Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 5

Reputable confirmed printed sources not available online
Recently, a number of administrators removed information from a group of related articles stating an objection to the book references provided, since they could not find the book's online version (which does not exist). Yet other editors confirmed the contents of the books as valid. WP:V seems to conclusively support the view that reputable published books can be used as verifiable sources. However, given that books are harder to get a hold of than printed sources (e.g. you have to go to your library or book store to check the references), is there a specific policy that applies to these? Can published reputable books ever be correctly stated as being "original research"? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 13:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Books are of course considered very good references (depending on their quality of course), and we should assume good faith that it says what the editor says it does unless an editor has been shown to misquote sources before. If that hasn't happened, then the burden does fall on the people who don't believe the reference says what it is quoted as. The only caveat could be for dubious claims from very difficult to obtain sources. If no libraries carry the book for ex. Otherwise removing information because you can't find the online version (if your characterization of the situation above is correct) is in clear violation of this policy. - Taxman Talk 13:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's what I would have thought. And as for what is considered to be "reputable", can we suggest that if Wikipedia has an article about the reference book in question, and the Wikipedia article suggests that it is a reputable source, then it can be considered to be reputable?  But then, what of the issue that some editors suggest that the book's contents do not say what they think it says?  Does it become a popularity contest?  Do some people's views take precedent?  Is there a burden on the part of the person that says that the book says that to prove it somehow?  I would have thought that insertion of a tag such as  would be appropriate in such a case, rather than a deletion of the information. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 13:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not checking the specific elements of the debate in question, that would be generally reasonable to consider that reliable, but it depends on the topic. Pauling is considered authoritative on quantum chemistry for ex, but not on his vitamin C theories. And yes, like Dpbsmith says requesting the person using the reference provide a page number and exact quotes is very reasonable. After that, like I said, the burden of proof falls on the challenger to disprove that is what the book says. If someone is demonstrated to have lied about what a reference says, that is of course a severe violation of this policy and then it is no longer reasonable to take their word for what a source says in the future. - Taxman Talk 15:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As of 2005, printed books are better references than online sources. They are durable and stable. Their links don't break. The vast majority of books mentioned in Wikipedia are available through interlibrary loan via most public libraries in a matter of days. And recently I've been finding that quite a lot of books, though not available online, are searchable online via a www.a9.com book search and/or books.google.com.


 * It is reasonable to insist that a book citation include an ISBN number, or, if older than ISBN, other identifying number.


 * It is reasonable to insist that an editor providing a reference to a book, once challenged, should provide a page number and an actual quotation verbatim quotation. You can't say "Kryptonite has a molecular weight of 165" and merely cite "The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics."


 * As always, the issue is not "is the book true." The issue is whether the book exists and says more or less what the citing editor says it says. If a book is disreputable, it is perfectly reasonable to cite sources that call it disreputable. "At the Earth's Core," by Edgar Rice Burroughs, is a fine reference for Hollow Earth, as is McBride's Symmes' Theory of Concentric Spheres, despite the fact that the world is not hollow, despite the fact that the first is a work of fiction, and despite the fact that McBride's book is fairly obscure.


 * If a book is self-published, it should be cited only with a note to that effect.


 * In an ideal world, we'd have some Wikipedians with access to good university libraries systematically checking the book references.


 * There's a good case for removing a book whose existence can't be verified online (between Amazon, used-book sites like abebooks, and many, many big libraries that have their catalogs online, this really should be possible).


