Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 62

SPS's themselves
 Re this edit followed by my reversion and suggestion to discuss and then this edit tagging it with. Is your objection just to the clunky grammar in the abstract or do you see some ambiguity which is being created by the current language? If it's the former, I fear that the cure here may be worse than the disease. This is one of those situations where these clunky words would have to be replaced with a lot more lawyerish words to make the grammar better without losing the now well-established current meaning. If, on the other hand, you've detected an ambiguity perhaps it needs to be addressed. Could you clarify for us? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I see what HughD is concerned about. Sometimes "sources" refers to articles and sometimes "sources" refers to the authors of the articles. Please consider the following as a possible improvement. "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves or their authors, usually when the sources are about the authors themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that the authors be published experts in the field,..." --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:Bob K31416, it is precisely for this sort of reason that I would think that adding examples is a great way to demistify what in the world each of those phrases ("Self-published and questionable sources" together, "Self-published sources" alone, "questionable sources" by itself, "self-published works", "self-published author", etc etc etc) means. While our focus should be on defining "self-published sources" first, each of those other phrases, IMO, needs their own side-bar definition and their own unique set of examples each. Mercy11 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting this talk. Clunky, good word. I find this sentence confusing: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as..." Is this subject of this sentence, "WP articles about self-published and questionable sources" as in "WP articles whose subject is a self-published an questionable source"? If so, how do WP articles have "activities"? Is this subsection an exceptional, special case of the previous subsection? If so, might it better be folded into the previous subsection? I think the choice of pronoun "themselves" and the possessive "their" makes it read like there is agency in here somewhere. Is there? "They" refers to editors who need not be experts? "Their" and "they" in the same long sentence with different referents? I get there is something I should know about self-published sources but I have no idea what. I don't understand the intent well enough to improve this. Hugh (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree that there is ambiguity - at best. I too have found the definition of SPS to be too vague. As a result, different editors have different views of what a SPS is - even beyond the fact that it could refer to (1) the author or (2) the publisher. (What something "refers to" [i.e., "the subject" or "affected party" of a definition] is only a small part of "what it means".) Not surprisingly, even the same Wikipedia editor will push the meaning of SPS when it is convenient to him in achieving a certain version of an article.  ...Such position violates NPOV and WP:V in my opinion. IMO, the definition could be improved considerably if several examples were added to the (non-existent) definition of SPS.  Thus, neither THIS edit nor THIS edit is wrong; the problem is in the phrase self-published sources which they are both using. That phrase ("self-published source") is not properly defined and, in fact, it is never defined.  See HERE for a recent discussion on this. Mercy11 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Illustrating through examples would be progress, thanks for the suggestion. WP right now must include some articles whose subject is a "self-published or questionable source", and that uses "self-published or questionable sources" as sources, and was edited by non-expert wikipedians, illustrating the exception. Can we agree that "self published sources" are, sources? Can we agree to call "articles about self published sources" "articles about self published sources"? Can we agree to call "authors of self published sources" "authors of self published sources" and "authors of articles about self published sources" "authors of articles about self published sources"? Can we take "self-published sources" and "questionable sources" as separate cases? Those of you who patrol this page presumably understand the intent of this subsection. I don't. I'm lost. I would like to please hear from someone who could please take stab at restating the point here. May I make a suggestion? That one sentence, can someone re-write it, here on the talk page, with no pronouns, no possessives, that is, unravelled, with all referents explicit? It will be clunky too but at least we can look at it together. Thanks for the link to the archive from two months ago. It's discouraging to realize the January talk apparently was for nought. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * One change I would make from the getgo is to delink the phrase "self-published or questionable source" into "self-published source" and "questionable source". Throwing them both around together creates a mentality that there is something inherently wrong (that is, "questionable") with a self-published source - and that's not necessarily the case. Whereas the opposite, that is, the questionable source, is always a problem. That is, if a source is questionable, then by virtue of the label "questionable" we are already condeming it, and it does not belong in WP. Yet if a source is self published it may or may not be acceptable. Again, we need a definition for "questionable". And if there is not because we are using it to just distinguished the group of self-published sources that are not acceptable (vs. the SPS's that are), then we need to educate ourselves to stop using the "questionable source" phrase, and just use "self-published source". At best the phrase "self-published or questionable source" is redundant, and at worse it can be the source of bewilderment and confusing. Mercy11 (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Two quick comments:
 * You might want to read Identifying and using self-published sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, that is helpful to me. The above link defines "self-published works" yet it is titled "Identifying and using self-published sources" and the subheadings mention "self-published sources," yet conspicuously does not offer a definition of "self-published sources." I understand now that "author" and "publisher" of self-published works are identical by definition. I can see how under this definition the phrase "self-published sources" might be used interchangeably to refer to the author or the publisher. I think the distinction between "self-published sources" (agents) and "self-published works" (documents) is useful. For example, agents can have activities, works cannot. I see from WP:RS that "source" is defined generically as author/publisher/work. I think this is unfortunate, to borrow a common English word and redefine it in WP context as a broad, heterogeneous category. I took "source" to mean document, something you might include in a ref. This redefinition of "source" is going to lead to a lot of clunky sentences, clunky sentences that are a barrier to entry.
 * Can anyone direct me to a similar canonical definition of "self-published sources"? If not, can we add it there, right after the def of "self-published works"? Borrowing from the def of "source", how about "Self-published sources refers generically to the related concepts of self published works, their authors and publishers." Hugh (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the above link to the definition of "self-published works." Why is it not linked to from V? V has two subsections "Self-published sources" and "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" and those subsections have multiple hats and in-text links, but no definition of "self-published sources," and no link to the definition of "self-published works." A hat would have helped me. It says to a reader, this term has a special meaning within WP policy, but it is defined elsewhere. Does that strike anyone besides me as odd? Hugh (talk)


 * HughD, if you are referring to the same link I am thinking (Identifying and using self-published sources), I hope you are not overlooking that WP:V is a policy, whereas Identifying and using self-published sources is an essay... Mercy11 (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had not noticed that. So we have policy document V that includes two subsections on "self-published sources" which is undefined in policy, and the closest thing we have is an essay that defines "self-published works." SPS needs its own page . Hugh (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Plus, it is a common fact of human nature that when something seems too difficult to tackle, most people simply give up. I have been around WP some 5 years. Interestingly, if the entire encyclopedia had frozen in place in February 2006, as WP:V / WP:SPS froze in place on that fateful day of February 2006, no further editing would have taken place and you and I wouldn't be here, except to worship the gods of the past. Thank you for your interest in this overdue endeavor. Mercy11 (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There can't be any serious question about whether SPS refers to "the author" or "the publisher", because by definition those are the same person (or other entity, e.g., The Coca-Cola Company both writes and publishes its own corporate website). "Self-published" means "the author and the publisher are the same".  So the answer is "yes":  SPS permits you to use a source written by Joe and published by Joe to support a claim that Joe said something about Joe (but not that Joe said something about Alice).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, please note that the problem with the definition of self-published that you are linking to (self-publishing) is itself coming from a self-published dictionary. We don't want to perpetuate the existing quandary, do we? In addition, the desirable definition is not (as you give it) for the "self-publishing" in its generality, but for "self-published source" in its particularity. Mercy11 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think following the link on Self-publishing shows that SPS is not as clear cut as WhatamIdoing claims. SPS also covers Joe having his work published by a vanity press and such presses can be connected to well known publishers.  For example, Author Solutions and Hydra are both part of Random house and both are vanity presses.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A vanity press is a printing press, not a publisher. The identity of the printer is irrelevant.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think there can be a serious question about whether SPS refers to "the author" or "the publisher". It would happen in the (increasingly common) situation where Person A (the author) is one of the partners in Publisher P.  For example, this talk page is published by Wikipedia, but this comment was written by me.  Clearly I'm not Wikipedia and Wikipedia isn't me... but this comment is self-published, isn't it?— S Marshall  T/C 01:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Marshall, you beat me to it. The question for User:WhatamIdoing is, Is Wikipedia a self-published source? why or why not? Mercy11 (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a difficult question in theory, but it depends on all the facts and circumstances. If Author A has enough control of Publisher P to affect the decision about whether to publish it, then yes:  it's self-published.  If Author A does not have enough control of Publisher P to affect the decision about whether to to publish it, then no:  it's not self-published.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And then, exactly who sits in the middle to judge whether or not Author A has or has not enough control over Publisher P???
 * I noticed that both @Marshall and Mercy11 were very apecific in the questioning whether "Wikipedia" was self-published or not, but WhatamIdoing did not respond using the word Wikipedia at all. Why?
 * Essentially what User:WhatamIdoing is saying is that Wikipedia authors/editors "A"(s) who have no influence over Wikipedia (the Organization) "P" (that would be WhatamIdoing and me and over 99% of everyone else who edits in Wikipedia) are producing work that is not self-published, whereas those people who can affect the decision to publish or not (by implication I guess that means Wikipedia's paid employees, Board of Directors, Jim Wales, the Foundation's lawyers and every other person who has an interest (financial, reputational, etc) and enter info into Wikipedia) then those people are producing material that is self-published. Is that what you mean @WhatamIdoing? From the point of view of logic, some could draw that either my question is difficult or that WhatamIdoing's response is. I personally would tend to agree with WhatamIdoing in that the question was difficult. What I find difficult is receiving a convincing and non-fallacious answer.
 * I think WhatamIdoing has (correctly) identified my question as rhetorical. In practice, the question of whether Wikipedia is self-published simply does not arise.  All user-submitted content is unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes.  A source can only be reliable if there's editorial supervision.  (NB: I did not say that all sources that have editorial supervision are reliable.) I understand your frustration with the lack of a convincing answer.  I'm afraid I do not think that there is the kind of pithy, brief answer that we could shove in a policy.  Evaluating sources is the key task of the encyclopaedist.  It's the most important thing we do, and it requires subtle and judicious editorial judgment.  The only way to acquire this judgment is through practice and experience.  Talking to other editors helps. However, while editing Wikipedia, you're likely to come across people who are have poor editorial judgment.  Policies like WP:V and WP:NOR are attempts to help you in your interactions with these people.  Unfortunately, the Dunning-Krueger effect generally kicks in, and the people who most need to read our policies are the people who're least likely to actually do so.  I'm afraid the grim reality of WP:V is that it represents a bad compromise between a number of warring points of view, that's become deeply entrenched because almost any change takes it in a direction that someone won't like.  I once attempted to remove three words ("Verifiability, not truth") from the lede, and it took me a year and a half, over one thousand edits, and two site-wide RFCs to achieve it.— S Marshall  T/C 23:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I hatted V sincerely looking for clarification. Sorry, I'm mildly annoyed at this discussion under this heading of whether or not WP is SPS because slow as I am I do understand WP is not a valid source so who cares if it is self-published? And gulp S Marshall it is discourage to read copy edits for clarity to policy can get so involved. Perhaps that explains the lack of dialog here, everyone who is everyone is holding off til the 2nd RFC to sound off. Hugh (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Though I'm ordinarily a lover of statute-like drafting in policy, I think this is unnecessary. This language, almost in its current form, has been around since SlimVirgin added it in this edit in February, 2006. While there have always been questions about how to apply it, that's also true about just about every other section of V. While I understand the issues being raised by HughD and S Marshall, I simply don't see them being problems in practice. In some ways, this rule is really more about what SPS can be used for than what it cannot. Though it can be, and frequently is, raised as an objection to a source, the real root objection underlying SPS's aren't that they are self-published per se but that they don't meet the definition of a "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" because either (a) they're not third-party or (b) don't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy or, more often than not, both. If there's some doubt about whether or not a source is a SPS, you can simply avoid any argument over that point by falling back on the root definition of reliable source. To change the language of this rule would set off a whole new round of unnecessary debate over its applicability. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand is it now time for me to quietly go away, like the January incursion into the status quo. Unparsable sentences are par for the course in WP policy. WP policy has always been this way. I'm not a member of this project. I get it.
 * "statute-like drafting in policy" Here i think we have a situation where informality has lead to incomprehensibility. Consider the heterogeneous set {ham sandwich, George Washington, giraffes (all giraffes currently alive)} Now try writing a coherent sentence of which this set is the subject.
 * " I simply don't see them being problems in practice." A unparsable sentence in policy is a problem. It's not a problem in practice for you, but it was definitely a problem for me. I read policy and couldn’t understand it. I gotta think there's others. You know what this section is trying to say, I didn't, respectfully, perhaps you are too close to this topic to appreciate what a god-forsaken sentence we are talking about here.
 * In any case, granted, the current definition of "self-published works", and the de facto definition of "self-published sources", is there any defensible reason not to include an explicit definition of "self-published sources" somewhere in WP policy space or is advocating such lawyering? Are we bound to define things only in such a way that a cascade of text tweaks is avoided? Hugh (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The last time I saw any serious effort made towards defining this, we had a couple of people insist that it was not possible for a source to be self-published if there were enough lawyers involved in the decision to publish it. I gave up at that point.  As far as I'm concerned, linking to a dictionary definition would be an improvement.  We really are just aiming for the plain old everyday definition here, not a special bit of wikijargon (unlike "questionable sources", which is an inexplicable bit of wikijargon).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, WhatamIdoing, on your observations. May I add that not only is "self-published source" never, ever, defined but --to add insult to injury-- the inexplicable bit of wikijargon "questionable sources" is defined; it reads: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." So, go figure! BTW, it is precisely because there will always be some editor insisting on one or the other as a proper definition for what constitutes a self-published source that I think a good 4 or 5 examples would do a great deal of good here. They could exemplify what are considered SPS by Wikipedia's standards.Mercy11 (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * User:TransporterMan, are you saying that, iyo, Wikipedia's official but tacit definition of Self Published Sources is "Third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Mercy11 (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

===Proposal===
 * 1) Move "Identifying and using self-published sources" to "Self-published sources" so it look like a definition page.
 * 2) Add a definition of "self-published sources" as a 2nd sentence to the lede: "Self-published sources, in Wikipedia policy context, refers to those works, authors, and publishers; generically, as a class, as does the definition of "sources" at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources."
 * 3) Add a hat from the 1st section of V re: SPS to the def of SPS.
 * 4) Remove the in-text request for clarification template from V.
 * Hugh (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would push harder for the inclusion of examples in that lineup. The more different ways SPS can be interpreted, the more examples it could use. In addition to (1) the traditional straight definition [if we can ever hit it right on the head], and (2) examples, a 3rd way to define something is by (3) stating what it is not. It can also help to keep in mind that any terms used in the definition must all be "basic" terms, that is, terms that are widely accepted as having one and only one meaning themselves. Take, for example, the definition, "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Who is to say that source X has a "reputation for fact-checking"? Is there a list of "publishers with a reputation for fact-checking" put out by a national consortium of publishers somewhere? The good news is that whatever "reputation for fact-checking" means most of us will agree that The New York Times and Newsweek have such reputation, so anything they publish is not SPS, and most of us will agree that Mercy11 Publishing House does not have such reputation, thus anything Mercy11 PH publishes will be SPS. The bad news is that the vast majority of existing sources are not so obvious to label. The point is: we have to be careful what terms are used in defining self-published source. Mercy11 (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I know this is thoroughly beside the point - but I consider the New York Times a far greater SPS violator than Mercy11 Publishing House. Checkbook journalism (and Citizens United v. FEC politics) is quite rampant. But hey, what do I know...carry on, fellow editors. Sarason (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment! Modesty aside, you might not be too far off: There is generally a conflict of interest with mainstream publishing houses since they could care less about the veracity of their publications since their bottom line resides on how to make their books or peridicals as appealing as possible so they will sell in as great a quantity as possible. This reminds me of the James Bond movie Tomorrow Never Dies where Bond yells to the media mogul Jonathan Pryce that the first rule of publishing is "to give people what they want to read!!!!"  BTW, @User:Sarason, did you misspell and actually meant Citizens United v. FEC? "(FEC)" Mercy11 (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal
New proposal, recognizing that V is policy and WP:USESPS ("Identifying and using self-published sources") is an essay, having requested and heard no objection to an explicit def of SPS in WP policy:
 * 1) Copy def of "self-published works" from WP:USESPS to the 1st sentence of subsection "Self-published sources" of V.
 * 2) Add a definition of "self-published sources" as a 2nd sentence to the "Self-published sources" subsection of V: "Self-published sources, in Wikipedia policy context, refers to those self-published works, their authors, and their publishers; generically, as a class, as does the definition of "sources" at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources." Now happily the def of SPS is pointed to by the shortcut WP:SPS.
 * 3) Remove the in-text request for clarification template from V.


