derive from a genealogist whose quite straightforward point about the word "African" in a review editorial aimed at explaining scientific papers to genealogists, was frequently discussed by various editors trying to word Wikipedia well. It was also directly and clearly cited for a long time on this one point. But in more recent times an editor who does not normally edit on that article removed mention of the source. I entered when there was a slow edit war on and proposed the compromise which still stands, but which I think was basically wrong. (I believe the source was fine anyway, which makes my real world example a little less complicated than my imaginary example.) We deleted the citation and re-worded away from the direct quote. I'd argue the wording is now better but the idea for the wording still definitely comes from a deleted source. The editor who wanted the source deleted was happy that as long as the source was not mentioned, it did not even require sourcing, because it was, when you read it, just an obvious everyday observation about a word that could mean different things. The problem is someone had to think of making the obvious simple point, and that person was the person whose name was deleted. Years of argument show that this solution had eluded Wikipedia editors.
 * Blueboar, I still don't think you are getting what I mean, due to you experience on Wikipedia I fear. You are thinking that all sourcing is for facts, (a "statement" which needs to be "supported") like in the normal understanding of original research on Wikipedia, right? But this is not correct. Some creative ideas are editing ideas only which require no sourcing for statements at all. It might just be an idea about the best sequence in which to discuss several points. My observation is that such things are simply not thought to require any sourcing on WP because all our focus is upon disallowing original research, synthesis, or statements which can not be verified by reliable sources. But concerning plagiarism and copyright the standards are not based on Wikipedia norms.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I get what you mean... I just think you are wrong. Blueboar (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in any case your remark about statements needing support seems to me to indicate that we are not talking about the same thing. Please understand by the way that I did not start this discussion with any particular or clear aim in mind. When challenged what kind of proposals might be implied, I've given some very rough ones for discussion which I came up with while discussing it. I was hoping others would have more clear answers, but honestly it seems Wikipedians are almost trained not to see this problem. I think plagiarism is an inherently difficult question anyway with today's new media, but I fear we can't ignore it. Just for example, concerning the case I was involved in which got me thinking about it, this plagiarism point was not discussed directly, certainly not as a key point of disagreement, and I've not gone back to that compromise. At the time I accepted the idea that obvious statements do not need to mention their sources, even if they are known to have had a difficult birth and strong help from the inspiration of outside sources. I have been thinking about it as a general problem after having been struck by how easy it is for some of us to make arguments about this which are accepted "in Wikipedia universe" but actually obviously not logical for anyone without their Wikibrain on. For example a sentence can be obvious and not need sourcing, and yet if someone admits that they needed to get it from a blog, we actually are not allowed to mention that source because reliability is supposedly a concern. (Obviously reliability can't logically be concern if the sentence was OK un-sourced before the admission.) Anyway, it is clear that WP actively discourages full mention of all sources, and places a very high priority on only naming the best sources. I'm pretty sure this is going to be an unstable solution in the long run, because it is in conflict with other aims WP says it has. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)