 * There's also a good case for removing as unverifiable a citation to a book that can't be gotten from a major research library, either directly or by interlibrary loan, by someone who's seriously trying. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * P. S. I would think that it's reasonable to assume, as a first approximation, that a publisher's blurb is a fair representation of the contents of the book. That is, until someone has the time to check the book itself, the Amazon blurb of The Bell Curve, which says
 * But despite decades of fashionable denial, the overriding and insistent truth about intellectual ability is that it is endowed unequally.... Charles Murray explores the ways that low intelligence, independent of social, economic, or ethnic background, lies at the root of many of our social problems. He also discusses another taboo subject: that intelligence levels differ among ethnic groups. According to the authors, only by facing up to these differences can we accurately assess the nation's problems and make realistic plans to address them.
 * is good evidence for a statement that "The Bell Curve says that intelligence levels differ among ethnic groups."" While it's not impossible that an author might disown the presentation of his thesis in a blurb, it's unlikely. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I'll just take the case in point. A book is sourced, is available on Amazon, is referenced as being the most notable possible source for the subject, has its own Wikipedia article with references to that effect, and, after challenged, exact quotes are made with reference to page numbers, edition number etc. Is it reasonable for that book to still be removed as a reference purely on the basis that the book's contents are not available online? Is it also reasonable for an editor to remove the citations based on their inability to find its contents online? I would have thought not, but would like clarification. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 21:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Assuming your summery to be complete and accurate, IMO this is compeltely unreasonable. Somehow I suspect that the otehr parties involved would summerize the events differently, but without knowing what articel is involved, i have no way to asses the merits of the actual case. Note that if the book is on amazon, the "search inside the book" feature, if activated for the particular book (it isn't for all books) may provide an online version that can assist in such cases. DES (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Zordrac, in the example you've outlined, the offline source sounds as though it would be acceptable as a source. The only exception would be if the editor offering it as a source was not trusted for some reason e.g. because he had caused problems with sources in the past, or where his political views were very extreme, perhaps. I've only seen this done once, where a fully cited reference from an old newspaper was turned down by one editor who didn't trust the editor who was offering it. The latter therefore scanned the page onto his website, so the first editor could read the quote in context, and that worked: the citation was accepted. But generally speaking, there's no need for a reference work to be online. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it is inappropriate to remove a source solely because it is not online. Of course, that does not mean that all "sources" that are not online are suitable for references on WP - they still have to be considered on their own merits, jguk 06:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Material from WP:CITE
Dan, I deleted the material you copied over from CITE, because I couldn't see anything it added that wasn't already on the page in some form. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You should actually have checked :-). As Uncle G notes in his edit summary when rv'ing you, I moved the material. Personally I think it's the only logical solution if WP:CITE is "only a style guide", and personally I'd prefer to have to only refer people to this page for the complete run down on why to cite sources! Dan100 (Talk) 09:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've reverted because it seems repetitive. What does the material copied from CITE say that isn't already on the page? I'm happy to have it if it says something new, but it seems pointless just cramming more stuff in, not to mention that this wasn't a particularly well written or illuminating section of CITE. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why don't you revise it rather than reverting then? BTW, you're the queen of adding text, so I thought you'd like it :-) Dan100 (Talk) 14:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, Dan, actually that's you. You've done this several times before: mass deletions in one policy, copying it over to another. Why won't you answer the question? What does the material you've copied from CITE add to this text that wasn't already there? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would ask people in this dispute to carlify for me what's being disputed. SlimVirgin, are you merely saying you find inclusion of this to be redundant.  Or, more fundamentally, do you object to this being part of a policy (not a mere style guideline in WP:CITE).  I strongly support this which makes clear citing sources when contributing is mandatory, not just something we want, but something we demand.  But obviously if its not policy, it shouldn't be here, no matter how good it is.  Policy needs consensus, so I'm trying to figure out a) What is current policy and b) What, if any, changes is anybody seeking in current policy.  Sorry for my confusion, but I'm really unclear what's being debated here, and I find it frustrating to see a core policy page being changed frequently.  --Rob 18:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Rob, I'm also frustrated at the frequent changes. Dan has done this elsewhere with policy, practically blanking them and moving material elsewhere, I think under the "be bold" principle, which I'd argue shouldn't apply to policy pages. But regardless of that, my objection is that the material, so far as I can tell, is repetitive. I've asked Dan a couple of times what he feels it adds that isn't already there in some form, but he won't say, just keeps reverting. Also, this material was the weakest part of the cite-sources page, inherited from a long time ago I think, which is why no one changed it, so it's a shame to see it transferred wholesale into a policy page that already makes the same points.
 * Can you see anything new in the additions that isn't already on the page? I'm happy to keep anything that really is new.
 * Regarding whether citing sources is mandatory, the policy is that people ought to (ideally) cite sources when they make an edit, but it's not mandatory. That is, if someone makes an edit and doesn't cite a source, you can't take them to the arbcom for a policy violation. However, if the edit is challenged, a source must be provided, or the edit may be deleted. Exactly when it's deleted depends on the context and on common sense. If it's a potentially defamatory or in some other way dangerous claim, for example, it should be deleted immediately. If it's a harmless claim, it could be moved to the talk page, or left in the article for a few days. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I can absolutely see something new in the additions. It's clearly stating the sources *must* be included with any addition.  That's apparently new to *this* *policy* page.  WP:CITE is just a guideline.  So, really I don't understand the focus on the discussion of redunancy.  I consider redunancy a trivial "problem", and think its often good to be repetitive of critical points (like this).  If this is policy, I absolutely want it on this page, and wholeheartedly support its inclusion.  If it's not policy, keep it off the page, and make it clear everywhere that's its just a guideline.  Then, let us start-up a policy discussion in the appropriate place (as we would then have a real problem).  I read the edittools message which says "Content must ... be based on verifiable sources..." and I take both the literal and implied meanings very seriously.  Basing on sources doesn't mean you write the content first, and try to find sources later.  We seem to have a problem where different things are being said in different places.  --Rob 21:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't ever delete a mass of text from a guideline and just dump it onto a policy page, because the guidelines make suggestions that the policies may not mandate, so it causes confusion exactly like this. This page already is repetitive on the main points, Rob, so to produce yet more of the same is pointless if it's identical, and problematic if it's adding new material. No, it isn't policy that sources must be included with any new edit. At least it wasn't before Dan inserted it without discussion onto the page (if that's what it says exactly). We can't make that policy in part because it's unenforceable, in part because we'd have to say exactly what kinds of edits sources had to accompany (do we need sources for "2+2=4" and "the sun rose this morning"?). The policy as it stood said that any edit that is challenged and has no source may be removed, and I don't feel we can go further than this, particularly as some editors (e.g. Joe Mabel above) feel that may be going a bit too far already. I completely support the idea that using good sources is crucial, but I also don't think we should produce a draconian policy; and anyway, if we do, people will just ignore it. The policy should be reflective of community consensus, and based on how people edit, no one thinks that adding a source for every edit ought to be mandatory. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