 * Your definition at #2 is not entirely correct. I realize that this is not directly stated, but SPS actually refers only to the "documents" or "works".  This is for the very commonsensical reason that if it applied to humans, we would be in the untenable position of saying that the existence of a single self-published document defined all individual humans as being "self-published sources".  You will not be surprised to discover that this failure to explicitly define this does not produce any disputes.  We don't define words that don't need to be defined, as demonstrated by the presence or absence of serious disputes over the definition (or lack thereof).   WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is a self-published source a source? Because please recall the WP def of "source" is generically works/authors/publishers WP:RS. If "source" when used in the phrase "self-published source" is not the same as "source" used elsewhere in WP policy then we should say so. If an SPS is not a special case of a source and so is not a author or publisher, help us write a definition of SPS that says so. How would you define SPS, I ask, recognizing your position is that it does not need to be defined, but it's just us here in talk space? Thanks.
 * May I suggest another metric, relevant to deciding whether or not an explicit definition is helpful, in addition to the number of disputes, the number of wikipedians who come to WP:SPS hoping to learn what is SPS and why should I care, and go away confused? Hugh (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If SPS refers to "documents" or "works" then you would agree SPS cannot have "activities" and so V needs an edit for clarification? What would you propose? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, I solicited comment from those who believe SPS need not be defined and you replied. The issue you focus on, of whether SPS includes agents, and can therefore have activities, is right on target to what got this section of talk started. Please I would like to hear from others on this. Hugh (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disclaimer: The essay "WP:USESPS" is a self-published work by the self-published author @User:WhatamIdoing. As such, I would like to thank WhatamIdoing for taking the time and improving it with examples, back in 2012. However, I consider the examples there to be too generic to be useful for most cases where the nitty-gritty of SPS disputes take place:
 * 1) For example, rather than just saying "blogs are an example of SPS" I would like to see that qualified with the Wikipedia view that not all blogs are SPS and then give actual examples of blogs that are not SPS.
 * 2) Also, rather than just saying "wikis are an example of SPS" I would like to propose that an article that defines SPS expands that line to say something like "wikis, such as wikt, Google Maps, Monster Frontier, are SPS and should be avoided".
 * 3) Rather than saying "user-generated content is considered SPS", say something like "YouTube may be used in External Links only. Videos that have been uploaded by VEVO, the artist, or its record label can be used anywhere as they are free media content".
 * 4) The statement (paraphrasing) "Business, charitable, and personal websites are examples of SPS" is badly incomplete. For one, business websites can be used as sources of information about themselves, and this needs to be noted so as not to create the appearance of a contradiction in an SPS article/section where SPS is defined with examples.
 * 5) We need to remember that articles about businesses (unless the business is defunct) essentially follow the policy set forth at WP:BLP. This follows from WP:BLPGROUP. Many small and mid-size businesses and charities fall under this clause. Large corporations do not.

Also, the essay does not do a good job at giving examples of self-published authors; not necessarily their actual names, I mean their cases/circumstances. There are very valid reasons why material may be written and published by the same author (self-published) and yet not be questionable in its truthfulness and fact-checking accuracy or any other relevant factor. (And fact-checking is what Wikipedia is after, and not whether or not it was actually written and published by the same individual per se).
 * 1) One reason is lack of freedom of the press (last I checked, that's in the majority of the world).
 * 2) Another reason is political oppression (I am sure this is not the first time anyone here has heard we have this in our lovely planet Earth - Dissenting writers (whether they have a reputation for fact-checking or not), just like a guerilla force, moves underground). Writers under Castro's Cuba comes to mind.
 * 3) A third is suppression by the establishment (For example, the U.S. Govt enacted the Smith Act during the Cold War to control the growth of communism in the US. As a result, writers with a different political inclination went underground, yet such action said nothing about the veracity or accuracy of their writings.).
 * 4) A corollary of the above is that at times a writer may be fearful to sell his rights to a mainstream publisher. When the mainstream houses hold views like the establishemnet, the house may buy, and pay the writer for, the rights to publish, but never publish the work. The strategy here is that the opposition will not benefir from reading the work the writer intended to make publis becuase now that teh publisher own the rights but refuses to publish the work, no one else can publish the work either and teh author gets some money but does not accomplish his intention of publishing his work.
 * 5) A fourth is the pen name phenomenon. The world is full of writers who have written under a different name for fear of retaliation.

None of the above have absolutely nothing to do with lack of fact-checking, and everything to do with being victims of the circumstances. To adopt the current essay definition of SPS ("Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same") as the official definition would be like saying that the definition of a planet are those bodies that are spheres: the definition is incomplete and, thus, not accurate.

I am not advocating a free-for-all. I am advocating that a definition of SPS be presented in the positive : rather than saying that a SPS are inadmissible, we should seek a definition that it presented as (just an idea, not a proposed definition yet) "SPS are always admissible and welcome in Wikipedia when they are autobiographies. Vanity press publications are also admissible, as are non peer-reviewed publications (whether books, articles, periodicals, etc). Only when there is a documented, proven, substantiated, and verifiable conflict of interest between the author and the publisher is a work not admissible to Wikipedia.

As to whether SPS means self published author or does it mean self published work or are they the same or can they be used interchangeably (as WP:USESPS does where the title and the lede use different terms without addressing the difference anywhere), to me a "self-published author" (and I dont use the term here pejoratively at all) should be done away with because it is confusing, ambiguous, and counterproductive to what we are trying to accomplish here. The reason is that unless a writer has produce one and only one work and that work was published by the author, the correct term to use is self-published work because one author could had published other works via mainstream commercial publishers and only one published by himself. It would not be fair to label a writer a self-published author if he published one work SP and all his other works are not SP. That would be like calling President Nelson Mandela a criminal because committed the 1 crime of rising against the state 27 years earlier. Oftentimes published authors break into that world by publishing their first work themselves and once they become known and established then it is easier for them to be published by the mainstream.

While essays can be great tools for clarifying policies, in this case the essay serves little because the problem is with the policy. It is beyond me how a policy can exist without categorically defining its most basic term. Mercy11 (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This has come up in multiple places, so let me answer them all here, at one time:


 * We do not define every single word in policies and guidelines. We do not even define every word that might be confusing or unfamiliar to some editors.  We define terms in two circumstances:


 * 1) When the Wikipedia use of a word differs significantly from the dictionary definition:  Consider "Notability" and "Neutral".
 * 2) When the absence of an on-wiki definition results in disputes because people make up their own definitions:  See "Verifiability" (which is defined to contrast the-ability-to-verify with the-presence-of-an-inline-citation) and "Inline citation" (which is defined to be independent of technology, i.e., includes more than just little blue numbers).


 * We normally do not define terms, especially in already-lengthy policies and guidelines, if there are zero serious disputes and if we're using the basic dictionary definitions. In this case, I see no evidence of disputes and I see no evidence that our definition differs significantly from the ones present in any English-language dictionary (Wiktionary is easy to link, but see Merriam-Webster, OED British, OED American, etc.  They're all basically the same).
 * If you want to add a definition (more than a link to one), then please demonstrate that this is necessary to write the encyclopedia. NB that what is "necessary to write the encyclopedia" does not include having letter-perfect policy pages.
 * If you want examples, then just go to WP:USESPS and boldly add a few. Someone will eventually correct whatever you get wrong (and some of your examples above are wrong, e.g., YouTube, for which you'll want to see External links/Perennial websites).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. We don't define everything, I understand and support that. You believe "self-published sources" need not be defined. You believe you understand what SPS is, and you believe most people understand what SPS means, as evidenced by the lack of disputes. Please let me ask you:
 * WP policy defines "sources" at WP:RS. Sources include authors and publishers. You believe SPS does not. Don't we need to explicitly state that "sources" when used in the phrase "self-published sources" is not the "sources" defined at WP:RS?
 * You believe SPS does not include authors or publishers. Do you agree V needs an edit to remove or clarify the reference to the "activities" of SPS?
 * Thanks again for your patience. Hugh (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure: I agree that sources is defined.  That particular definition does not, as it happens, apply to every single use of the word sources in every single policy, or even to every single use on this particular page.  We do the same all over the place, e.g., when we confusingly talk about "notable" things when we mean "significant" rather than "WP:Notable" ones.  I'm sorry if it's confusing, but you do have to apply some common sense.  It is not possible for an actual human to be self-published, because humans are not published at all.  Humans are "born", not "published".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Of course this whole dust up could be explained as a massive failure of common sense on my part. My naive understanding of the "qualifying-adjective noun" construct in English is that something referred to in this manner is still a "noun." My flawed common sense told me "self-published sources" are "sources." The lede sentence of V wikilinks to the definition of source at WP:RS. When WP:RS says "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia...", your common sense tells you that definition does not extent to V?
 * Ok, agents such as authors or publishers cannot be self-published sources because they cannot be self-published since they are not published. So, would you support striking "or their activities" from the lede sentence of WP:ABOUTSELF? Thanks in advance. Hugh (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * WAID, I asked you the immediately above question 7 Mar, 8 Mar and again 9 Mar. I would very much appreciate hearing from you on this particular question. "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities ..." Thanks in advance for your patience. Hugh (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Questionable sources" includes authors and publishers (people and businesses can be questioned), and so they may have activities. Self-published sources, although they may be used as WP:PRIMARY sources "about themselves", are not normally considered to "have activities".  They may, however, be used for information about their authors'/publishers' activities.
 * I'd guess that this unfortunate line was a result of the decision to include "questionable sources" in the SPS statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The phrase "self-published works" is used to refer to the body of books, articles, and other similar literary compositions resulting from the creativity of the human mind, whereas the phrase "self-published sources" is used to refer to "self-published works" in the context of citations being added to the encyclopedia to support a given fact. BTW, the claim "the failure to explicitly define this does not produce any disputes" is just that, a claim. WP:RSN has a contant flow of disputes of SPS. If SPS was defined, many disputes wouldn't even make it to the board. Right now you can see one more there: WP:RSN
 * Mercy11 (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there is any doubt about the definition in that RSN discussion at all. It looks to me like the IP already knows that they're self-published, and is hoping that someone else will remove them from the articles.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've got no clue what you are talking about. It's great goal to be concise, but to be concise to the fault of failing to communicate is quite something else. Nothing personal, but you make no sense. I have a pretty good idea overall what you are trying to achieve, so there is no need for further attempts to explain your position. I am sure we will come across again in the not too distant future, as editors are not satisfied with the current definitions. Mercy11 (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm talking the RSN "discussion" that you linked to in the comment immediately above my reply. The "discussion" contained exactly one comment, from an IP who already knew what an self-published source was.  Your example disproves your assertion that "If SPS was defined, many disputes wouldn't even make it to the board".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course we don't define everything. Where did I say we do, @User:WhatamIdoing? Perhaps you missed where I stated "our focus should be on defining 'self-published sources' first" Do you disagree that's where the focus should be? I believe you and I agree in most points. Where we do appear to disagree is on claims such as the comment that "if you want to add a definition...then please demonstrate that this is necessary to write the encyclopedia", which isn't in line with WP:BURDEN. We can't have it both ways, either the essay has the weight of an essay (i.e., an opinion) or --if you insist that greater weight-- then you need to abide by higher standards such as WP:BURDEN.


 * As a reminder, we are all in this discussion because HughD felt that WP:V lacks a good definition of "self-published works" and, in reaction, he tagged it with "clarification needed". He then proposed to add two definitions (1)"Copy def of 'self-published works' from WP:USESPS to the 1st sentence of subsection 'Self-published sources' of V" and (2)"Add a definition of 'self-published sources' as a 2nd sentence to the 'Self-published sources' subsection of V: 'Self-published sources, in Wikipedia policy context, refers to those self-published works, their authors, and their publishers; generically, as a class, as does the definition of 'sources' at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources." HughD's proposal entails laying out a grand total of 2 definitions. Are you not OK with that, WhatamIdoing? There is no proposal anywhere to define "every single word"; on the contrary, in my comments above I suggested just the opposite: that the term "self-published author" not be defined (or, in the alternative that we discourage its use as potentially ambiguous). Did you miss that? Are you not OK with not defining self-published author? I think you and I are in more agreement than you are giving credit to.


 * BTW, per WP:TPG, I have removed the subtitle "Role of Terms" (and formatted accordingly). Since you were responding to comments I made under the Proposal section it is OK to continue there. The discussion had already reached the "proposal" stage and in Wikipedia we traditionally don't create a subsection for every discussion idea that comes up - in particlar once the discussion has reached that advanced stage.


 * I am also in agreement with you on YouTube/External links, and I am glad you caught that. Where I wanted to direct the group's attention to, however, was to YouTube uploads by the VEVO, et.al. which I noted. My point was, again, one of presenting the positive , such as "you can do this and this and this" instead of burdening editors with the nagativity of "you cannot do this, nor this, nor that". Do you oppose being positive? BTW, while on this topic, thanks for pointing me to your second essay External links/Perennial websites and I will read it as I get time. For now I think it's best to focus on defining HughD's "self-published sources" so we can address @User:HughD's "clarification needed" concern.


 * As you have stated, the concerns above have come up in multiple times. And I noted that this is not the first time that the issue of defining "self-published source" has come up. Obviously editors need more guidance. Wouldn't you agree? Mercy11 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * When we use this policy to resolve disputes, we normally need "the negativity".
 * Also, my comments are in response to multiple replies, not just to your last one above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the reply. I disagree with that negativity notion: What we need is to think harder so we present it in a positive fashion. You limit creativity anytime that you limit freedom, and "no" is shorthand for limiting freedom. Negative language produces a perception that editors' freedoms are being limited. Progress results from freedom, not from limiting it. Perception is reality. Also, thanks for your "multiple replies" response; still let's continue to channel this discussion as a response to the currently standing proposal. In the alternative, use the main main body of section "SPS's themselves" to continue the philosophical discussion in general. Or do you foresee returning to the proposal at a later point? Mercy11 (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this section is to, as you put it, "limit freedom". We are identifying a category of sources that we dislike and telling other people to (mostly) stop using them.  If you perceive from "the negativity" that we (usually) don't want you to use these sources, then you have correctly understood what we're telling you.  Whether you approve of us "limiting freedom" or "stifling creativity", the fact remains that it's what we're actually trying to achieve here.  The only difference is that we're going to call it "maintaining standards" or "requiring suitable sources".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Where did I say the purpose of WP:SPS was to limit creativity? I didn't say that; you are. What I am saying, I repeat ad nauseum, is that there are more positive ways how this can be presented. And you replied, "If you want to add a definition (more than a link to one), then please demonstrate that this is necessary to write the encyclopedia." That response does nothing to address the clunkiness of the phrase “Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves”.
 * You didn't say that limiting creativity is the purpose; you complained that it has the end result of limiting creativity and poposed not limiting creativity. I'm telling you that this end result, this effect of "limiting creativity" which you are complaining about, is the intended goal.  If you find your "creativity" is limited by this "negativity", then we have been successful and we therefore should change nothing (about the negativity).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha! I think I understand where you are missing my point. Perhaps "creativity" is not the right term for this discussion as you seem to be equating it with Wikipedia's definition of WP:OR, and nothing that I have said is meant to weaken WP:OR in any shape or form. What I am proposing is a way of expressing to editors that:
 * "All sources are welcome including SPSs so long as the SPS meets certain guidelines."
 * What you are supporting, as I understand it, is more along the lines of
 * "Self-published works are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles, with some exceptions."
 * Perphaps that helps clarify my proposition. That is, when I say "creativity" it has nothing to do with letting editors add disallowed SPS as sources for supporting Wikipedia articles; it has to do with encouraging editors to using all possible SPS as a potential source that meet the criteria rather than discouraging them from using a source purely on the basis that it is a SPS.
 * To be precise, you are stating "If you find your 'creativity' is limited by this 'negativity', then we have been successful" when in reality my concern is more of, "If editors find apprehension to using an SPS, then we have been successful" and such SPS-unfriendly environment instead of encouragiung editors to checking the SPS against the meet requirements would in fact have the effect of discouraging them (limiting their creativity/resourcefullness) from even putting the potential SPS thru the paces to ascertain whether or not they qualify as a valid Wikipedia source. Mercy11 (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes: If editors are apprehensive about using SPS, then we have been successful.  We don't want to "encourage editors to use all possible SPS".  We want them to avoid using them unless there is no feasible alternative and they source meets all of our requirements.  This is an "SPS-unfriendly environment".  That's what (most of) the community wants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But that information is not in the SPS policy. As part of a definition, then, not just examples are needed but a clause like your "Wikipedia prefers non SPS, but SPS are also acceptable if there is no feasible alternative and the source meets all of our requirements." Has something like this been proposed in the past? Mercy11 (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are many aspects of editorial judgment that are not included directly in any policy. We expect good editors to be able to glork it from the context.  And if you personally want people to feel free to use SPS, then your best strategy doesn't include spoonfeeding the rest of us these arguments for writing even stronger language into that section.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's all in the manner you look at it. Your language is reminecent of WP:BITE. Not everyone coming along is born knowing everything about Wikipedia. Some people need more information than others to benefit from a topic. Others, regrettably, think they understand everything and jump to conslusions they later regret or cut corners making a mess of communication for everyone else on their way. Spoonfeeding would be just the opposite of what you are claiming: you want just the precise portion of information that will satisfy your own personal needs. But different contributors have needs different from yours. You appear to have a problem with that, but that's is OK: you have a right to be wrong. Above you also left a comment that makes little sense - thanks for the cutting of corners. Mercy11 (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I read a sentence in V that made no sense to me and I think is probably difficult for most. I tried to fix it in good faith and learned I don't understand the topic well enough to edit. For me an explicit def of SPS is less an end in itself as it is means toward an accessible policy statement. Hugh (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors tend to react quicker to WP policy page changes than to WP article page changes because policies are generally watched by a greater number of editors. Mercy11 (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hugh, the relevant question is not whether you understood the sentence. The question is whether or not you are able to improve an article despite not understanding the sentence (or, indeed, if you had never bothered to read the sentence).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's vanity but I like to think of myself as a bright guy so when I can't understand a sentence I tend to think maybe some others can't either. I am learning that a sentence that would not stand a chance in article space is life & death in policy space. I am proud of my article space percentage but I can't tell you whether I've read this sentence before recently without permanent psychological damage. Before refreshing myself on SPS recently I would have explained SPS to myself with an example like the Brietbart Report, generally not RS but sufficiently notable that you might want to reference it in an article about itself. Then when I learned from V that self-published sources can have activities I learned I did not understand SPS. Hugh (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

?No original research?
As an academic, if someone presents me with a report based primarily on secondary or tertiary reports, I should doubt his competence/ honesty. It stops being an analysis of "truth" but becomes journalism. I have just read the article "The medium is the message" which is criticised for using only primary sources. That to me is a strength not a weakness. It would be even more valuable to cite conflicting original sources. Following this concept, if Wikepedia deals only in the medium of second hand sources, the message is that original work is not valuable. Bang goes the Enlightenment and the combined research budgets of the world. And Wikipedia becomes the source of choice for plagiarism, because not referring to original sources is the model to follow. Cvhorie (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have not read WP:PRIMARY, I would recommend doing so. In fact, this discussion may be better suited to that article's Talk page. DonIago (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY is a project page and a policy, not an article. It might be a suitable place to discuss Cvhorie's concern. The talk page of an article would not be a suitable place for this discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Cvhorie, as an academic, if someone presents you with a report, you probably know the identity of the presenter. You might even be in a position to apply corrective measures to the presenter (for example, the presenter is your student in a class). So you are in a good position to evaluate the reliability of the report, and the presenter might even face significant consequences if the report is seriously sub-standard. There is no possibility of evaluating the reputation of, or applying significant consequences to, 61.3.18.91 (IP address chosen by throwing a die). Jc3s5h (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I misspoke. But I believe my point remains valid. Your point above is quite valid as well. DonIago (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Cvhorie, a lot of academics seem to appreciate reading Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia.
 * Also, "secondary" and "second-hand" are not the same thing. Editors may WP:USEPRIMARY sources, but with caution.  We prefer that articles be mostly secondary sources (like a good textbook or review article), with only a few of the most important primary sources added (or even discussed directly in the text, for historically important ones).  I'm sure you understand the problem of people cherry-picking primary sources to "prove" their pet theories, or trying to puff up a favorite author (or commercial product) by omitting any critical review of their works, and that is the kind of problem that we're trying to avoid by emphasizing secondary sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: "the message is that original work is not valuable"... while original work is very important in other contexts (such as academic writing) - in the context of compiling an encyclopedia, original work isn't all that valuable. Wikipedia is a Tertiary source, and as such should summarize what is said in secondary sources.  Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, remember that Wikipedia is generally written by anonymous editors of unknown expertise. By selective use of primary sources, somebody can create any "reality" that they want from primary sources. So we in essence don't give that freedom to editors, including placing very strict limitations on the use of primary sources.  North8000  (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Challenging?
Removing the unsources IS a challenge; or at least one method of challenging.  Well how about WP:Preserve? Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which doesn't mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research. Either clean up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tag it as necessary. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but preserve any reasonable content on the article's talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts.