'' I read the edittools message which says "Content must ... be based on verifiable sources..." and I take both the literal and implied meanings very seriously. Basing on sources doesn't mean you write the content first, and try to find sources later. We seem to have a problem where different things are being said in different places'' - very good point Rob, and I'm going to edit that text to reflect that. Dan100 (Talk) 10:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Why I've removed the material moved from WP:CITE
I've deleted the material from WP:CITE again because it's mostly repetitive (please read the page before making additions), and also because Rob thinks one part of it may have changed the policy. Rob, you were talking about being confused about what the two pages say regarding sources, so here's a rundown:


 * WP:V (a policy and therefore mandatory) currently says, and has said for some time, that WP articles should contain only material "already ... published by a reputable publisher" and that "[t]he burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit. Editors should therefore provide references. Any edit lacking a source may be removed."

That's the part JMabel thinks should be qualified a little (see below).


 * WP:CITE (just a guideline and therefore not mandatory) said for some time: " ... if you add any information to an article, you must cite the source of your information," and "Providing sources for your edits, in particular for edits that are challenged by other editors, is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy." The phrase "in particular for edits that are challenged by other editors ..." diluted the sentence sufficiently so that it was clear not every single edit had to be accompanied by a source, but without saying as much so as not to give POV warriors and lazy editors an explicit loophole.


 * The qualifying phrase was removed on November 30,  leaving the sentence "Providing sources for your edits is mandated by No original research and Verifiability, which are policy," which was false because the policy doesn't exactly say that. Unfortunately, none of the regular editors on the page noticed the change and so it wasn't reverted.


 * Dan removed this sentence and a lot of other material, without discussion, from WP:CITE  and inserted it, also without discussion, into WP:V, thereby arguably changing the policy, and reverted when I deleted it.


 * I've therefore restored this material to WP:CITE and added a tighter qualifier: "Providing sources for edits is mandated by No original research and Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any edit that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor."


 * I've also restored WP:V to the status quo ante.

What we should decide now is where we want the emphasis to lie. Do we want to:

1. Weaken the current policy slightly (per Joe's suggestion) to say: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed. If you doubt the truthfulness of an unsourced statement, remove it to the talk page. Otherwise, just request a source." (This implies that you should not remove an unsourced statement unless you doubt its truthfulness; that is, being unsure about an edit would not be sufficient grounds to remove it.)

2. Strengthen it slightly (per Dan's additions) to say: " ... if you add any information to an article, you must cite the source of your information," which arguably changes the emphasis of the policy from "any editor may remove an unsourced edit" to "every edit must be accompanied by a source when first added." As this is a policy page, and not just a guideline, in theory an editor could be taken to the arbcom for not providing a source with an edit.

3. Leave the policy as it currently is: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed."

My preference is to leave it as it is, because I foresee problems with weakening or strengthening it. However, I'm prepared to go along with consensus, but we should reach an agreement first rather than adding material that not everyone agrees with, and which may make this page internally inconsistent or inconsistent with other policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm trying to resist WP:POINT, so I'm keeping this to a "though experiment". I just went and hit "random article" a few times. I got Hits (Phil Collins album), AFC East, and Eugene Paul Bennett. The first two have no references at all. Are you saying that it would be appropriate for me to cut the entire article to its talk page? The third gives three references, but no statement in the article is tied to any reference. Same story?


 * Slim, do you actually do things like this, or is this all theory? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Joe, no I never do it, and I agree with you in practice. I don't want to see vandals/POV pushers roaming through articles randomly deleting sentences that aren't sourced. It's just that I foresee problems with any words we use to dilute what's already on the page. I suppose at some point we need to rely on common sense. I've never been asked for a source for something obvious that I couldn't find. Yes, it's annoying to be asked if you know the thing is true, and obviously so, but it only takes minutes to find one. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If it "only takes minutes" we must work on some very different topics. Try finding a citable online source for the first name of a minor figure in the French Revolution or to document that a particular bar was a pioneering locale in Seattle fringe theater. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sources don't have to be online, if that's the issue, Joe. However you yourself know that X is the case, whether from a book or from an article on a website, it's probably citable. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Slim, thank you for explaining your reverts. Why did you not do it sooner, but instead wait until you were on the brink of breaking the 3RR? Now you've explained it, it makes sense. You could've done that a lot sooner... I note that you've clarified the intro at WP:CITE too, so some good of this has come of it. Dan100 (Talk) 10:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

For now, I think ''3. Leave the policy as it currently is: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed."'' seems to make sense. I strongly support the right to remove uncited stuff on site. Perhaps a good rule-of-thumb to encourage (but not make policy), is people should feel extremely free and encouraged to remove *new* uncited material prompty, but be more cautious of older well established material. It's essential RC Patrollers remove anything that might be sneaky vandalism quickly. If somebody sees something they recently added is removed due to lack of sources, they'll likely re-add it with a source (as its fresh in their memory, and still on their watch list). But if somethings been sitting around for a year, there's little harm for taking extra time before removing it. --Rob 10:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I think there's some value in treating older material a little differently, and at a minimum requesting a source before removing. Newly added material without a source however can be shot on sight. But I also agree we shouldn't overlegislate that. As for the emphasis, I believe there is clear consensus for encouraging citing sources for added material and for removing unsourced material (which both encourages sourcing in a roundabout way and enforces it). But SlimVirgin is right that we're not requiring citing sources in the sense that it's generally a blockable offense not to. If someone is repeatedly adding unsourced material or replacing sourced material with unsourced, that could meet the disruption policy, but that's different. So I think as long as we make it clear it's not a blockable offense unless it rises to disruption, we can say citing reliable sources to add material is required. - Taxman Talk 16:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer ''2. Strengthen it slightly ...'', but I'm not a fanatic about it. I do want to see more done to encourage references. I have started marking articles and am seeing a response in a few articles. I'm keeping the articles I mark on a suspense page, but I'm not sure yet how long I will wait to take further action, or what that action will be. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  12:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Verifiability is...
Non-verifiable! --Knucmo2 14:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Main press
press don't always take the information from press agency or people working for them... sometimes they takes the information from another parution,for example a local newspaper that lead to problems there are known example but at this moment i have none of them in mind a french magazine "science et vie junior" that is a well known scintific magazine targeted at young people(teenagers)  has a fake article on the april parution...and you don't know wich article is fake...until the next mounth parution wich reveals it so an important newspaper told that cell phones were making "pousser des poils dans les oreilles(don't know how to traduce it in english)"(to be verified)
 * for example if someone publish a hoax on internet and this is taken by a not so credible newspaper and itself taken by a more and more credible one...then you have unverified content into "reputable publisher"
 * another example is april fools

so even with reputable publisher you need to be carefull

about scientific articles and magazine
exept the "science et vie junior thing" normaly scientific parution in magazines such as nature are verified before the parution... but i what is the exact process of verification(mabe they check also the protocol of experiencies...that is crucial in science because you have studies that says something and others that claim the contrary)