My change reverted here was: Any material challenged or likely to be challenged lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. - VERSUS  Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. I think acting on this line as it is now, makes really a lot of confusing removals and sometimes unnecessary challenge.

You know that there are people who just go no putting unsourced like on everything, they go like: Jesus Christ was a man.. Tomato is a plant. The Bucingham palace is a building. The Big Ben is in England. Wkipedia is an encyclopedia. USA is a land. London is a town. Ok, I think you get me here. This gives people a power over other editors to make them work harder just to find some more citations for things that are quite obvious and highly non-controversial. Hafspajen (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that the change that you attempted is a good one.  North8000  (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks!!! Hafspajen (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't here when that was removed, but it seems that there may be a consensus to keep those words. if we are to rehash this now, I would support the change made by Hafspajen. As they say, as it states right now, this is telling editors to remove everything that doesn't have an inline source and there is certainly going to be some unquestionable content not needing a reference or inline citation.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing an unsourced statement constitutes a challenge to it. There is nothing more likely to be challenged than something that is being challenged. If some editor goes around demanding citations for uncontroversial statements just to be contrarian, that's a behavioural matter and not strictly a content one and, really, have you ever seen anyone do this? The converse would be a person invested in some bit of unsourcable tat who reverts its removal with "this is not likely to be challenged", which I regard as more likely and more problematic as someone demanding a source for "water is wet". Also, you do need to cite that the sky is blue because lots of things that are commonly believed are not actually true, or need elaboration. London is a city not a town, many people dispute the historical existence of Jesus Christ, and a tomato is actually a fruit. Reyk  YO!  12:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "[R]eally, have you ever seen anyone do this?" Yes.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do they also discuss if Jesus Christ was a man? Hafspajen (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm with Reyk. The policy ought to assume good faith, which in this case means assuming the editor who makes the challenge has a good editorial reason for doing that.  I mean, Hafspajen is obviously right to observe that there are wikipedia contributors who show poor editorial judgment, and who remove content to further a personal feud or for some other vexatious reason.  This is a misuse of WP:BURDEN, and it wastes massive amounts of editor time because our encyclopaedia doesn't deal with timewasters effectively.  I've been on the receiving end of vexatious content removal and tagging, and I know it's an open goal for the griefers on our encyclopaedia.  I do definitely agree that we need a quick, decisive and drama-free way to block and site-ban editors who misuse WP:BURDEN.  The dithering and hand-wringing that takes place on AN/I is a disgrace.  But usually editors have a good reason for making a challenge, and usually there really is a problem with the content they want to remove, and WP:V needs to make sure it really is quick and simple to make that challenge. If I ran Wikipedia then along side the Criteria for Speedy Deletion there would be Criteria for Speedy Banning, and griefing with WP:BURDEN would be one of them.— S Marshall  T/C 12:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I understand what you mean, Reyk. The question is - what shall we remove?  We have a lot of legacy content - some of it from before references were required - and it would be better for the encyclopedia if people looked for sources, added tags to some of what they are unable to source, and were more judicious in what they outright cut. Too many times I was directed to this line ANYTHING CAN BE REMOVED IF NOT SOURCED. Some people, not  judicious people like you, but others, find this an excuse to remove - really - anything that is not sourced. If not a not controversial topic, and references can be found, it would be  better before removing anything to make sure that there is no such reference for it you can find yourself. Otherwise it is just disruptive editing, makig people to work a lot when they could use their time doing better things. Hafspajen (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do some people "grief" articles, and abuse WP:BURDEN? Yes.  It is an annoying part of editing on Wikipedia.  The question is: how do you react when such "griefing" occurs?
 * There are two choices... a) get upset, spend hours and hours arguing with the "griefer", trying to convince him/her why the citation isn't actually needed; or b) refuse to get upset... spend five or ten minutes doing a quick on-line search, find a citation and simply slap it into the article. The second option is always a lot less stressful, and much less of a hassle.  "Griefers" are looking for a fight... and the best way to make them shut up and go away is to deny them the satisfaction of fighting back.  To quote Star Wars... "Let the wookie win".   Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, my personal experience of this was seeing my watchlist light up like a Christmas Tree when an editor went through hitting every article linked from my userpage. Either tagging, or remove content from, every single article ever started by yours truly.  In alphabetical order, at the rate of several articles a minute.  And, bollocks to letting the wookie win.  Tagging or removing content is so much faster than satisfying WP:BURDEN that the vexatious editor is always going to come out on top.  In that situation you've got to go to AN/I and hope one of our glorious sysops decides you might be worthy of taking a little trouble to help out.  BUT that isn't a WP:V issue.  It's a WP:HA issue, and less extreme versions are WP:POINT issues.  Editing WP:V isn't the answer.  Encouraging sysops to impose WP:COMPETENCE blocks on people who remove appropriate content would be much preferable.— S Marshall  T/C 17:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The widespread problem that it would reduce is Wiki-lawyering to knock out "sky is blue" sourced statements in order to POV an article. The way that it is used to knock out sourced statements is to couple this with wikilawyering-nitpicking the sources. Another secondary way is that sources generally don't spend time making "sky is blue" statements, making them harder to source. Further reinforcing that there should also be a good faith challenge when knocking out material would help this situation. If a source meeting the wp:rs criteria said that elephants fell from the sky in Phoenix yesterday, or that Ron Paul is an isolationist, could you find sources that say the opposite?  North8000  (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, this is all perfectly true, the best way to make them shut up and go away is to deny them the satisfaction of fighting back, quite so. The problem is REMOVE. If they remove things maybe you will never be able to find any sources, because you will not know that the text was there. Not unless you watch the page. And all this fighting around might be much less if we make this sentence above more: Any material challenged or likely to be challenged lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. - instead: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Hafspajen (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Verifiability already states just a line above that any material challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable, published source using an inline citation. It doesn't mean that everything needs to be challenged,  rather uncontroversial facts don't necessarily need a citation. Hafspajen (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * My recommendation would be to provide sources, or expect that the statements might be removed at some point. Alternately you could begin a discussion at the article's Talk page, but I believe my first recommendation would follow the path of least resistance. Frankly I don't know that any of the above information is true and believe it should be sourced. That said, a friendly note to the tagging editor pointing out that they could just tag the end of the paragraph wouldn't be out of line.DonIago (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wasn't tagging this in that article. I was only showing a point here. Actually I don't use tagging much, mostly try to fix things. Hafspajen (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess my point is that I've almost never seen an example of editors requesting citations in a manner that didn't appear reasonable to me, but perhaps my experiences have been limited. If anything what I tend to run into is significant chunks of articles with no sources at all, or articles that have been tagged for years. DonIago (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I join Hafspajen, Miler and North8000 that the phrase should be removed. Reyk, Blueboar and Donlargo disagreed. Reyk did, on the basis that it is "a behavioural matter". Well, no, it is not, and there are plenty cases I can provide here with diffs if I am challenged. Not only do editors challenge article text on good faith and with merit but it could also be argued that to claim it is a "behavioral matter" is a violation of WP:AGF. It is a content issue, and what needs to be made clear is that CN'ing statements like "the sky is blue" and similar statements is nonsense because they are neither statistics (unlike, say, "the population of Canada is 2 billion" would be) nor quotations from someone (unlike, say, "to be or not to be"), and statements that are likely to be challenged are generally those with statistical claims or with quotations in them. But say a statement is neither a statistics nor a quote, what happens? This third type of statement is exemplified by statements like "a tomato is a vegetable not a fruit". In this case, you can simply let them CN the statement and you simply find a cite - end of the dispute. Now, Blueboar disagreed with the those first 3 editors above stating that the clause "challenged or likely to be challenged" should stay because if an editor insists on challenging a statement harboring himself on that clause you can always just "spend five or ten minutes doing a quick on-line search, find a citation and simply slap it into the article." This is true and, like Blueboar, I mostly do just that. However, that argument has no bearing on whether or not the removal of the clause in question, as Hafspajen is proposing, takes place. That is, even if "challenged or likely to be challenged" was removed from the policy, an editor can still CN a statement and Blueboar can still satisfy the challenge by finding a cite online in 5 minutes. That is, the two actions are not mutually exclusive, and --as such-- Blueboar's good-faith argument is a fallacious argument. Donlargo on the other hand disagrees on the "better safe than sorry" strategy - sort of when you call your physician in the middle of the night because you are worried about a pain...we all know that the doctor will inevitably send you to the ER, right? So, I don't adhere to that position because it requires no human creativity.


 * Now, there is a difference between tagging (CN'ing) a statement because it is unsourced and removing a statement because it is unsourced. Everyone here (except for Marshall, who I am not sure has made a decision where he stands) is talking about removing unsourced statement. Any editor in Wikipedia can CN tag an unsourced statement but, per WP:PG, WP:NOCITE and WP:LR, no editor has a right to remove a statement on sight merely because it is unsourced: There are rules for content removal. The only exception to the on-sight removal rule is in BLP articles -- but even in BLP articles there is a precondition to removing unsourced material: that the version in question fails strict adherence "to all applicable laws in the United States". (This means that we could be sued for libel if we kept certain version; it does not mean that we could be sued for libel if a certain version was unsourced. For example, we could be sued for libel if we stated that "actor John Doe is a cocaine drugaddict" without a citation. But we could not be sued for libel if we said (puffery aside) that "actor John Doe is the best goddam actor in the world" without a source. The point is that the exception in BLPs isn't even about sourcing or not, but about not "adhering to all applicable laws of the U.S.".) Mercy11 (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't recall disagreeing with the removal of the text; in fact, I don't believe I have a problem with it being removed. That said, I disagree or take issue with several of the points you've made above, including the analogy you made of my feelings on the matter, which it appears you don't entirely understand, but I think I'll forego getting into that just now. DonIago (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I firmly disagree with the notion that WP:NOCITE sets a rule prohibiting removal of uncited material without tagging it first. That's a guideline giving advice about how to deal with certain matters, but the policy is given here. If you'll look back through the talk pages here, you'll see that there have been bloody battles fought multiple times over just that issue and that the end of the day position has always been that while the best practice is to tag and wait that it is acceptable to simply remove, so long as you "please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content" (and in my opinion that "please" reduces even that requirement to the level of a best practice, not a rule). I don't mind the introduction of the "challenged or likely to be challenged" language into this paragraph (and, indeed, I believe that to be the rule even if it is not stated here expressly) but if it is to be introduced I am not in favor of its introduction without also adding language which says "such challenges can be made by discussion on the talk page, by tagging the material, or simply by removing the unsourced material". Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are downgrading Guidelines to the level of Essays. Per WP:IAR, both policies and guidelines are Rules. The difference is Policies should always be followed while Guidelines should be followed but using common sense, i.e., with "occassional exceptions". Contrary to what you are saying, WP:PG states that essays (not guidelines) are for advise, and guidelines are not advise, they are rules, per WP:IAR. Could there be exceptions? Of coure, but you haven't presented an exception here, you are only saying "well that's just advise" which is neither advise nor an exception. Guidelines are the result of community consensus; refuse to follow the WP:NOCITE guideline and you are refusing to follow community consensus. It then comes down to this: "Does WP:NOCITE sets a rule prohibiting removal of uncited material without tagging it first"? And the answer is "YES", because WP:NOCITE is perfectly clear: "use the  template, which will add an inline tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time." In English, "do this and...go back and do that" has always meant "do this first and then do that later". And the rule is clear via the mandate "use" (vs. "could use", "may use", "might use", etc). As such, since WP:NOCITE states that uncited material (with the exception of BLP) must first be tagged and later removed, this only means that we cannot remove (except for BLPs) uncited material without tagging it first.  Mercy11 (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding on this, WP:MINREF explicitly lists "by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with citation needed, or any similar tag" as legitimate forms of challenge. Either removing unsourced text is indeed a legitimate form of challenge or that text is in need of an update. DonIago (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:MINREF is an Information Page. In the totem pole, WP:MINREF falls between essays and guidelines, because Information Pages attemptt to clarify a policy or a guideline but with the support of community-wide consensus. They are a step towards future incorporation into a policy or guideline. What are you trying to say? Mercy11 (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no "totem pole". See WP:PGE.  It's far more complicated than that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Apparently, I was unclear about my position, so I'll try to be more explicit. I think it's okay to remove text on the grounds that it's unsourced, with or without tagging that text first.  We're called "editors", and one of the things an editor should do is to improve the encyclopaedia by removing the worst parts of it.— S Marshall  T/C 21:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about a change like this:

Would that be clearer? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That really is an awful lot of extra words to add to the policy. :\ — S Marshall  T/C 21:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding more words rarely makes anything more clear. And at this point I'm not sure what situation(s) we're trying to address. DonIago (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that it makes the problem worse by explicitly defining a (even unexplained) removal as a challenge, which is contrary to the spirit of "challenged or likely to be challenged"  North8000  (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with North an unexplained removal --- is well, unexplained and its reason (or if it has any reason) is often unknown by anyone else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as defining "all removal == challenge". I see it as saying that "challenge == challenge", and removal may be a challenge.  "These are some ways to challenge the verifiability of unsourced material" does not equate to "The following actions are always challenges".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, a logician would say that it does equate to (actually include) that. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? "There are multiple ways to challenge unsourced material, including:  removing the material" means "All removal of all material is always a challenge"?  What would this logician make of the statement, "There are multiple ways for people to visit Paris, including:  flying on an airplane"?  Does that mean "All people flying on all airplanes are visiting Paris"?   I think that a real logician would tell you that you need to brush up on the fallacy of Affirming the consequent.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't address the issue being discussed here at all, namely the removal or keeping of the phrase "challenged or likely to be challenged"'. Mercy11 (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with North here as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification
I think that there is some confusion about what the change that started all of this was/is and which the thread is presumably about. I know that I was initially confused. The (currently undone) change was adding an additional use of the term "challenged or likely to be challenged". Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I can't help thinking it would be nice if we could find something less clunky than "challenged or likely to be challenged". I'm sure there's enough editorial skill among the editors active on this page to do that.— S Marshall  T/C 12:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess my question is whether it really matters whether the text is "challenged or likely to be challenged". WP:MINREF establishes removing text as a legitimate form of challenge. Assuming that's sound, then it seems like circular logic to say that the text can only be removed if it's challenged or likely to be challenged, because removing the text is in and of itself a challenge to it. "May be removed" isn't an instruction, it merely establishes removal as a legitimate option. If and when we establish that simply removing the unsourced text is not a legitimate form of challenge (good luck with that), I can see how this would be more relevant. DonIago (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Part of the tension is that the Pedia does not generally require inline citation. Here, ic is presented as a way to resolve disputes, but the dispute is not really about inilne citation, it's about what is or is not verfiable information is present. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Alan, that may be true as a practical, aren't-going-to-get-blocked-for-it reality, but we do require ic. See the second paragraph of the lede, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I said, does not generally require. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You two don't really disagree. Alan says that we don't require it for everything.  TranspoterMan says we require it for some material.
 * And I find myself agreeing with Don Iago: removing unsourced garbage is a challenge.  Many removals are not challenges (grammar, redundancy, due weight, blanking vandalism...), which is why actual challenges to verifiability are ideally labeled as such, but adding this is circular.  It amounts to "you may remove anything that you may remove".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I'm fine with the addition except that, without additional clarification, it can be read to imply that there must be a challenge which precedes the removal or, in other words, that it can be read to imply that you cannot challenge by simply removing the unsourced material. I realize that INCITE says otherwise, but that's not a policy. On the whole, rather than adding tons of additional language or changing wording which has been in place for quite some time I think we're better off just leaving it the way that it is now. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