Normaly the people publish result of studies on specialised location on the internet(don't remember where) then it goes into specialised publications such as neuroscience magazines for neuroscience studies and then it goes into scientific magazine such as nature,then into magazines of scientific vulgarisation(such as science et vie(french magazine...please tell us if there are more well known and international ones)) and then into the press And so if the parutions on magazines such as nature are verified they are credible but sometimes there are errors that can pass trough this for example an error about the universal constant...they had made an error calculating their variation trough the time and thoat that they had vary much more than the reality There is also a carefull interpretation to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.31.173 (talk • contribs)


 * Since the standard for Wikipedia, as currently stated in the policy, is verfiability, not truth, the first consideration in whether to use a source is whether it is reliable. Now I would not use a source, even if it were normally reliable, if I knew that other reliable sources contradicted it. But determining whether an item in a normally reliable source is true, or an April Fool's joke, or something else, is original reasearch. If you are uncomfortable with information that appears in a reliable source, look around to see what other reliable sources have. If reliable sources disagree on something, you may have to note that in the article. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  12:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I say the hell with verifiability if the reference is not true, or has falsehoods. OIn the Bigfoot page, skeptics are quoting very bad authors who make errors and pass on really, really

false and bad stuff.I feel the skeptics here __choose_ those bad authors to support their own case.

As for NPOV, here I am, on Wiki, a resident Bigfoot expert, and I am not allowed to post my experiences because there ARE NO JOURNALS THAT DISCUSS BIGFOOT. And all books are two years or more behind the times.

Let us not forget -- this is Not Brittanica. It is a big website. Nothing more.

beckjordBeckjord 07:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, this is an encyclopedia, which is why we don't allow original research. If you can get your research published by a credible third party, we can use it as a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration, but we have no way of vetting editors, so we have to require published sources. You can, however, question the reliability of a source per Verifiability. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  12:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, to be precise, you can include verifiable information that helps the reader assess the quality of the source. For example, if other reputable sources have criticized the source in question (the author, press, or publication) one can add "However, according to x, ...." or "However, x has claimed that ..." One can also add verifiable information about the publication, for example, whether or not it is peer-reviewed; what is its circulation; is the journal associated or affiliated with an organization (for example, I would like to know whether a publication is put out by a branch of the AMA, or a pharmaceutical company, or an independent body of scientists, or an organization promoting homeopathic or natural remedies). An editor need not directly say "this is a good source" or "this is a bad source" or "this is a qustionable source." An editor can, however, include a range of views not just about the topic but bout the sources, and provide enough contextual information about the sources so that a reader can identify any biases in the source. I think all of this can be done in ways that comply with this policy as well as NPOV. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite
At the moment the page is long (16kb) and discursive. It is also, no doubt, little read. I'd like to see it much shorter and to the point - and something that assumes WPians will use common sense in interpreting it, rather than something that tries to cover everything. I have put up a draft on Verifiability/temp and would be grateful for comments. In essence, I think we should keep the rules simple and straightforward - and have them written in a way where we can hit troublemakers over the head rather than have them hit us over the head, jguk 19:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I made a slight change on foreign language sources. Otherwise I think it's better, but I'm strongly of the opinion that we have to try to make a wider consultation about this.  Right now I think that changes are being made with no consensus from the rest of the community, but without them caring enough to oppose those changes.  We should try to stimulate them into discussion.  Mozzerati 20:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate Jguk creating a temp file. As with all articles here, this page certainloy can be improved upon.  But, as Mozzerati points out, major changes should only follow broad discussion; this is especially important concerning policy pages.  While we can and should improve policy pages, we should give precedent more weight than on other pages, and involve more general discussion concerning major changes.  I do have one specific comment about the policy &mdash; this is in Jguk's proposed version, but he adopted it from this version.  I am referring to the statement that sources should be unimpeachable.  I agree that the policy should convey to editors the importance of highly reputable sources.  However, when it comes to contentious topics, some sources will not be "unimpeachable," indeed, the sources themselves may be objects of contention.  I do not think such sources should be eliminated.  Rather, in compliance with NPOV, we should make it clear what the source of contention is, and provide some context about the parties who contend over the un/impeachability of the source.  The source's verifiability of course must be unimpeachable by which I mean that the provenance must be clear and accurate (i.e. verifiability means, if we say "this is the source," i.e. provide information to help people find the source (so they can read it for themselves), this information must be incontrovertably accurate. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to separate out the big bold box (in "The Policy" section) and use that, as it seems like the one great part of the suggested change. --Rob 21:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would agree with the above two voices regarding wider consultation. The rewrite is certanly an improvement, although I have some concerns with the purple policy box, which seems to state the policy stronger than the previous page. Hiding  talk 21:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

By all means, I agree we'd need wider consultation before adopting a rewrite. But to begin with, let's keep it to the regulars to this page until it's improved a bit:) jguk 21:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think jguk's temp version is very good; in fact, I think it's basically what the policy says now, only more clearly. Information added to pages should be verifiable, and properly cited from reputable sources.  If something is added which is neither, then it certainly can be summarily removed - in fact, in many cases it absolutely should be summarily removed.  In practice, depending on how nonsensical the information is, one could deal with it in a number of ways.  If it is particularly horrendous, or libellous, it should just be removed.  If it is almost certainly false (or wildly POV), but might contain a grain of truth, it could be brought to the talk page.  If it might be true, but seems dubious, then a  template can be placed beside it.  But while all of these should be suggested as possibilities, the fact remains that policy requires information to be cited and verifiable, and added information which is neither can simply be removed. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * With a few exceptions, I like this. It would make an excellent first part of the project page, even though I think we should go into more detail below it in terms of there being options short of outright deleting every uncited statement you see, so as not to instigate unnecessary hostilities all over Wikipedia.


 * One significant disagreement: "English-language sources should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources"? I'd have no problem with "All other things being equal, English-language sources are preferred to foreign-language sources," but I have a real problem with anything stronger than that. A blatant example: in discussing the recent controversy over Salvador Allende's doctoral dissertation, we have a choice of quoting what appear (to me at least) to be deliberate, hostile mistranslations (via a book by Victor Farías, and its reviews in the English-language press) or going to the dissertation itself as a source. I cannot imagine a good argument for preferring hostile mistranslations. (The mistranslations and omissions were pretty blatant, see discussion at Talk:Salvador Allende).


 * Similarly, though for lower stakes, for geographical research on much of Continental Europe there are excellent online sources in the local languages, but the online material in English is almost entirely tourist-oriented. Should we really be telling our contributors that they have to go to offline sources rather than use excellent sources that are readily available online, but not in English? -- 04:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate the three point summary. If all editors would comply with these three, in regard to WP:V, life would be much easier. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 05:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate a rewrite, but I have some disagreements with the present version of the rewrite.
 * Rules 1 and 3 are fine.
 * Rule 2: I do agree with "Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information" but I do not agree with "otherwise it may be summarily removed by any editor" but suggest instead some less categorical version according to the present "Move or copy the statement to the talk page, explaining that you have not been able to find a source for the statement, and stating what sources you have checked." I have in the past seen some controversial articles, where some "source fanatics" did not permit anything but quotes or almost quotes from a source, everything else is labeled as "editorializing" or "original research". This makes a very awkward article which does not look very encyclopedical - and as such quotes are, by necessity, somewhat short of context, it is in some cases not even shown what the source really wanted to say. A striking example is Apostacy. The present wording makes it even easier to "shoot without having to think first" in such cases.
 * I disagree with "English-language sources should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources" - in many cases, articles about European politics or history or geography do not have adequate English sources - or even do have biased English sources showing only an American misinterpretation due to cultural and language barriers. Two articles on French laws basing on English sources were very inadequate, to put it mildly - they only improved when a Frenchman using French sources took a hand in the matter. As above, I'd have no problem with "All other things being equal, English-language sources are preferred to foreign-language sources"
 * Regarding primary sources, the section No original research is excellently formulated. The abbreviated version here could make some people reject information based on primary sources as "original research" (such cases have already led to discussions). What if the source of some information on a bishop's bio is a private mail send by the bishop's office upon requiest? What if the source of some information is a documentary film on the history of XXX village shown regularly there in Bernese dialect (but probably nowhere else) and using bits of the Swiss weekly cinema news of the 1950es? With the present wording, the info, uncontroversial as it is in both cases, might be deleted as non verifiable (which it sure is, for the average American).
 * --Irmgard 21:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your second bullet point, I think it is important to say that unsourced information may be summarily removed by any editor. That's not to say that that should always be the preferred option, and I have amended the draft to outline other possibilities, such as including an "unreferenced" tag.

Regarding your third bullet point, I don't think I disagree with you. All things being equal, we should prefer an English-language source over a foreign language source. However, if the foreign language source is better (and I'll leave "better" undefined), then it should be provided. How best to say that, I'm not sure - if you have suggested better wording that is not too longwinded, please add it.