*North8000, I think you are adding confusion with your claim that "there is some confusion about what the change that started all of this was/is and which the thread is presumably about...The (currently undone) change was adding an 'additional' use of the term 'challenged or likely to be challenged'." That just isn't what Hafspajen, the initiator of this thread, said at the opening of this thread. What I read above is: My change reverted here was: Any material challenged or likely to be challenged lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. - VERSUS Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source.
 * &mdash; Hafspajen


 * The version that was there is one on the left below and the version Hafspajen proposes is one the right:


 * Clearly all Hafspajen is proposing is "Let's get rid of 'challenged or likely to be challenged'". This is additionally confirmed in Hafspajen's attempted change in the project page itself: HERE. I am not sure why you are stating something else. Mercy11 (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mercy11, I never said "Let's get rid of 'challenged or likely to be challenged'". I said that 'challenged or likely to be challenged' it sould be added to the sentence, instead Anything; so it makes people think a little bit before they go no removing like ANYTHING. Anything is a very uncertain word. Vandals go removing stuff and we do't let them do that. Hafspajen (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is what I proposed:


 * Mercy, I'm confused. The current version actually implemented in the policy does not have "challenged or likely to be challenged" in that sentence, so how can the proposal be to remove them? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah... Mercy11, you have it exactly backwards in your chart... Hafspajen's version added those words to the paragraph. That addition was reverted by Reyk.
 * Just to be clear... The phrase "challenged or likely to be challenged" has long been in the first paragraph of the BURDEN, but that is not the paragraph we are talking about. We are talking about the second paragraph of the BURDEN section.  What Hafspajen wanted to do was repeat the phrase from the first paragraph in the second paragraph.  I think that is unnecessary. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was right about it being confusing. I think that my statement at the opening of this subsection is accurate. And, as Hafspajen says, the above chart has it backwards. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, wonderful. In that case, yeah, I take no sides as my position is to remove the highly subjective phrase from everywhere, not just from one location. WP:BURDEN is part of V anyway; it should not be there, not in V, not in the lede, not in BURDEN, nowhere. It would be just as confusing not to remove every place location. Mercy11 (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd be adamantly opposed to that, and that would take a huge RFC and decision to remove this cornerstone of the policy. IMO it is a cornerstone of wp:ver and, even if vague, the problems with wp:ver would get much much worse without it.  North8000  (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I never said "Let's get rid of 'challenged or likely to be challenged'". I said that 'challenged or likely to be challenged' it sould be added to the sentence, instead of Anything; so it makes people think a little bit before they go no removing like ANYTHING. Anything is a very uncertain word. Hafspajen (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to change this :Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source.

into

Any material challenged or likely to be challenged lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Hafspajen (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)




 * But I think we may come to some solution, anyway. It is the wording ANYTHING that makes me troubled. Hafspajen (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Am I going to tagg a sentence that says: New Zealand people eat Pavlova (food)? No. Why should I ? It is not a controversial fact. But if I read in an article: The pope is walking every Thursday in a green dress in Rom from the Vatican to the Fontana Trevi and has a Thursday bath in Fontana Trevi, I might remove that, or tagg that. Hafspajen (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that I have no idea what Pavlova is and the link is to a disambiguation page, if I saw that in an article I think I'd challenge it. At minimum it requires clarification. DonIago (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material simply because they dislike it or prefer some other material, not because the material in any way needs verification. For example, an editor may demand a citation for the fact that most people have five digits on each hand (yes, this really happened). Another may decide that the color of the sky is actually aqua rather than blue, pull out an assortment of verifiable spectrographic analyses and color charts to demonstrate that this position is actually correct, and follow that with a demand that other editors provide equivalent reliable sources for the original statement that the sky is in fact blue. While there are cases where this kind of pedantic insistence is useful and necessary, often it is simply disruptive, and can be countered simply by pointing out that there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious. If the alternate proposition merits inclusion in the article under other policies and guidelines it should of course be included, but it should in no way be given greater prominence because it is sourced.

How about these? Hafspajen (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Barack Obama's surname is Obama.
 * 2) The Leaning Tower of Pisa is in Pisa.
 * 3) The Empire State Building is one Empire State Building tall. (an IP did add a "citation needed" tag to the caption, which was removed with a reference to this page – a valid application of the policy)


 * This is what I proposed:

Hafspajen (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Firstly, I find the proposal gramatically awkward. I also dislike the phrase in general; are there guidelines for judging when material is "likely to be challenged"? Yes, one can argue that it's common sense, but no two editors have exactly the same views on common sense. Additionally, I support the principle that unsourced material may be removed as a legitimate form of challenge; at that point the proposal doesn't make logical sense. I would be more open to something along the lines of...
 * Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. However, consider whether it would be more appropriate to tag the material with one of the "citation needed" templates rather than outright removing it. If a significant amount of text is unsourced, consider placing it on the article's Talk page so that editors may easily review it rather than simply deleting it. DonIago (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, you dislike the proposal? How about this Editing policy that is basically teling the same thing I am trying  to tell you?

This is a policy. WP:Preserve :Instead of deleting text, consider:
 * rephrasing or copyediting to improve grammar, more accurately represent the sources, or balance the article's contents
 * correcting inaccuracy, while keeping the rest of the content intact
 * moving the information to another existing article or splitting the information to a new article
 * adding more of what you think is important to make an article more point-of-view balanced
 * requesting a citation by adding the citation needed tag, or adding any other Template:Inline tags as appropriate
 * doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself
 * adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you cannot fix yourself
 * repair a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located
 * merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge
 * fixing errors in wikitext code or formatting...

Hafspajen (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I applaud your concern and your attempt to address it, but this actually makes it worse and goes against your goal by eliminating the "challenged or likely to be challenged" conditin.  North8000  (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for your applauds . You know, I think we kind of go in circles, maybe me too, instead of trying to adress the real problem. Rephrasing it is not a problem, I was only trying to say that just go on and help to find a gramatically better sentence, then. Hafspajen (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As far North8000, Mark Miller, Mercy11, TransporterMan, WhatamIdoing and Hafspajen were slightly positive to some kind of change, while Marshall, Blueboar and DonIago not. I am not sure where Alanscottwalker is right now. But It should be a way to do this, if we quit those circles. I do understand those concerns too, I really do.
 * This ANYTHING is really such an unclear wording, considering how it looks like: Any material . Hafspajen (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources - Biographies
I feel we need to crack open is old chestnut as its currently an issue over at Talk:Scarlett Johansson. Do we, Wikipedia, add in a pregnancy rumour, without confirmation of said rumour, to the article body because People or Time magazine reports it? They may be reporting it, but its a report from an unreliable anonymous source. And I feel this type of issue does require absolute confirmation. This is a living person we're talking about. Who may or my not be pregnant. Other editors believe yes, we should. But I feel that defeats the stature Wikipedia is on. We're an encyclopedia, we provide absolute fact, not possible fact. Or so we should be anyway.

So I must ask if these guidelines should incorporate "all biographical reports must have official and unquestioned confirmation before being included into the article" into how editors proceed on here? Rusted AutoParts 12:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:ver compliance is only a small piece of the answer, so an answer given with respect to wp:ver alone would be misleading and easily misused, and one based only on your description of the situation (without learning more) IMHO would be ill advised. But if it were as you described, under wp:ver-heightened-by-wp:blp it IMO probably shouldn't.   North8000  (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Im a bit confused with your reply, but I still feel that its incorrect of us as an encyclopedia to run a rumour simply because a reliable source reported on it. Johansson hasn't given confirmation this is fact. Why should we post it as if it is? Rusted AutoParts 12:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that (having seen only your description of the situation)) I agree with you, but that it doesn't arrive there simply from wp:verifiability, which is what this page is about.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How would you suggest I go about this, then? Because this is a very gaping hole in the structure of what Wikipedia should be. Rusted AutoParts 14:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because wp:ver alone does not handle it does not mean that Wikipedia policies and guidelines together do not handle it. If you are talking about the particular case I'll go take a peek.  North8000  (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just took a peek. It looks like it is not in the article, and there is an open RFC on the question. I think that that is the venue for this.   North8000  (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Rusted, in addition to whether it's possible to verify (that some reliable source said it, not that it's WP:The Truth), you need to consider two more things: WP:DUE and whether this is "encyclopedic", by which we (relevantly) mean something that will be of long-term interest and value to the article.  Most short-term rumors (e.g., someone may or may not have the sniffles this week) are not encyclopedic.  Some significant long-term rumors (e.g., a major American politician is widely rumored to be running for US President) are.  Where this rumor falls is something that good encyclopedia editors ought to be able to figure out pretty easily.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Burden of Evidence — keeping the reader in suspense isn't very good
There is no mention of what the title of the section Burden of evidence is referring to until the last paragraph of the section. Seems like the info in the last paragraph of the section, with slight rewording, should be moved to the beginning of the section. I just made the change. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That first sentence seems less than encyclopedic and seems awkwardly placed or somewhat random. "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable.". Can we lose that or edit it for better clarity?--Mark Miller (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted your bold re-wording of the phrase "burden of identifying a reliable source". The way you changed it made it less specific. The kind of "evidence" we require is found in providing verifiable and reliable sourcing. We probably don't want people gathering their own research as "evidence", WP:OR-style.__ E L A Q U E A T E  04:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted that back again. What we do know is the section is titled "Burden of evidence". That was the text I remember being there. I don't know how that got changed but don't recall the discussion so I very much support Bob's re-write.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark, maybe you didn't see where BobK has changed the text. The original was The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with, and BobK rewrote that part as The burden of evidence lies with. This is introduced text, I reverted its bold addition. I'd rather talk about the change of phrasing here before adding it to the page. Please put it back the way it was earlier today.__ E L A Q U E A T E  04:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was introduced here so you can probably involve User:WhatamIdoing. I don't think it's a great idea to start wholesale moving this section around before/during discussion in any case.__ E L A Q U E A T E  05:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A silent consensus is the weakest consensus. Please do not attempt to pit editors against each other in that manner. It isn't a matter of one against another. I do not believe there was a discussion to change the wording so it should probably remain as Bob reverted back to for now.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I don't see that a discussion took place before changing the order of the paragraphs. The reason the now-first sentence doesn't make as much sense is because we've scrambled the order. I don't yet see that this is an improvement.__ E L A Q U E A T E  05:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're in the discussion. Bob did this correctly. One does not need to ask before making a bold edit. It wouldn't be bold if they did that, however he did begin a discussion. You disagreed and immediately reverted WHEN A DISCUSSION WAS CREATED and didn't wait at all. That was not appropriate. WhatamIdoing did a bold edit and it has now been challenged as not having a consensus for the change. Just because it is there now, does not mean it cannot be changed back when there was no discussion made. Eventually others will weigh in and the consensus could well be for the wording WhatamIdoing made or it could be for something different altogether.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not appropriate? I reverted a single bold edit to exactly how it was earlier today, and participated in the discussion. It's BRD, not BD. The Verifiability page is frequently reverted in good faith. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: try it out on the Workshop page, then offer it for consensus here, before editing the actual project page.. The paragraphs should be restored to the order they were earlier today. __ E L A Q U E A T E  05:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Part of BRD is that your revert has to be based on policy or guidelines and not just what you like. It was not appropriate for you to revert JUST because you felt a discussion should have taken place first. It isn't DBR either. Your persistence in stating that: "The paragraphs should be restored to the order they were earlier today", seems to indicate that you feel there is a correct version. While two against one is NOT consensus, you have to admit...three editors and you are the only one who wants the other version and has not demonstrated your "burden" to add content back. Where at least I have attempted to understand how the phasing was changed to begin with. Chill....it may eventually have consensus, but right now the earlier "version" actually does not have a consensus of editors. Now, WhatamIdoing did not need a consensus to make the bold change, but in order for that change to stick does means that it cannot be challenged. Since it has been challenged, the best thing to do at the moment is to leave it as Bob re-wrote it until a consensus is achieved that the other text is preferred. Right now I reverted because your explanation made no sense and was based on your own opinion not on any particular violation of any editing standard, police or guideline, and does not appear to have a discussion to change that text from February. Give it a chance...consensus can change and I always support the consensus...whatever it is. Sometimes I may not be happy about it...but I get over it quickly.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right now the paragraphs have been scrambled. I don't think there is a "correct version", I'm not tied to a particular phrasing or paragraph order, but I would prefer the discussion to happen before we start moving things around, as I don't think starting the section with the "Sometimes" paragraph makes sense and it reads badly. You're making the case that Whatamidoing's phrasing can be reverted a month later (which is fine) but BobK's switching a paragraph order that's been around for over a year shouldn't be reverted, even when there's no current (silent or otherwise) consensus for the change. I think we should, for the purposes of compromise, keep BobK's rewording of the phrase but switch the paragraphs back to the order they were in before the suggestion. It's clear from looking at a much-earlier iteration here that this section was mixed from earlier subsections, and I'd rather work on making it better than mash the paragraphs further before discussion. __ E L A Q U E A T E  06:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We need more eyes on this. The community has had very long and detailed discussions on the wording of this section and I think Bob understands that, but you may not. I reverted your revert because it added a change back that had no consensus. It had only been there since February. That isn't what I call long term.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's clear up a few things. 1. I'm not asking for any "addition" of anything. I'm only, at this point requesting we restore the paragraph order we had earlier in the day, which has been around for years, with the consensus from those "very long and detailed discussions". 2. If you want the pre-February phrasing for the one part of that sentence that's fine. I'm the one who spent the time determining where it came from and when. If I'd known earlier it was a more recent change, my earlier comments would have been different. 3. I don't think the bold change of paragraph order improves the text. If it was a bold change that improved the text I wouldn't stand on procedure, but this text makes the section start awkwardly. The consensus order for the paragraphs was clearer, giving the introductory guidance on citations first, and giving the guidance on resolving disputes second. Please revert the part of the bold edit that was added today (the paragraph order), and we can discuss any proposed changes here.__ E L A Q U E A T E  08:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That didn't clear anything up. You just clouded the discussion with falsehoods. That section has NOT been in that condition for years. We just changed major portions of it last summer, and as, even you point out, WhatamIdoing changed the text in February.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with you? That falsehoods crack is completely out of line. I was only talking about the order of the paragraphs in that last comment. The last two replies I've said I don't care about the February addition. Paragraph order. Paragraph order. Paragraph order. That was changed in BobK's addition here. The section discussed had begun with a paragraph addressing challenged or likely to be challenged before it had the paragraph it begins with now. Since 2012 it has started with the "challenged subsection", even having it's own subheading and shortcut, WP:CHALLENGE. I don't mind things changing by consensus, but changing the paragraph order was a new change, not reverting to an older version. Besides all that, I think the last day of editing hasn't significantly improved on the text as it was on April 2.

The section should begin with the sentence "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing any reliable source that directly supports the material.". This describes most clearly what the burden of evidence is, and everything else is just commentary on that. Reyk YO!  09:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the original phrase is clear at all, and it seems to result in occasional confusion. So "the burden of evidence lies with the editor":  Great.  Now what's the evidence supposed to prove?
 * We don't actually want editors to provide "evidence". We don't want them to "prove" anything.  We don't want "Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion."  In fact, we outright ban editors from presenting their own facts or observations in support of assertions in articles.  We do not want editors to provide "evidence".  We want editors to provide WP:Reliable sources.
 * I understand the confusion with the section heading. One option is to fix the heading:  Burden of evidence becomes Burden for identifying reliable sources or even the plain English Who must find the reliable sources.  (We'd want to keep the old name as an anchor so that old links won't break.)  Another option is to use both phrases in the sentence:  "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" becomes "The burden of evidence that this material can be supported by a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material".  That's a little clunky, but it is a little clearer.  But I don't think that we want to tell people that they are required to provide "evidence", when what evidence means in every English dictionary is exactly what we never accept from editors.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I get what your are trying to say and I agree somewhat, however...I don't think adding a lot more text is the answer. Perhaps brevity is a route here with a slight edit. here is my proposal:


 * --Mark Miller (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That, or something like that, would work for me. (You might check the bolding.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I see what you mean there. I didn't bold all that was bolded before. I will correct that.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I like this new version. Reyk  YO!  23:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User Alanscottwalker added "..a citation to..", which I clarified further to read ".. an inline citation to.."--Mark Miller (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and self reverted that last contribution I made as it seemd redundant to mention the inline citation when it is actually clarified in the following text. It simply wasn't needed but Alan's change seems to be an improvement at least.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. (Does anyone know whether the typical phrasing would be slightly different, like "the burden of demonstrating verifiability"?)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: A little after the heading was changed from "Burden of evidence" to "Burden," I fixed the redirect in that regard. Remember to fix the redirects when changing the section headings of guidelines or policies. I still prefer "burden of evidence" (as the heading and in the text), but that's because it sounds cooler (like we're in a court of law), is shorter than "burden to demonstrate verifiability" and I'm used to it (also note that this is not a serious argument on my part to change the heading/text back). Flyer22 (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you .--Mark Miller (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Organization of Burden section
I looked at the organization of the present Burden section. To clarify the section's organization for myself, I added a bulleted subtitle in bold font to the beginning of each paragraph. Here's the result.


 * Burden — All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
 * Inline citations — Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. See Citing sources for details of how to do this.
 * Material without citations — Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.
 * BLP material without citations — Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.