Regarding your final point, I disagree strongly with you. If the source of some information on a bishop's bio is a private mail send by the bishop's office upon request, then we should not accept it. Do we really expect any reader wishing to check the info to write to the bishop's office and hope he receives the same reply? How can we assess on what authority any reply was given? And what happens once the bishop dies or becomes mentally incapacitated - how can I check your info then? Of the only source of some information is a documentary film on the history of XXX village shown regularly there in Bernese dialect (but probably nowhere else) and using bits of the Swiss weekly cinema news of the 1950s, then I'd be very sceptical indeed. Why has no-one ever thought about putting it into print - not even a local historical society? How am I meant to check it? Maybe you made an honest mistake (or maybe you were deliberately introducing misinformation) when you added the information - how could I possibly know? This information most certainly shouldn't appear in Wikipedia - it's unverifiable (plus the lack of printed sources throws into doubt its importance). Indeed, the current policy is quite clear that this material is not permitted on Wkipedia - the redraft just makes it even clearer, jguk 18:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with you - your answer sounds like the policy is "must be easily verifiable by anyone in the US" and also somewhat as a violation of "Assume good faith". For me, ease of verifiability should be proportional to the claims made.
 * Regarding the bishops, the information from the mail for which I have no other sources is date of birth, place of birth, schools and universities where he graduated - all this info exists surely in writing, e.g. in the archives of the community or universities as well as in the archives of the bishop's office and will also be available after his retreat or death. OTOH, the info is not available online and it is also not given in the books he published. This sort of information is usually not contested. But would you really prefer not to enter any birth date and university in such a case just for the sake of sacred reference? As the bishop's office is accessible in Internet (and they do know English), it is actually much easier to verify the info there by email than in any locally published source. (In the case of a controversial guru, where a similar info is contested or where upwards of three versions abound, such a reference would, of course, definitely not suffice.)
 * The info from the local movie was about historical and present ownership of a landscape described in an article - an ownership which is not quite evident, but uncontested as fact. The info about present ownership exists of course in the local community offices (not in English, though) and it exists also in a guide about Bernese alp cheese production (which is in print, but hardly available in the United States) - for the historical ownership I also read it in a chronic written by a local teacher in the first half of the last century (found in a local hotel library - surely out of print, surely a very limited edition, if it ever was publicly available, and surely more difficult to get by than the movie which could be ordered as a video at the tourist office) and the facts are a case of a local "everyone knows". It is very unlikely that this kind of information will be challenged. And when the documentary uses weekly cinema news of the 1950es, the same info surely has also appeared in Swiss newspapers of the same time - but I do not think that the same info even from a 195x issue of the renowned NZZ would make the info easier to verify. But if you want to generally exclude such information, due to not being easily verifiable in the US, this will severely hamper articles about local geography or local history outside of the US, if they want to include more than contained in Lonely Planet.
 * I have a third "special source" case: it's a German book of 2004 describing in detail the history of a Lutheran diocese in Eastern Germany under the DDR regime. The book is without doubt a reputable source, 500 pages, peer reviewed, excellently documented using local archives and Stasi documents, published by a local state office for compiling DDR history, and it is a resource documenting an interesting point of view usually omitted in literature about recent German or church history. There is definitely no equivalent English source available. Drawback: the book is about a very specific subject and it is difficult to find, even in Germany - Amazon has it mentioned, but does not sell it. (I got it from one of the contributors whom I know personally). This book can be given as reference including page number, ISBN and whatever - but it would be a real challenge for someone in the United States to use it to actually verify the information, even if the book is probably available in libraries of respective university institutes in Germany. Does not look like the verifiability you prefer - and you'd therefore rather exclude such information? --Irmgard 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-negotiable
I have seen enough of editor's attempts to bypass verifiability that I feel we need to make it clear that the thre basic policies of WP, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are no-negotiable. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 05:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Then why can the ArbComm ignore WP:V? (SEWilco 07:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC))