Comments? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering the above, it looks like the topic of the section is Citations rather than Burden. Burden is a subtopic. Should we change the section title to Citations? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps off-topic, but I believe in the first paragraph, "burden of demonstrating..." would read better than "burden to demonstrate..." I kind of agree with your thoughts on changing the section title but would like to hear what others think. DonIago (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose changing the heading to Citations. That section is not simply about citations; it's about the burden of the text and burden of the citations being on the people in question (the ones it mentions). It's about sourcing text, challenging text and what to do in the interim. The Reliable sources section and other sections on the page are more about the citations themselves. Flyer22 (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of this policy, a citation is a reference to a published reliable source. Citations are the backbone of Wikipedia. Perhaps by your phrase "not simply about citations" you meant that the section is about citations and their use. I think the section title "Citations" would cover that.     The first paragraph is about using citations for demonstrating verifiability. The second paragraph is about what material requires citations and in broad terms what is needed in a citation. The third and fourth paragraphs advise what to do if material doesn't have a citation.
 * The section is about citations and their use, which I think is covered by the title "Citations" better than the title "Burden".
 * However, I can understand how different people will organize things differently in their minds. So if there's no support for what I'm trying to do, I'll just accept that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Nah, I meant what I stated above in this section. We already have sections on the Wikipedia:Verifiability page about citations and their use; the Burden section is about more than that; that is why the shortcuts listed there are WP:UNSOURCED, WP:CHALLENGE, WP:BURDEN, WP:PROVEIT and WP:ONUS. Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see I'm not getting anywhere. So in closing I would suggest you check your remarks by going to the project page and doing an edit search for the word "citation" and see what you get. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope, not needed. Flyer22 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2014
The analogy used to describe false premise is inappropriate content. Wikipedia is used by school age children. Using a reference to alcohol and lesbianism is outrageous! I am appalled that that type of content is an acceptable form for demonstrating a middle school Reading standard.

96.4.19.34 (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ❌ — See Wikipedia is not censored, but even if it was there would be nothing objectionable about that since there are no explicit sexual references. Also, though somewhat besides the point at this remove, this is not the place to request such changes, nor is this request needed since that article is not protected. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutral notification of ongoing discussion at Talk:Bradbury Building
In lieu of starting a full-blown RfC I would like to invite interested editors to comment on an ongoing discussion between myself and at Talk:Bradbury_Building. It's been open for a while and no one else has weighed in. It involves issues related to this policy, so I am dropping this note here.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a Mistake in the name Parichhatgarh District Meerut, U.P. INDIA
Hi, This is Atul Bhardwaj, a born and brought up of Parikshit Garh town of western Uttar Pradesh India. I have joined the Wikipedia by today because of my interest to know and read about everything, I could manage to get updated myself with every rare or unique knowledge about everything.

In records of Wikipedia, I found that spelling of Parikshit Garh is showing "Parichhatgarh. Which is not write. So, I believe that it must be change. Kindly do the needful.

Regards Atul Bhardwaj 9810508009 APRATIHAT BHARDWAJ (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe you'll want to bring this up at Talk:Parikshitgarh. This page is for discussing changes to Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

More Burden stuff
I'm sorry I missed out on the above discussions, but I'm finding that this section is continuing to be used as a way to game things. At ANI there was a quote that I liked:
 * "...any material challenged or likely to be challenged" is usually taken to mean that the removing editor should have some inkling, at least, it might be incorrect. "The sun is hot" shouldn't be deleted for lack of a citation.

I'd like to get that notion in here. I want folks to at least have to claim they have an inkling the removed material might be incorrect rather than just removing things because its not got an in-line source. Sure, they can lie, but I don't think the intent of this policy is to have people going around removing all unsourced material from every article simply because it is unsourced. Hobit (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I think that while we certainly do have editors who would remove "the sun is hot" for lack of a citation, that's not fundamentally a verifiability issue. It's usually a conduct issue, and occasionally a WP:COMPETENCE issue.  Editors who remove material on the basis of good editorial judgment, as an honest challenge to the veracity of the content, should be able to do so freely.  Editors who remove material willy-nilly as part of their griefing campaign or personal crusade need to be blocked without notice because they could potentially do immense amounts of damage.  The addition I'd like to see to WP:BUDREN is a line to the effect that WP:BURDEN is a powerful tool not to be used lightly, and misusing it can lead to blocks.— S Marshall  T/C 11:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, and agree that it is an important point.   But you left out the most common motivation for doing so which is to POV an article by selectively knocking out material. And "leading to blocks" is probably a "poison pill" for your proposal, possibly it should be removed, possibly substituted by identifying the discouraged behavior. So, shamelessly copying your work, that would be:
 * Personally I think that while we certainly do have editors who would remove "the sun is hot" for lack of a citation, that's not fundamentally a verifiability issue. It's usually a conduct issue, and occasionally a WP:COMPETENCE issue.  Editors who remove material on the basis of good editorial judgment, as an honest challenge to the veracity of the content, should be able to do so freely.  Editors should not remove material willy-nilly as part of their griefing campaign, an effort to POV an article by selectively knocking out material, or a personal crusade. The addition I'd like to see to WP:BUDREN is a line to the effect of the above and that WP:BURDEN is a powerful tool not to be used lightly.  North8000  (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think the block thing is controversial at all. Someone who's removing material on the basis of good editorial judgment as an honest challenge to the veracity of the content is using WP:BURDEN.  Removing material not on the basis of good editorial judgment is vandalism, and it's well-established that vandalism gets you blocked.  Citing WP:BURDEN in your edit summary doesn't mean you're not a vandal; in my experience sysops are good at spotting who's in good faith and who's gaming the rules.  The litmus test is that someone who's using BURDEN in good faith will be making some kind of effort to explain their edits.— S Marshall  T/C 12:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but I still think that it is a poison pill. It can/would be said that it is saying that someone can get blocked for applying wp:ver.  North8000  (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure, any edit to WP:V always makes someone get unhappy. Unhappy editors do tend to overdramatise things so I can well imagine that would be said.  It would be a lie.  The threat is that someone can get blocked for vandalism.— S Marshall  T/C 13:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sigh... to quote Star Wars... sometimes it is better to "Let The Wookie Win"... if some idiot challenges the statement "the sun is hot", you can either spend hours arguing that the statement does not need a source... or... you can do a quick search, find a source to support it, and slap it into the article. It took me all of 30 seconds to find this one. And if you really really hate having something like that cited... wait a day or two (until the Wookie goes off to battle on some other page) and quietly remove it again. Problem solved. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the abuses are not simple invoking of wp:ver for unsourced material.  Most of the abuses are on sourced material through a wikilawyering-synergy between this and RS requirements. So it is not a matter of just finding a source.   It is a matter of finding a source that is so bulletproof-perfect so that the wikilawyer POV warrior can not use hairsplitting of the source to domino through the burden clause to knock out the otherwise unchallenged material.  North8000  (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm misunderstanding the situation, BURDEN isn't relevant to those cases. DonIago (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hobit, above you stated, "I want folks to at least have to claim they have an inkling the removed material might be incorrect rather than just removing things because its not got an in-line source." But WP:BURDEN already states, "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Flyer22 (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Also see the reference supporting the "may not be verifiable" part. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, but we've got editors who feel that doing so is optional. I guess we could remove the "please". Hobit (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You could, and it will stay if WP:Consensus supports it, but, as shown at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 61, I'm definitely one of those editors who feels that it should not be the challenger's job to source the material, especially in the case of experienced Wikipedia editors who know how to source their own material. For such an editor to expect others to source their material for them is one thing that irks me to no end, especially if that editor cites WP:Preserve. Is it best not to remove material that you think or know is verifiable? Yes, if the article clearly benefits from the material. But telling me that I have to leave it in because it's verifiable does not work for me. If I see a bunch of unsourced, badly formatted material added to a WP:Good article or WP:Featured article, for example, I am likely to remove it, whether I know it's verifiable or not; if it has value to the article, I have no problem posting it to the talk page or saving it on my computer (though it's already saved in the edit history) so that it can be WP:Preserved. And I may later add it back, in part or in whole, but better formatted and with WP:Reliable sources to support it. I usually don't challenge unsourced material that is already in an article, unless I challenge it by adding a WP:Reliable source to it. It's usually the freshly added stuff that I challenge. It also irks me when people tag things as needing a citation when those things are common sense, and when, simply because it's unsourced, people remove unsourced material that is quite clearly verifiable, with no indication that they will consider adding the material back at a later date with a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the sentence containing "please" was a compromise between the forces who believe, on the one hand (I'm of this faction), the sentence should not be there at all, who believe that unsourced material should be removable simply because it is unsourced and, on the other hand, those who believe the opposite or, at least, believe that there should be an enforceable burden to source material rather than remove it if sourcing is possible. I don't think that the "please" makes it optional, per se, but I do think that it transforms it into a best-practices burden rather than a strictly-mandatory one. What's the difference, you ask? You can get blocked or banned for habitually or intentionally-disruptively failing to engage in best practices — just like the best practice is to add sources rather than delete material and you can be, as has been demonstrated in the past, blocked or banned for habitually and systematically failing to engage in that practice — whereas you cannot or should not be blocked or banned for failing to do something which is truly optional. We're here to build an encyclopedia and people who habitually fail to follow best practices demonstrate that they aren't here for that purpose (and that's actually what they get blocked or banned for, not the removal of the unsourced material, per se). On the other hand, the busy editor who deletes some unsourced nonsense and forgets to recite the catechism that "I am removing this because I have a good-faith concern a reliable source may not be available for it and it may not, therefore, be reliable" should be given an medal (or at least a stroopwaffel), not a clout. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. And my worry is that we get material deleted for no reason at all other than being unsourced.  Things are are trivially sourceable.  I don't need them to source them, I just want to be able to yell at them for removing material that is correct and they could verify with a 10 second search.  If people go around deleting every paragraph on Wikipedia that doesn't have a source in it, we'd lose, what >50% of our articles and 90% of our content?  Heck, I just want them to say "I've doubts about this material being correct" rather than "unsourced" being code for "I don't like this article, so I'm going to cut it down to nothing".  Hobit (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You could just assume that's their reasoning. Or you could ask them politely why material was removed. Why proceed on the assumption that material was removed "for no reason at all"? It would be silly to think that the lack of an edit summary suggests that there's no reason for the edit. DonIago (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN comes down to this... if you want an article to contain some bit of information, you must be prepared to provide a reliable source for it. It is not up to anyone else to find the reliable source... it is up to you... It's your responsibility because you are the person who wants it in the article. That's it in a nutshell. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing material without attempting to communicate your reasons is hard to distinguish from random vandalism, and we don't hand out medals or stroopwafels for vandalism. If you use WP:BURDEN, you'd be well advised to give your reasons.— S Marshall  T/C 16:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not hard to distinguish if, for example, as TransporterMan stated, it's "some unsourced nonsense." And if we want to state that one person's nonsense is another person's gold... I state, "Nah, Wikipedia has guidelines and policies that assist in removing what it considers nonsense." Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Arg. By that logic we should all have our own Wikipedias--after all if you aren't willing to put it in, it must not be worth having.  Just dumb.  There is no good reason to delete material that you have no doubt is correct just because there isn't a source.  That's my worry and that's what I'm seeing from a group of editors. They spend 2 minutes reverting and then someone has to spend hours cleaning up the mess they left. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet plenty of editors add material with proper sourcing all the time... And can you cite any examples in which an editor removed unsourced material and others had to spend "hours cleaning up the mess"? It seems easy enough to undo a deletion and add sources at the same time. DonIago (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Can't say for certain how long it took (I'd guess 30 minutes?), but looks like a good example where someone was sourcing an article over a number of edits and saw an admin repeatedly delete parts--all because someone else had once cut out material (sourced and unsourced by the way) at one point and thus, per WP:BURDEN it couldn't be added back in without sources.  Hobit (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish you'd provided an example with which you were not personally involved, as now it's hard for me to dispell the impression that you're biased in this matter. In any case, when I look at that and the related ANI filing I see a situation where none of the involved editors handled the matter as well as they could have, but the removing editor seems to have been operating in good faith and the material that was removed should have been properly sourced at the time it was added. The removing editor did leave a reasonable edit summary at the time. If an editor wanted to incrementally source the material instead of properly satisfying BURDEN they could have discussed it at the Talk page (which notably has no discussion at all). This never should have become an edit-warring situation. In any case, if it only took 30 minutes to fix? I've spent over 30 minutes mulling over all this. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strangely the ones I'm aware of are the ones I'm involved in. And I only got involved because of the ANI complaint (I was uninvolved before that...) In any case, the removing editor did not leave a reasonable edit summary--his edit summary in fact A) didn't note he removed sourced material and B) implied he'd not read the article.  And at issue isn't 1 case, but the large number of cases where this happens. Just look at the removing editors edit history. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that is was a clear-cut, bright-line, unequivocal policy violation, Hobit. I wish you would see that. I didn't remove the material from the history. I didn't chastise Torchiest. I didn't do any of those bad things. What I did do was remove material from an article that had been added back without a citation after it had been challenged. The editor promptly restored it with a source. That's pretty close to how it is supposed to work. If Torchiest had simply used citations when he restored the material in the first place, it would have been great. Of course, if you hadn't insisted on reinserting the material while ignoring your obligations under WP:BURDEN earlier, it would have been even better.
 * WP:BURDEN is the only policy that provides an absolute defense against unsuitable material. Anybody can create articles. Nobody can delete them without undergoing a trial-by-unreasonable-scrutiny and then generally only after an article-by-article vote. This creates an enormous imbalance in favour of having unsourced and unsourceable material. WP:BURDEN is a necessary counterbalance by providing a case where the presumption is reversed, and material must stay out until demonstrated to be verifiable. For an editor to restore challenged material without providing a source because he thinks it is good material is just as wrong as if I began deleting articles because I thought the encyclopedia would be better off without them.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014
Mustkin Ahmad 06:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, to this page about Verifiability, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". - Arjayay (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.
 * [[I believe I can clarify some ownership, lets just say I have a long term medical condition and after 7 years of self management and motivation. I lost my job so I studied hoping to gain the skills to help me back on the ladder. It became clear I could not hold down a 9 to 5 job, due to medical implications so next thing was to start my own company with in utilizing my skill sets and experience, so after much research it cam down to MBA or Masters in planning and sustainability. Unfortunately I ended up taking two years to complete as things were no right, and after rejection, waiting times and not been heard, I was forced to my knees needing help.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2014
117.214.14.208 (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Your request is empty - what do you want changed? --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 10:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

mistake in name
Hi, I had visited the history page to know about my nearby place's execution. I found that the current spelling of this place is showing as Parichhatgarh. Which is wrong. It should be written "Parikshit Garh" only. because this place was built by King Parikshit, the Grand Son of Arjun(all belongs to MahaBharat). I think,Parichhatgarh should be removed, and replaced by Parikshit Garh.

Regards Atul Bhardwaj — Preceding unsigned comment added by APRATIHAT BHARDWAJ (talk • contribs) 13:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You received a reply a few discussions above. As always, this is the wrong place for it - please bring it up on Talk:Parikshitgarh instead. Thank you. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 10:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Change of long-standing section heading
I see that in April the section heading "Burden of evidence" was changed to just "Burden". This followed a discussion among three editors (or four if we include one who just made a brief comment at the opening of the section, and then took no part in discussion) about the contents of the section (not its heading), at the end of which there were a couple of remarks about the heading from two of the editors involved. "Burden of evidence" has been the heading of the section since March 2006, and long before that the text of the section opened with the words "The burden of evidence ..." although those words were not used as a bold heading. The title "Burden" is so vague that no reader is likely to have much idea what the section is about, whereas "Burden of evidence" makes it clear what the general topic is. Agreement between two editors is very weak consensus to change wording which has been accepted for over eight years. I would prefer the earlier wording to be restored. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need more than the blunt word "Burden". However, as long as we are discussing the wording... the long standing wording "Burden of Evidence" had its own problems.  "Evidence" implies that there is a burden to  "prove" the truth of what is written, and that isn't what the section is talking about... what the section is talking about is who has the burden to do research and provide citations (those who want the material in the article).  So... I would suggest entitling the section: "Burden to provide citations" (or something like that). Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Burden of providing citations"? Seems a little wordy to me, but I guess it would get the point across. Actually, I think I would prefer "Responsibility for providing citations". I find "responsibility" more clear than "burden", regardless of the wording used in the subsequent text. DonIago (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Why does "evidence" imply that there needs to be evidence which "proves the truth of what is written"? As far as I can see, in the context it simply means that there is a need to provide evidence that what is written is supported by reliable sources. "Evidence" is not by any means the same as "proof", nor is there any obvious reason why evidence has to be evidence of the truth of what is written in the article, rather than evidence of something else, such as evidence of the existence of reliable sources to support what is written in the article. I really don't see what the problem is supposed to be. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What about "Burden to demonstrate verifiability", like it says in the section? Zerotalk 14:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's okay with me, but I like Doniago's "Responsibility for providing citations" even better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Either of those would, in my opinion, be much better than just "burden", and probably better than the old "Burden of evidence". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I liked the old "Burden of proof" better. The reason is that many people in AfD discussions say things like "How do you know there are no sources?" or "Keep and find sources", and this was a concise and effective way to communicate the fact that the responsibility of proving whether or not the article is verifiable falls on those that claim the affirmative. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  07:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that what this section needs to convey is:- (1) Reviewing articles, checking sources and providing inline citations is everyone's job; but (2) If an editor removes material from an article then it shouldn't be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source; but (3) WP:BURDEN isn't there to protect vandals, so if the material was removed as an act of vandalism or griefing or for some other vexatious purpose, then (4) The removing editor is on a one-way trip to blocksville.— S Marshall T/C 10:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree on (1) and (2)... but not (3). Yes, vandalism or griefing can (and should) result in a block... however, this isn't the right policy page in which to say that. Vandalism and griefing has nothing to do with verifiability.  They are behavior issues, not content issues. Talking about vandalism and griefing on this page is instruction creep. Blueboar (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ooh, are we worried about instruction creep in WP:V now? Fantastic!  Let's remove everything from "other issues" on down, none of that's about verifiability.— S Marshall  T/C 14:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have always been concerned about instruction creep in our policies and guidelines. I don't see those other sections as instruction creep... because they do relate directly to the issue of verifiability (and focus on content, as opposed to behavior). Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, that makes sense but I think WP:BURDEN is and has always been about behaviour. It's the only part of the page that isn't talking about what should be done but about who should do it.  The whole third paragraph of WP:BURDEN is about behaviour from start to finish.  Historically it had even more wording about how to go about invoking WP:BURDEN (historically you were supposed to express a concern that the material may not be verifiable when removing it under BURDEN, if I recall correctly).  I'll mull over this... I may try come up with a draft that addresses all the concerns without increasing the wordcount.— S Marshall  T/C 08:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * (Later)I've drafted alternative wording, but it still feels a bit verbose:-

Attribute any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. See Citing sources for details of how to do this.

All content must be verifiable, and finding and checking sources is everyone's job. However, in case of dispute, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. This burden is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material in dispute.

Any editor may remove unreferenced content. If this has happened, do not restore the content without adding citations.

Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.


 * NB: I went ahead and changed the section heading as discussed, because that doesn't seem controversial.— S Marshall T/C 23:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

How much of "plot summaries" get a pass from WP:V and WP:OR?
How much of "plot summaries" get a pass from WP:V and WP:OR?

I have been informed by editors in the past that plot summaries of books, movies, etc. do not need to be sourced nor cited; somewhere in the past I was shown a plotsummary guideline that said something to this effect, and I have accepted it. (Although I can't find it just now, and only found this essay: WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE, which does not seem to cover that.) So for purposes of this question, I just accept that assertion as standard WP operating procedure.

I have two questions:
 * 1) how much of such articles get a pass, in general?  And more specifically, does it extend to detailed descriptions of minor characters (character lists?  or even more prose:  bulleted article sections that describe multiple characters in a paragraph each? It has been asserted by editors that this sort of stuff is merely plot summary material so needs no sources.
 * 2) where is this articulated in WP policy?  Where do we have the community consensus on that so we can avoid having these discussions over and over on myriad article Talk pages as case by case questions of appropriate original research and what may be too much and inappropriate OR and using Wikipedia as a Wikia for trivial, in-genre details of books/movies?

Will appreciate any guidance. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding is 1) Any information that comes directly from the source material is acceptable for inclusion. No interpretation, no supposition, no reading into the characters' actions. 2) WP:IINFO is part of a policy that refers plot summary matters to an MOS. DonIago (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You previously read MOS:PLOT. I think that you'll find that WP:USEPRIMARY has some useful information.
 * On your second question, I think you'll benefit from reading WP:PGE, but the answer is that any OR is "too much and inappropriate". However, "OR" means that no source, not even the book that you're writing about, has ever published this material before, which is almost never a problem with plot summaries or character lists.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not that plot summaries are exempt from these rules it's often due to the fact that a general regurgitation or basic analysis of a work (Film, video game, novel, etc) is not conisidered a violation of OR or WP:V since the work of fiction itself is the source. This would only be an issue if there is a complex analysis which would require a significant level of interpretation. For example, we would not be able to say that a film's plot is an allegory of the struggle in the human psyche without either a direct statement from the director or a reliable secondary source making that comparison first.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, what do people think about House of Leaves? WhatamIdoing? Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Plot summaries don't get any kind of "pass" from either WP:V or WP:OR. It is absolutely fundamental to the whole nature of Wikipedia that we don't have to accept some statement just because someone chooses to come along and say it. Let us just imagine what would happen if there were some guideline or policy exempting plot summaries from the need for verifiability. In some article about a film, I post an inaccurate claim about the plot of some film. What can you do about it? My claim is unverifiable, but that's OK, because plot summaries are exempt from the need for verifiability. What if you then decide to replace my claim with an equally unverifiable counter-claim? What if a third editor comes along and replaces that with another version? The answer to all this is simple: no matter what some person or other has decided to write in something that he or she has decided to call an "essay", there are no exemptions. Content must be verifiable, and any content without verifiable sources that is challenged or disputed may be removed, and may not be restored without a reliable and verifiable source. No ifs or buts. The passage linked to above as MOS:PLOT, like much of many of the manual of style pages, is absurdly long and tedious, and defies anyone to read it all, but glancing through it I can't see anything that remotely suggests any exemption to the need for verifiability. What is more, even if it did so, a guideline on writing style can't possibly over-ride a policy on the need for verifiable sources: writing style and content sourcing are two totally separate issues. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but some editors make a point of finding articles with unsourced material, adding cn, and later removing the material regardless of its merits. A plot summary may need pruning while improving an article, but no one should look for uncited plot summaries and remove them. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's because some editors do not understand the distinction between information being un-cited and it being un-verifiable. The information in an accurate plot summary is always verifiable... simply by reading the book, seeing the film, etc.  As for whether that information should be cited... it isn't that we "exempt" plot summaries from citation... it's more that we take citation (to the book/film/etc) as an unwritten given, and so simply omit it.
 * Yes, that does mean that from time to time, some idiot will come along and either tag or delete it. The question we all need to ask ourselves is this... "how should one react when someone does this?"   We have two choices... We could spend hours and hours debating whether the information really needs to be cited...  or we can choose to not argue about it, and instead spend a few seconds formatting a citation to the book/film/etc in question and then simply remove the tag/return the deleted material with that citation added (thus giving the idiot no further reason for complaint).  Me, I choose the latter reaction, as being far less time consuming and stressful.  I call it the "Let the Wookie win" principle. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If the article contains enough information to locate the work being summarized (such as title, type of work [film, book, etc.], year) then the work is cited. The fact that the citation does not take the form of a bibliography is irrelevant. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is correct, iff the plot summary is written in an appropriate out-of-universe style. I've seen people tend to forget this when talking about a series as a whole or characters across multiple works,and forgetting to refer to the work that a certain plot point occurred in. To still meet WP:V, you either have to explicitly state the work in the out-of-universe style, or you need citations.
 * I'd also add that for longer works where there is additional separation (eg talking about any of Shakespeare's plays, we have Acts and Scenes; for "War and Peace" we have chapters), and it cannot hurt to throw in references via inline cites to help guide a reader looking for verification where to look in an otherwise 100+ page book. --M ASEM (t) 13:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If we do a plot summary based only on the fiction itself, we have to be careful not to let too much of our own personal interpretation creep in. It's best to use a reliable, third-party source. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  13:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference spamming of alternative internet archives
The spamming of alternative internet archives seems to be a growing problem that is easily overlooked. It certainly took me some time to figure out what was going on before I started a report on articlescache.org. We've two recent reports of similar problems (onreference.com multiple domains) and in the latter I wondered if we should cover this in a guideline or essay. The term "archive" is so common that I'm having trouble finding past discussions... Thoughts? --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Since there are not responses and I'm not even clear if this is the correct venue for discussion on this, I'm taking it to RSN, which seems more appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Still wondering
If anything can be removed that doesn't have citations than this article for example is just domed, Olivier salad.And we have many many articles like this, you know. Hafspajen (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source.
 * So fix the problem... look for citations for the material you think should be kept. Be proactive. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say that it's doomed when it has existed in substantially its current form and been citation-needed templated since 2011 and is still here (which is not to say that they have to do so). While the rule you cite applies to all Wikipedia articles, most people cut a lot of slack to articles such as that. If this had been, say, Vaccination then it would have been unlikely to get to that state. But remember: For readers to be able to rely upon Wikipedia they need to be able to verify that we're not just making this stuff up. Detailed articles with no citations can find a home elsewhere where no such rules exist, such as Wikia. Wikipedia is a dead-serious encyclopedia and must maintain its standards as such. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Combining WP:AT and WP:BLP
Principle 12.1 of the Manning ArbCom case reads:
 * The biographies of living persons policy does not expressly address whether, when an individual has changed his or her name (for reasons of gender identity or any other reason), the article should be titled under the name by which the subject currently self-identifies or under the former or repudiated version of the individual's name. It may be desirable for the community to clarify the BLP policy or the article title policy to expressly address this issue, such as by identifying factors relevant to making this decision. In the interim, such issues are subject to resolution through ordinary Wikipedia processes, taking into account all relevant considerations. (Passed 8 to 0, 00:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

Taking the challenge, I put a proposal up for community discussion at WT:NCP (that's also where I would group the discussion):


 * When the subject of a biography on living people prefers to be named differently from what would usually follow from Wikipedia's article titling policy, his or her biographic article can be renamed accordingly, so long as:
 * There is no ambiguity with regard to the name the subject prefers for his or her public persona
 * The name preferred by the subject is not unduly self-serving
 * The name preferred by the subject is generally recognisable, which usually entails sufficient media coverage
 * The name preferred by the subject results from an event that is deemed irreversible (at least, can't be reverted by the subject without the active participation of others) or, alternatively, is the name the subject received at birth.

I have no preference as to which policy page could be affected. WP:V is also a distinct possibility, as the current approach is much indebted to WP:ABOUTSELF --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyetic
I would like to set the record straight as to the origin of the word 'toyetic.' First the meeting that Mr. Loomis had with Steven Spielberg regarding Close Encounters of a Third Kind was at the time arranged by myself, Vincent Alati, then Vice-President and General Manager (July, 1976 to December, 1978) of the Licensing and Merchandising Division of Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. The meeting actually took place during the late Fall of 1976, as there was a short lead-time to have possible toy-based licensed product for Close Encounters in the marketplace for its theatrical release scheduled in late Fall, 1977. At the meeting, Steven Spielberg discussed the basic premise of the storyline, and shared photos(i.e., the 'Mother Ship,' the extraterrestrial character designed by Carlo Rimbaldi) considered to be the key licensable elements for toy product marketing. I distinctly remembered Mr. Loomis says, if that was all we had, it was too 'ephemeral' for you licensing, and was indeed considering Stars Wars, that had a plethora of characters with 'lots of added value accessories.' It was that the moment, I said, 'Stars Wars is toyetic', but that as a media property, Close Encounters had possibilities for toy-related products (e.g., board games, bendee figures of the extraterrestrial, etc.). I also remember Mr. Loomis says to me, he liked that word, toyetic, and Steven Spielberg, getting 'restless' with the meeting (given he was working 24/7 on the film), who politely suggesting to Mr. Loomis, go and take a license for Star Wars, which Mr. Loomis did. When I left Columba Pictures, I started a company called U.S. Licensing Associates, which among other things, represented the toy trademarks of several prominent toy companies at the time for their various toy trademarks, such as Hasbro Industries, Inc. for its Digger the Dog, Mr., Potato Head, Coleco Industries for Suzy Homemaker, etc.). As managing director of U.S, Licensing, I decided to trademark 'Toyetics' (Issued August 27, 1979 #73228988, abandoned July 1, 1988), which I subsequently licensed for infant and toddler apparel to Baby Togs in NY, using the trademark as an umbrella branding label with images of the various company marks imprinted for the children's apparel line. Lastly, the definition of toyetics as I have always seen it is any intellectual property, be it media-based, or non-media-based, that can be 'miniaturized' into three dimensional product simulating the pop culture of the moment.Aladida (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your attempt to correct the record... now, take all that and get it published in a reliable source that we can cite, and we will be able to edit the article accordingly. Blueboar (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Repeated removals of refimprove tag
I tagged a largely uncited mall article with the standard article refimprove tag. But the tag has been deleted three times, without any refs being provided, by tag-team edits here.

I explained both in my edit summaries and on the article talk page, as well as on the main removing editor's talk page here, that the refimprove tag is appropriate, of long-standing use, and how unreferenced material should be referenced if the editor wishes to remove the tag.

The main removing editor, and his fellow editor, have however still continued to delete the tag. Without addressing the focus of the tag.

Though unconnected otherwise, it did catch my attention that this follows immediately the main removing editor disagreeing with my AfD nomination of a different mall, here.

Thoughts? --Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's more of a conduct dispute than a verifiability issue, really, Epeefleche. There's verifiable content to include and the article was kept at AfD recently (quite rightly, in view of the Harlequin Centre's significance: it's not your normal US-style shopping mall).  The sourcing could definitely be improved, as you rightly say.  Is it really so vital to put a tag on it?— S Marshall  T/C 21:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I came here because this verifiability policy states: "It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags, in which case consider tagging a section with , or the article with  or  ." I'm simply seeking to follow this verifiability policy.


 * This has zero to do with notability. But, two tag-teaming editors are deleting the tag this policy indicates is appropriate in articles such as this one.
 * If that were acceptable, we may as well just have a bot delete all 10,000 existing refimprove tags, or let editors willy nilly delete any of them they don't like. But as a general matter we do not allow editors to remove maintenance tags without an appropriate reason, such as addressing the matter at hand (here, by adding refs). Epeefleche (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think we do generally allow editors to remove tags—not quite "willy nilly", but something close to that—if they believe that the tags are not useful, distracting from more urgent problems, or pointing to a problem that does not appear to exist.
 * A good deal of it was just blanked, which may be a different way of addressing your concern about the amount of unsourced text. Have you considered adding a source or two yourself?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WhatamI -- yes, we agree ... what I said was that "we do not allow editors to remove maintenance tags without an appropriate reason".  Here one editor had zero reason.  The other editor's "reason" was an indictment of all refimprove tags.  And yes, I considered both deletion (which as you say is another way to address the issue (and doing the work of the editor who added the unsourced info in the first place), and chose here the middle ground after due consideration, in accord with wp:v.  Epeefleche (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't usually find that editors take action with no reason at all. They may not choose to state their reasons, and even if they do, I may not always agree that the reasons are good, but I generally find that most edits have a reason behind them.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- when I say that an editor deleted the template with zero reason, I mean that they gave no reason for their action. Epeefleche (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This diff says, "that argument did not lead to consensus, time for the talk page". You now had two reasons, and a third implied reason.  (1) The tag was unclear.  (2) There was no consensus to add the tag even with the previous edit-comment rationale.  (3) Discussion was required to reach consensus.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If editors are repeatedly removing tags and refusing to come to the table to talk about their reasoning you have a legitimate case for edit warring. Be mindful of WP:3RR but otherwise handle it accordingly. The tag in question isn't even relevant at that point (unless you were somehow blatantly wrong in pushing for its inclusion); their refusal to engage in discussion is. DonIago (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But it of course becomes more complex in the face of tag-team removals.  Even with one editor not offering any reason for his removal.  As here. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This looks to be a near-identical post to that at Template talk:Refimprove, posted there at 23:14. Here is my response there.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Characterizing this case as a removal is a mischaracterization. There has never been consensus at this article to emplace a banner refimprove tag.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it was a largely uncited mall article. Even if from your viewpoint that is the case, nothing has stopped you from adding inline cn and refimprovesection tags.   Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * After I mentioned Harlequin at the AfD, you followed me to the article and added the refimprove tag, not that that has anything to do with anything, but since you are casting aspersions, it bears clarification. Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the article has a number of references, it was not clear what material you thought needed citations, and I suggested that you use inline cn tags so as to be clear. This was not good enough for you, and you went into edit-warring mode.  Another editor stopped you from successfully edit warring and forced you to the talk page, which seems to be what this is all about, that the community is not empowering you to post tags against consensus, and is requiring you to discuss.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have responded in detail at Talk:Harlequin Shopping Centre, and you've been unable to refute the force of my reason. The footnote you found at WP:V supports what I've said.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The refimprove tag is pointed to, as a tag to use, by our policy wp:v. It is also used in over 10,000 articles.


 * I also explained in multiple edit summaries and talk page comments why it was being applied in the instant article. And that to address it you could add RS refs to the unreferenced sentences.  Your assertion that it was "it was not clear what material you thought needed citations" is baseless.  As I said many times, the material that needs citations is the material not cited to RSs ... which is the same as what this template refers to in 10,000 other articles.


 * The "other editor" gave zero reason for deleting the tag.


 * Your reason -- which would indict all 10,000 uses of the refimprove tag -- is not an appropriate one.


 * BTW, I've been editing mall articles generally, and many Canadian mall articles specifically, well before the edit in question -- I didn't follow you to the article at all. :::And the issue I am raising is indeed your removal of the tag -- that's not at all a mischaracterization of the point I am raising.