I slightly disagree. The principles behind WP:NPOV and WP:V need to be non-negotiable. WP:NOR doesn't even need to be policy - original research cannot be sourced to a reputable source as per WP:V, and original views shouldn't be expressed as per WP:NPOV. Whilst WP:NPOV is at present non-negotiable, WP:V unfortunately isn't there yet. Unfortunately on some contentious articles you will see a group of editors insisting on unreferenced material being added - and claiming a consensus as they are in the majority on that article. In that case, editors trying to remove that unreferenced information are at serious risk of being chastised by ArbCom if they persist. That's exactly why we need to reword WP:V so that it is strong and blunt in its approach. See Verifiability/temp for more info, jguk 11:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No. If you swim against consensus, you should have the burden to prove something right or wrong. Anything else would be crazy; the vast majority of Wikipedia lacks unreferences. Even on the most reference-heavy pages, probably 99% of the text is unreferenced. Full references would be far larger than the articles they go with. 24.110.60.225 03:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

flawed concept
IMHO Wiki should give validity an equal position with verifiability. There are tons of bad books, bad articles, bad interviews out there, and the public who reads Wikipedia expect up- to- date info, based on truth,not just that it is "found" somewhere. The point should be "is it any good?" "do others in that field agree?" "Is this old research, or new work?"

Since Wiki is basically a huge WEBSITE, it behooves Wiki to include TV interviews,(often archived on tape) and websites, not just old books and journals.

My two bits.

beckjord205.208.227.49 20:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what you mean, but the proposed redraft of current policy that is on Verifiability/temp stresses that verifiability doesn't just mean that there is a source, but that that source must be reputable. Does this cover your point? jguk 18:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"unsourced" templates
In light of the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, I suggest that we ask all editors to use tags such as unsourced, fact and not verified whenever needed. Shawnc 01:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose, "whenever needed", but not as you've been doing. It's not sane to decorate every article this way, especially when so many articles are relatively undisputed. Merely adding the tag is suggestive of some dispute, calling the article into question. This should be reserved for rare occasions or it becomes as meaningless as a never-read Windows dialog box that you click "OK" to dismiss. 24.110.60.225 03:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the tags are meaningless, as the notices will in principle stay in place until an editor provides some references. In my experience, after the tags were inserted, references were often added by interested editors, and the articles were improved.
 * Currently Wikipedia is seen by various authorities as an unreputable and unreliable rumor mill, and this type of view is not going to change when articles are devoid of verifiable references. While it may be obvious to someone who is familiar with a subject matter that a given article is not problematic even without references, why should an uninformed reader accept with blind faith that an unsourced article was not someone's original research, inaccurate or, worse, made up?  As it is, an unsourced article on Wikipedia could be perfectly factual in its content, yet remain unquotable as a reference material in many circles.  Why shouldn't we as a community aspire to change that? Wouldn't it be better that Wikipedia becomes more quotable?
 * My view is that, in order for Wikipedia to become reputable, all articles should in principle provide some form of reference or at least relevant external links, however brief or lackluster. For the sake of verifiability, that should be the minimal requirement, hence the use of the related tags. Shawnc 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If I read an article which does not have any references in it, I can read that there are no sources in it. Why does the article need to have templates stuck in it to tell me that it does not have a reference section? They seem to me to go against the the concept of good faith. If I read an article about a subject which I am interested in and there are no references then I engage in a discussion on the talk page. Too often I have seen people stick a template onto a page, often at the top of the article page, even if the template itself recommends that it is placed on the talk page or the bottom of the article page, without a comment or a suggestion from the person who puts the template there. When this happens the IMHO the act is little short of vandalism. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Having articles without any reference or external link arguably goes against the principle of verifiability, our official policy: "The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be verified by readers and other editors."
 * Please visit Template talk:Unreferenced for further discussion on requesting for references. There have been examples which show that the use of the unreferenced (aka unsourced) tag at the bottom of unreferenced pages is effective when used in conjunction with "==References==", as seen here. Shawnc 10:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Putting the template on the talk page means most readers will not see it. Putting the template at the bottom of the article page stills means that most readers will miss it. Many readers (and too many editors) do not understand that an article has no credibility without good references. I think putting unreferenced at the top of the page is the best way to draw attention to the need for references, and get them in the article. When I do try to add references to an article, I often find I have to edit out things that cannot be verified. Unfortunately, many things that editors think they know are not accurate. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  16:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The ArbComm has punished me for adding detail to References. Is a request for addition of source material a request for trouble?  (SEWilco 12:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC))
 * Could you please provide some references -- sorry I meant details -- on the matter? Shawnc 17:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See the discussion at the bottom of the next section in this page, What Wikipedia is not. --  Dalbury <sup style="color:green;">( Talk )  17:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)