 * And of course it was a largely uncited article, when I applied the tag here, as anyone can see. Your approach would allow any editor to willy nilly remove the refimprove tag in the 10,000 articles across the project where it is used, claiming that, even when they are told multiple times that it applies to the text not supported by RSs, that they simply still don't understand what that means. Epeefleche (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The statement from policy to which the footnote is attached states, "...consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Your preferred tag, the policy's footnote considers a next-to-last resort.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Of the three edits that upset you, one was to convince you to use citation needed tags in preference to the refimprove tag, and two were to require you to use the talk page to explain your preferred version of the article. IMO, your third insertion of the tag, diff, was edit warring.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are not 10,000 pages at Talk:Harlequin Shopping Centre. Unscintillating (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your last post has decided that "of course" it was largely uncited, but dismisses the fact that an editor, myself, had said that the tag was unclear. At that point, whether or not you thought it was clear, there was no consensus that the tag was clear.  The place to discuss remains at Talk:Harlequin Shopping Centre, which has an ongoing discussion about specifics to the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The third party opinion at the article talk page now addresses most of Un's last post. But to clarify -- there are 10,000 wikipedia pages that use the article-specific refimprove tag.  The tag that Un removed twice.  The tag that claims is "unclear" -- and therefore he must delete it (despite four communications further clarifying the tag which is used across the project, and which the third party opinion indicates is not unclear in the first place).  A tag the use of which is endorsed by this verifiability policy. Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * COMMENT - I suggest that everyone stop being Wiki-lawyers over the tag... the entire point of adding a refimprove tag is to notify other editors that there is a problem with the article... one that needs to be fixed. The fact that multiple editors have removed the tag in this case should be taken as an indication that those editors are saying "Message received - we will work on it".  The most constructive response is to work with those editors, or at least to give those editors time to fix the problem.  Wait and see what happens. We can always return the tag at a later date, if no action is taken. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How many times must I explain that "removal" is a mischaracterization of this case. What multiple editors want is discussion on the talk page in preference to edit warring to force a tag on a page.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But two editors did remove the tag. You did it twice.  First here -- with an edit summary saying that the refimprove template was "unclear". After a response that "(the tag is not unclear -- this is what article-tags are for; add refs to all unreferenced material in the article", you again deleted the tag. Claiming non-consensus (you were the only editor claiming that the tag -- used on 10,000 articles, and supported by this policy -- was unclear. In my edit summary accompanying restoration of the tag, I wrote to you "the tag is not unclear -- this is what article-tags are for; add refs to all unreferenced material in the article; zero appropriate reason given for deletion of maint tag." I left a similar message on your talk page, explaining this.  I left a message on the article talk page, explaining this.   After all that, a second editor tag-teamed removal of the tag.  Without giving any reason for removing the tag. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Would anyone mind if I cut and pasted this discussion to Talk:Harlequin Shopping Centre?— S Marshall T/C 14:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the better course (if it's not already done sufficiently) is to insert a link in the shopping centre talk page discussion, to this discussion. This discussion goes to the application of the above-quoted language of this policy. It has ramifications for this policy. That impact the policy's application on 10,000 articles.  So it makes good sense IMHO not to move the conversation to an individual article page. Epeefleche (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Third Opinion. A third opinion was requested, through the wikipedia third opinion process. The opinion can be found here. Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That particular third opinion was withdrawn. Unscintillating (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have closed the duplicate discussion at Template talk:Refimprove per the request at WP:ANRFC. There is more participation here, and the comments at the other discussion have already either been copied or mostly copied to here.  Sunrise    (talk)  21:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking now that this case is explained by (1) Epeefleche believes that he could read my mind when I said that the tag was unclear, (2) Epeefleche believes that I can read his mind when he says that the tag is not unclear, and (3) Epeefleche believes that a WP:CONSENSUS exemption exists for the insertion of a refimprove tag. Point number 3 has received implicit support from 2 to 3 editors above.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2014
hello wikipedia, am a new to wiki am a lebanese actor please this is a request to verfy my wiki page thanks>

Ali f. Awada (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not a place to request such a thing. This is the place to request a change to our core policy of verifiability. I'm not sure what it is that you are requesting, but I see that your recent attempt at creating an article was turned down. I see an offer on your talk page to get more information about that decision. I think you should start there to understand the problem. If you need help, you can talk to me on my talk page or put a helpme template on your talk page or you can visit the teahouse. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI... the article (Ali f awada) has been nominated for deletion at AfD (rational: self-promotion of a non-notable subject), while the editor (User:Ali f. Awada) has been blocked for repeatedly blanking the nomination. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Access to sources section needs clarification regarding bare link references to registration or pay wall websites
I asked a question in help, Policy on Use of Web Citations to Sites Needing Registration, regarding deletion of references to web sites requiring payment or registration. I didn't find the help I needed and I think it is because the Access to sources section policy needs clarification. The relevant portion of that discussion follows: "I work on resolving web citation issues and have a raw link [to a registration site] to fix."

". . .  That is the reason I started this discussion; because I was uncertain if there were EVER conditions under which such a citation should be deleted. There are other inappropriate references that should be deleted, for instance, references that do not, in any manner, support the article fact cited. And, on occasion, I spend some time correcting  where the bad link has been deleted removing evidence that might help create a proper reference."

"As to security; please consider a reference of the following form: . This appears as a normal 'bare url' link frequently found on Wikipedia pages. An unsuspecting Wikipedia editor, in order to fix this reference, might go to that link and find what appears to be a legitimate account creation to LegitamateSite. A carefully crafted TrojanHorseSite could intercept that account creation information, save it and forward the information to LegitimateSite. If our unwary editor creates an account, TrojanHorseSite has obtained an account under editor's name and credentials. If our editor uses the same credentials to do all such editing, TrojanHorseSite can find other instances of accounts (editor contributions). Further, apparently legitimate sites, containing useful reference material, could well be a website designed to collect user credentials. Again, should an editor reference that site, the credentials could be linked to a specific Wikipedia editor as would any Wikipedia user seeking additional information about a topic by logging into the malicious reference.Softtest123 (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)"

Forwarding such a bare link to WikiProject Resource Exchange, for instance, propagates the problem. There is a small amount of effort required to determine if a bare link is a legitimate link. I would check such a link before I forwarded it, (or attempting to open it, for that matter) but how many editors would know to do that? And in any case, Resource Exchange would also need to check it.

I would ask that this section of WP:Verifiability be reviewed and clarified with respect to this security issue. Thank you, Softtest123 (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If I understand you correctly, what you're really saying is needed is to have a section like ELNO #3, which only applies to links in the External Links section of an article, in the "rules" which apply to the citations given in the body of an article. Frankly, since the need to remove or replace such links is so obvious for the good of the encyclopedia, I'd ordinarily say that such a rule isn't really needed and could be considered to be rule creep. But since we've gone to the trouble of saying it in ELNO, I have to say that you may — just — have a point. The problem is where to put it. It doesn't really fit here in V, which is about the need for sourcing, not about the technical requirements for sources, but it also doesn't quite fit in Citing sources. Before giving my support to this, however, I'd like to hear what the other V-denizens (vinizens?) think. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Fibs, misrepresentation, and other nonsense from verifiable and reliable sources.
One of the problems I've noticed has been happening quite a bit on current events and controversial topics primarily is the referencing of a reliable to borderline reliable source to state something which is false. Some of these might be obvious, but I've been running across these quite often. There is no mention of this either directly or indirectly in the Wikipedia entries and I have had to spend excessive amounts of time arguing these in a case by case basis.

April Fools jokes! Articles should not be referenced when there is reason to believe that it was simply published as a joke for whatever reason.

Articles which are published only to refute the topic being discussed. An article might be published in a reliable source discounting the various theories of the holocaust deniers. The article is then referenced by holocaust deniers to support an article on their various theories.

Articles which are published to explain that there are indeed people who believe X fringe belief. These articles usually express doubt in the fringe belief or discount them outright.

Articles from one third party source reference another third party source as the source and vice versa.

In the above cases, verifiability should denied outright. Now, some of this dips into NPOV which is something I may go to that site about. I want to add a couple more, but I'll start with these.Hilltrot (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Endless reverts
What is the best way to address it when an editor edit-wars against compliance with wp:burden? Restoring repeatedly challenged uncited material? I've already to no avail opened up conversation on two articles now (including most recently here), and left word more than once on the editor's tp. But they just keep on reverting ... --Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You could try giving them a real reason for the deletion? Atlas-maker (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Epeefleche, Objections have been recently raised (not by myself) about bringing your personal disputes to this talk page. You have been politely reminded in a recent 3RR case by User:Lord Roem that discussion is required.  At Talk:Cornwall Square, you believe that templating a user's talk page twice is "discussion at length", you ignore issues about WP:BURDEN's statement "Whether...this should happen depends...", and you state that the discussion is "stupid".  Elsewhere, editor's see a pattern in your refusal or incompetence in locating sources; whether it is refimprove tags, WP:BURDEN claims, or AFD nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE D1 searches.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the qualifying language matters for much: it's advice, not a prescription. On the restoral side, though, policy is absolute: once the material has been challenged, it cannot be restored without an inline citation for any reason by anybody.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche is fortunately on the right side by demanding sourcing. Otherwise Atlas-maker is edit warring, and BRD should be invoked. Regardless of whether or not BRD is an essay, edit warring is forbidden, and BRD happens to be the only way to know who started the edit war. Warn the editor using the   template, and report them if they persist. When properly warned, they don't have to breach four edits to be blocked. This case is especially egregious, since they are restoring unsourced content. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you are entitled to hold that opinion of course, and to state it as vociferously as you, but it still doesn't mean that Epeefleche has challenged the deleted content properly. Do you know what is wrong with that content? So if the challenge hasn't been made properly then the wp:v requirement doesn't kick in. Just tell me what is inaccurate about that content that requires a reference? Just tell me that, and I will go back into my hole. Otherwise I may well just take your advice and be one of the long trail of productive editors that decide that actually the politics and lack of collegiality of editors like Epeefleche, who don't engage with those around them, means that WP is a bad place to spend my spare time. Tell me what is wrong with the content? Atlas-maker (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Atlas-maker... You ask: What is wrong with the content? OK... I will tell you... Someone obviously questions whether the content is accurate and wants verification in the form of a source.  That in itself is a "challenge".  The challenging editor does not need to explain further.  He/she does not need to explain why he/she questions the accuracy of the statement.  It is enough that he/she does question it. If you wish to return the information, the burden is now on you to verify the information with a source.
 * I took a look at your recent edit history, and I note that the Synge Street CBS is not the only article where you are facing this issue. Multiple editors, at multiple articles (and on your talk page) have explained how WP:BURDEN works.  When multiple editors, at multiple articles all tell you the same thing, you need to take the hint and accept it. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Has anyone filed an edit warring report? He's obviously broken it. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point, he claims to have left the project. Might as well wait and see if that holds before filing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To slightly tweak what Blueboar is saying, in these cases we assume that Epeefleche (who added the fact tag three weeks ago) questions whether the content is accurate. But Epeefleche could actually tell us what the alleged problem is.  It might be, for example, that Epeefleche happens to know that the material is accurate, but doesn't want any uncited material in the article, even if it is accurate, or thinks it is UNDUE, or has some other reason for insisting that a source be provided immediately instead of before the WP:DEADLINE.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche's reasons no longer matter... to cut through the pointless argument about whether the "challenge" was justified or not, two other editors (I am one of them) have directly questioned whether the statement is accurate... and have requested that a source be provided to support it. It is now up to those who want the material to be returned to demonstrate that the material is in fact accurate... by providing a source, per WP:BURDEN. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thing is, none of those are bad reasons for challenging unsourced material. When an editor makes a good-faith challenge (for any one of many legitimate reasons) to unsourced material, the WP:BURDEN is on those wanting it included to justify that with a reliable source. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  00:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * N.B. -- Atlas has been blocked for edit-warring relative to the above, and blocked further for block evasion. Epeefleche (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Claims and SPS
SPS says, in pertinent part:

(Emphasis added.) My question is about the word "claims:" Does "claims about" mean anything more than just "information about" or, more colloquially, "stuff about." I looked back through the history of V and the discussion — admittedly somewhat haphazardly — to see if this question had been a topic of discussion. In Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_9 it is asserted that:"This section used to have: 'Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic, subject to the limited exceptions discussed above.' Somehow this got deleted, then was 'restored' on June 10 by SlimVirgin, omitting the phrase noting that exceptions exist. That phrase had been in the text, and I see no evidence of discussion about deleting the phrase by SlimVirgin. This was a quite important phrase, as there are legitimate exceptions mentioned in this very text, among other places. I can't follow how it has become part of the revert-war. Gimmetrow 22:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)"SlimVirgin later (after some back and forth) replies:"Actually, the restriction about third parties is already in the bulleted list, so I'm fine with it as it is. I reverted my restoration of that one sentence. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)"The bullet point at that time read, "It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;". It would seem to me from this that "claims" does not have the connotation of, for example, "outrageous claims" or "negative claims" or "controversial claims." It means "anything about". Is that correct or do you know if subsequent discussion has changed the accepted meaning? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think common sense rules here. There are times when it is appropriate for an article to discuss the opinion that one person has about another person... and then there are times when it is inappropriate.  When appropriate, a claim should always be presented as being the opinion of the claimant, and should be attributed as such. A claim should never be presented as if it were accepted fact.  Blueboar (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Re "Does 'claims about' mean anything more than just 'information about' " — Yes.
 * claim (noun) — a statement saying that something is true when some people may say it is not true
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarification needed on "Questionable sources"
There's a dispute over the meaning of QS, particularly over its use to exclude certain quoted pundit opinions in a movie article section explicitly titled for and dedicated to such subjective opinions (while allowing others). I won't bother linking to the discussion since it's ridiculously TLDR and spills across multiple pages, but noticeboards were inconclusive so I'm hoping some long time editors experienced with the policy could provide some input on the crux of the disagreement.

My position is that QS deals with verification, particularly limiting such sources from being used to support facts in Wikipedia's voice or maybe quotes from political opponents, but not necessarily to prohibit us from covering the quoted opinions of such sources with attribution if they're deemed noteworthy, the inclusion of such opinions being controlled by factors like DUE and NPOV instead.

Another poster is invoking QS to prohibit the quote and source's inclusion, based primarily on the claim that the site which published the column is largely opinionated, though he acknowledges the author himself isn't QS, and has said he'd find the quote acceptable if it had been published in one of his books (he has several best sellers) instead (I'm still unclear on the distinction he was trying to make between an opinionated book and an opinionated online news site).

Is QS designed to prohibit the use of sources like opinion columns, essays, or opinionated books by very notable, mainstream commentators even when the section is dedicated to subjective opinions regarding something like a political documentary and the opinions are quoted with attribution? VictorD7 (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Depending on the context, it should not be. I've added relevant comment in a new section below.  I might add that the motivation for my suggestion (which I added to this page before becoming aware of your own issue) is the fact that a certain editor is trying to block reference to a book review by a reviewer who is acknowledged to be an expert on the subject, on the grounds of where it was published, which I don't think is a good reason for not allowing it. My proposed addition should help in regard to the cases you have cited. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That does sound like a similar situation, and I agree with your line of reasoning below. The page could possibly use a clarification regarding the use of attributed quoted opinions, particularly regarding things like reviews. VictorD7 (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about the burden of the ideal source
We're all familiar with the start of the WP:BURDEN section:

I'm thinking about the problem of the ideal source.

Let's say that I add some garden-variety information to an article. Perhaps I have written that "Frequent consumption of candy and other sugary foods is associated with worse dental health." This is almost a WP:BLUE sky statement, but not quite: it would ideally have a source behind it. I provide a source that is merely adequate. There's no realistic chance that anyone would consider this to be unverifiable. Since I'm placing it in Candy, there's no realistic chance that anyone would consider it undue. It belongs here, and it's been sourced. The only possible complaint is that I've cited it to something that is at the low end of the reliability scale. Maybe I've picked a magazine column written by a health journalist. Maybe I've used a primary source. Maybe I've used an altmed journal. Maybe I've used a source that is 20 years old. Maybe I've used a source written by my best friend.

You come along and notice the weak source. You agree that the source is technically, barely, merely reliable. You want the statement to be in the article, but you would strongly prefer that there was a better source behind it. Given that I've met the burden of providing "any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient", and given that sourcing is the only complaint you have with this statement, what are your appropriate, policy-compliant options? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Provide a better source. But the problem I see is it's not actually enough for the first editor to believe in good faith, others have to agree or at least not disagree (in good faith). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Use good sources. "Frequent consumption of candy and other sugary foods is associated with worse dental health." is not really WP:BLUE. With the advent of fluoride, flossing and brushing, this is especially true.  Generally, if there is doubt, then cite it.  If only one person disagrees with WP:BLUE and there are several others who do agree, I would say they he or she would need to provide at least one good source. If he or she provided one, then the WP:BLUE would no longer be WP:BLUE and would need sourcing. However, the disagreement with WP:BLUE might still be considered WP:FRINGE.


 * More importantly why are you including it? If everyone knows it, why include it.  It's like my starting a Wikipedia entry "The color of the sky".  with the short snub "Blue."  It's just as silly to write anything WP:BLUE.  And if everyone doesn't know it, it's not WP:BLUE.


 * WP:BLUE is meant to prevent someone from halting all progress in an article by demanding that every little thing be sourced when it doesn't need to be. If the article says "F-16's flew overhead" and I decided to write "Jets flews overhead"  for whatever reason, I don't have to go run and find a source which says an F-16 is a jet.  If I want compare a video game to Dante's "Inferno", I don't have to source that the Inferno was written by Dante, but I do have to source the comparison.  I hope this helps to explain things.


 * From your example, it does seem like you need a good source.Hilltrot (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The editor's policy-compliant options in dealing with that uncontroversial statement would be (1) Adding a better source (preferred), (2) Leaving it alone and finding something more productive to do (also good), (3) Raising it on the article talk page (acceptable), (4) Tagging (should be reverted without comment, wasting productive editors' time) and (5) Removing the statement (policy-compliant but extremely poor judgment in context, behaviour if repeated should be grounds to consider a WP:COMPETENCE block).— S Marshall T/C 09:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... do we have a "Better source requested" tag? If so, adding that tag would be perfectly acceptable.  If not, perhaps we should create it?
 * Note... if we do create it, I would suggest that we make it clear that it is a request for improvement, and does not constitute a "challenge" under WP:BURDEN. We could even be explicit and include instruction that says: When adding this tag, do not remove the material. Leave the existing citation in place until a better source is substituted.  Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @S Marshall: I was with you all the way until (5). Like Blueboar and others here, I'm a strong proponent of retaining the right to remove unsourced or inadequately sourced material, while at the same time retaining the standard that providing an adequate source is the best practice. I also agree that folks who make a habitual and routine practice of removing unsourced or inadequately sourced material are subject to being blocked (not for CIR, but for disruptive editing, but that's just a cavil). However, the hypothetical here defines the source in question as an adequate source, a "technically, barely, merely reliable" source, but a reliable source. So I don't think that (5) is policy-compliant or on the plate, but I agree with you on the rest. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC) PS: My agreement with (4) is based on my presumption that the tag S Marshall was referring to was a "no or inadequate source" tag, not an "adequate but we need a better source" tag as mentioned by Blueboar. I agree with Blueboar, but with the comment that I'm coming to doubt the usefulness of tags except to the extent that they notify the average, non-editor user of the encyclopedia of serious deficiencies in an article. But that's a topic for another discussion. — TM 13:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm intrigued. I've re-read WP:BURDEN and I'm still of the view that it does allow removing the statement if the editor objects to its sourcing.  On what basis did you reach a different conclusion, please?— S Marshall  T/C 13:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm unable to answer that because I don't see how you come to that conclusion. If you'll step me through your reasoning I'll either respond or cave in or something between the two. It is always possible to object to a source as being unreliable, of course, and to remove both the source and the material it supports (though a two-step process is, by far, preferable and more collegial: remove the source first, -tag the material, and BRD as needed on the issue over the reliability of the source and only remove the material if a reliable source is not provided) . But the source in this case is defined by the hypothetical as being reliable, if barely so. Replacing or supplementing a reliable source with a better one is absolutely acceptable, but I don't see any support in BURDEN for removing it just because a better one might be found. I'm open for enlightenment, however. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The policy text treats "reliable source" as a binary proposition (either it is or it isn't) but the hypothetical situation treats "reliable source" as a relative thing, some sources being more reliable than others. So I understand that in the hypothetical situation, one editor finds the source unsatisfactory, and I refer to the footnote: "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any potential problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back."  A specific problem can be articulated so the text can be removed.  Can't it?— S Marshall  T/C 16:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just totally dropped the ball on this discussion. Response: The fact that a source is unsatisfactory because it is adequate, but weak, i.e. that it is a reliable source which supports the proposition but not a very good one, is not a "specific problem that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia." An editor can certainly assert in good faith that the source is unsatisfactory because it is inadequate, i.e. that it is not a reliable source, and remove both the source and the material, of course, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a source which is, per the scenario first described, "technically, barely, merely reliable". We are, indeed, talking about relative reliability, but the scope of relativity we're discussing is between "barely ... reliable" but reliable to utterly reliable. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * We've already got one: . DonIago (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Found here BTW. DonIago (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Don, the template documentation says, "This template is used in articles to identify sentences or short passages which have an inline citation but reference insufficient sources." That's really for inadequate sources, not "adequate, but could be better" sources. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though I suspect to a layperson it's effectively the same difference, in that I'm not sure how many editors are really going to go looking to see what precisely the template means. "Better source needed" seems general enough to get the job done, IMO. DonIago (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And easily enough fixed... if there is consensus to do so, we can always change the template documentation for that particular tag. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Until February 1, 2013, there was a tag which did not have that restriction (or any other documentation) and which generated the text: "(A better citation would be preferred here. You can help Wikipedia by providing one.)" . As the result of a TfD discussion ending that date "Better citation" was redirected to . That discussion arguably failed to recognize that "Better citation" was for arguably-adequate citations which could be improved while "Better source" was for inadequate citations and was, for all intents and purposes, a clone of .  Don't you have some history with ? Best regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC) PS: And in its current form, with current documentation,  is transcluded into over 13,000 articles. While FSM only knows the percentage of those transclusions where it's used in conformity with its documentation (which has said what it says in regard to what we're talking about here since 2011), that's a pretty high number of uses to go tinkering around with the meaning of the template. — TM 16:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, as long as the template's applicability is being broadened. DonIago (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My "history" with that template was mostly voting to keep it at TFD. At the time, that template rather strangely said "no-primary source needed", which the TFD discussion concluded was inappropriate contents for the template's name.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * S Marshall's point 5 is the one that interests me the most.
 * The policy says (for good reasons) that BURDEN is met if I supply any reliable source, even if it's a relatively weak reliable source. I'm not convinced that removing the statement actually is policy-compliant.  The policy says that the BURDEN "is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source".  It does not say that anyone can require a citation to the best possible reliable source, or that you can blank reliably sourced material if you believe that a better source exists.  You could presumably tag it, just like you could tag something for copyediting or formatting, and you could certainly do the work of providing a better source yourself.  However, I don't think that blanking material that
 * you agree should be present [in this place, in this form] and
 * you agree is already supported by a [truly, but barely] reliable source and
 * you believe could be cited to an even better source
 * is actually permitted. I don't believe that our policy, as written, permits people to use BURDEN to force someone else to provide better/fancier/more sources.  I believe that our policy, as written, says that if the source is okay, and you want a better one, then you can request a better source, or you can provide a better source yourself.
 * Does this seem like the correct interpretation to everyone else?
 * In reply to the question about why I would include this material, the answer is that Candy would be incomplete without mentioning it. Dental caries is the most frequently claimed negative health effect for candy consumption in reliable sources for well over a century.  (Weight gain is the other commonly discussed effect; whether it is good or bad depends on whether under- or over-nutrition is your main cultural reference point.)   WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly... as long as a reliable source is provided, WP:BURDEN has been complied with. We can request a better source... but we can not require it.  Of course, that doesn't mean someone won't remove the material for some other reason... but they can no longer point to BURDEN as their justification. Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Should we say that?
We pretty much agree (see above) that blanking a verifiable, cited statement solely because you want a better-than-barely-reliable source behind it is not permissible behavior.

Some zealous (good) editors are not entirely clear on this point. Should we address that issue here? I would be willing to see a small addition about this in a footnote, but I don't think that I want to make this too prominent. It's not double-bold large-font material for me; it's mostly a detail addressed to the established editor. However, I'm open to whatever other people suggest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Too much grey. If it's a "barely reliable source", that means that there will be a substantial group of editors that believes that it's not a reliable source at all. The example leading this whole discussion used the example of an altmed journal being used as a source. I wouldn't trust an altmed journal as a source for its own name, others are more lenient. That difference is going to have more effect than any rule you might want to write about how two editors that agree that a source has some level of reliability should interact.&mdash;Kww(talk) 06:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, in this scenario, I have defined the source supplied as being reliable, i.e., something that RSN will accept. There will always be POV pushers who want to eliminate the use of whole classes of sources based on POV, but we should write our advice to discourage them, not to enable them.
 * We do see this in real disputes: we will have people cite a book for something, and have someone complain because the source is "only" a book published by a journalist who has been working in the field for 40 years, instead of by a professor of modern history, or because the source is "only" a textbook instead of an academic journal article.
 * Also, as a point of fact, the first example I gave was "Maybe I've picked a magazine column written by a health journalist." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What specific edits would you like to make to the policy, WAID?— S Marshall T/C 00:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The "rule" might be summarized as "If the material is already supported by an inline citation to any reliable source, you may not remove the material solely because you want a stronger source".
 * I'd like this (generally understood and accepted) practice to be more accessible to editors.
 * However, as a practical matter—when I consider the number of disputes involving un reliable sources that some POV pusher claims are reliable—then I'm not entirely sure that I really want to enshrine this as a major point in a core policy. That situation has a very easy solution:  you just say "removing due to UNreliable source" rather than "I'd prefer a better source".  However, I'm a little worried that POV pushers might invoke this "rule" in an effort to preserve their UNreliably sourced statements.  (Some editors' ability to willfully misread policy pages is essentially infinite.)
 * So with that in mind, perhaps we should consider adding it to the existing footnote? Perhaps we should instead add it to the /FAQ instead of putting it on a "policy" page?  Also, perhaps it would be helpful to expand WP:RS to talk about relative reliability.
 * Obviously, if it really became a persistent problem in practice, then the whole thing could be removed later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this in response to some kind of incident?— S Marshall T/C 11:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. I don't ever remember anyone reverting any of my own work on this grounds, but it does happen, especially to less–experienced people.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate here... Chances are, if some bit of information is only supported by marginal source, there are DUE WEIGHT issues with mentioning it in the article in the first place. That is a much better reason to remove than "I'd like a better source". Same result, different justification. Blueboar (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'm interested in the other cases: when I provide a marginal source (because it's handy, or maybe because I didn't know any better), but it's not the only possible source.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My devils advocate comment was addressed more to those complaining about marginal sources than those who provide them. As to your question... The burden is to provide a reliable source... not the most reliable source possible.  Once you have provided a reliable source (even a marginally reliable one), you are under no obligation to find a better source.
 * That said... nothing says everyone has to be Wikilawyerish ass about it... if you have added a marginal source, and someone comes along and asks nicely for a better one, I would certainly say you are encouraged to be cooperative, and should at least make the attempt. There are a lot of things that are encouraged, but are not required.  This is one of them. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

refer to "individual" In "self-published sources"
I should think we should be able to introduce "Government Agency X released regulations for..." cited to the appropriate page hosted on the website of said government agency. Apparently some editors are opposed because, in their view, it's "self-published." It seems to me that there is a difference between an individual who self-publishes and an internationally recognized government organization. If my understanding is wrong here shouldn't there be a warning on this page against citing to .gov ? think we should introduce language that acknowledges the distinction.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Even if government websites were considered self-published—and they're usually not—it wouldn't matter, because "I did this" (e.g., "this agency released these regulations") is something you can support with a self-published statement per WP:ABOUTSELF.
 * You all might look at Identifying and using self-published works. It's unfinished (feedback wanted), but government websites are mentioned in a quotation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But verifiability is not the only standard for inclusion in an article. Not everything notable about an event needs to be recorded. Insisting on secondary sources is a good way to begin the screening process for articles. --John (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. But then complain about notability if there is a notability problem instead of trying to muddy the issue as one of reliability/verifiability.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Read the talk pages of WP:V and WP:IRS. It is clear that the winning editors at these pages consider a self-published source to be one published on the say-so of one individual, or small group of like-minded individuals. It was never intended to be applied to works issued by institutions with a meaningful editorial oversight process. This definition should be made clear on the policy page as User:Bdell555 suggested.


 * User:John, whether a source is self-published is completely separate from whether it is primary or secondary. It is entirely possible to self-publish a secondary source. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This whole conversation is based on a red herring introduced by Brian Dell. The problem with the primary source is not that it is self-published, but as I said above that it violates NOTNEWS. Show a few secondary sources which report this claim and there might be a useful discussion in article talk. --John (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:John, I believe you meant to say "WP:INDEPENDENT", not "secondary" in this sentence. WP:Secondary does not mean independent.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion was never meant to resolve an issue just at one particular page. If it was, it would stay at that page.  Neither was it meant to resolve just some issue you're involved in, John.  @RGloucester seemed to think that "self-sourced" and "primary sourced" are to a large extent interchangeable, but as Jc3s5h observed, "self-sourced" has no necessary relationship with being primary-sourced.  By the same token WP:NOTNEWS can apply to a secondary source that's simply non-encylopedic "news" while not applying to material from a primary source that's of encyclopaedic notability.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In the case of Parliaments who often publish their own proceedings and those of their committees with their own publications, WP:ABOUTSELF may not cover it. For example a member of Parliament may make a statement about an issue involving organisations or people outside Parliament. -- PBS (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Is WP:SPS referring only to an individual's self-published media? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Seems to me that it is referring only to an individual's. Otherwise for example, the NY Times would be considered a self-published source from that organization. This can be clarified by adding "an individual's" in the following sentence of the policy, denoted by underlining for this discussion.
 * For that reason, an individual's self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (I made the edit. Feel free to revert. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC) )
 * This seems to have a contradiction in it. A group blog would surely be produced by a group, rather than an individual? Formerip (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's unclear what a group blog is. It might be like a forum where an individual of the group posts a comment. Could someone give a link to an example? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure we want to limit this to individuals... organizations can self-publish (examples: a band's Facebook page, or an advocacy group's webpage) and such sources are just as problematic. Blueboar (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with a minor band's Facebook page being considered a self-published source, because it will consist of a small number of individuals. If an advocacy group is large and well-organized, the web page should not be considered self-published because it will most likely have some form of editorial control to insure the contents of the web page reflects the views of the group, which in turn, were arrived at through some process involving voting and/or deliberation. Reliably published sources, such as books from major publishing houses, frequently favor a particular point of view; favoring a particular point of view is not a reason to consider a source self-published. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Editorial control is the key factor. An organisation where one person writes an article and then another decides whether or not it should be published is not considered self-published (although when the article is about the organisation or its activities it should be closely examined for bias, of course, and the requirement to prefer secondary sources is likely to come into play -- but neither of these are issues of verifiability).  If a single person is responsible for writing and publishing without any kind of management oversight, however, the article is still self-published IMO.  This is likely to be true for most small organisations, but would rarely be true for (e.g.) listed corporations or governmental bodies. JulesH (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Re " If a single person is responsible for writing and publishing without any kind of management oversight, however, the article is still self-published IMO." — In the case of this occurring in an organization, the single person would not have been able to write and publish without management giving the person access to do that. So there is management oversight, although not micromanagement. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see what adding "individual" achieves, but on the other hand it creates a significant potential loophole for people to argue through in favour of fansites, books from vanity publishers, church newsletters and anything else not technically published by an individual. Formerip (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The definition of self published has to be treated with care. For example although it is uncommon today it was quite common in the past for an author to gather in subscriptions for a book (or even have a patron -- as do some artists today) and then pay for a print run themselves. One could argue that advances by a publisher is the equivalent today to patronage of bygone days, the difference is that today the publisher pays for the print run. This is just comment in passing so that people realise that self-published does not necessarily just involve models that may produce unreliable sources as with a modern vanity publishing and self published web-sites.
 * I think it would help people to simplify the problem of identifying unreliable and reliable self-publications if (just like the definition used for reliable sources) it is seen that self-published sources consist of two parts the author and the publisher. In the case of institutions then one looks at whether the information in a Wikipedia article can be reliable supported by the publisher of the information, if so then self-published source is a reliable source. For example a press announcements from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is a reliable source because the ICJ is seen as both a reliable author and a reliable publisher. However a report on the same ICJ decision on a website of a small NGO may not be seen as reliable because the NGO is not considered to be a reliable authority or a reliable publisher. There will of course be some authors and publishers who are marginal and that will come down to a Wikipeia editorial decision, but breaking out author and publisher would at least get away from the muddle over whether an press report by the ICJ was a reliable source while allowing the flexibility to rule out obvious unreliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that a press release is ever non-self-published, even if it comes from the largest book publisher in the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A few quick points:
 * Self-publishing has real definitions! You can look them up in reliable sources!
 * Bob K31416]'s worry about traditional publishers is unfounded. It is especially unfounded when considering American newspapers, because they always have a publisher.  The publisher of The New York Times is [[Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr..  Any story in the Gray Lady that wasn't written by Sulzberger is non-self-published.
 * JulesH has the right end of the stick. What matters is editorial control.  Specifically, what matters is independent editorial control, i.e., the author and the editor and the publisher aren't all the same people and/or controlled by the same people.  So under the normal definition, a traditional book publisher is fine:  the author and the editor and the publisher have a sort of adversarial or independent relationship:  I wrote this, the editor wants to censor me, and the publisher is under no obligation to print the book at all.  What happens if the editor or publisher reject it?  I can take my book to another publisher.  A newspaper article is also fine, because the journalist and the editor and the publisher have a similarly semi-adversarial or independent relationship:  I want to run this, but you want me to change it, and he might kill the whole story anyway.  Then what?  Then I take my story to some other outlet, and see if I can sell it as a freelancer.  Then you find another story to run instead.  Even if I'm an employee of the newspaper, you're not absolutely dependent upon me to fill the newspaper, and I'm not absolutely dependent upon you to get my material published.   But a corporate website, for example, is always self-published:  I wrote it as a work for hire.  The contents are controlled and owned outright by my employer and the would-be publisher.  If I don't write what they want, they'll replace me with someone who will.  My manager was told to get a corporate website written, or she'll be replaced by someone who will.  And this is all being ordered by the same people who own the copyright, control the content, and will be publishing it.  The whole thing, from creation to publication, is under the absolute control of a single entity.  That's self-publishing, no matter how many people are involved in it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Re "Self-publishing has real definitions!" — Here's that definition for reference.
 * "self-publishing (uncountable)
 * The publishing of books and other media by the authors or creators of those works, rather than by established, third-party publishers."
 * I don't know what "uncountable" means but as for the rest of it, consider the concern expressed in the OP that any publications from the US government can be considered a self-published source. From the above definition one could say that the government is the author and publisher and hence a government publication is a self-published source. I don't think we want that because the government publication is checked by various people in the government and is thus usually more reliable than an individual's independent self-published source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your example of the corporate publication is a matter for WP:NPOV, rather than WP:V. I think the idea behind the self-published source section is that reliability usually depends on how many people decide what goes into a publication, and that when there is only one person self-publishing, that is usually the least reliable situation.    --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's more to it than bias. Self-published sources have less built-in independence and more of what you might call an "internal" conflict of interest:  we are all aiming for the same goal, with no real checks and balances, no matter how many people are involved.  These are issues for reliability.  One author, one editor, and one publisher is only three humans, but they produce a more useable source than thirty people, each sporting one of those same titles, who've all been told that their job is to get a particular publication out the door.
 * Whether government documents are self-published depends on whether you consider them to be "traditional". Personally, I'd say that normal reports and records are traditionally published, but that some politically oriented publications are just as self-published as any campaign ad.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:V and WP:IRS were written with the concept firmly in mind that self-published means published under the control of a single person or a small group of like-minded people. If you want to use any other definition, important sections of WP:V and WP:IRS have to be rewritten. The current definition of self-published contained in WP:V does not currently reflect the operational definition when the guidelines were written, so the definition of self-published and the rules for using self-published sources are incompatible. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Tangent
Blueboar, about your comment at 11:19 the other day:

I think you need to expand Irregular verbs on Wikipedia to include something like "I add valuable information that is not likely to be challenged; you fail to provide adequate citations; they.... WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC participation request
WP:USERG and WP:BLOGS have been cited at an RfC at talk:Oathkeeper. Further voices would be welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Disputable circular references
Question here about WP:CIRC. What if a source cites Wikipedia articles, but it is obvious from the articles that most of the content in the source didn't not come from WP because it is not on WP? This guideline does not really specify about any of this, probably because this is rare, but if anyone can offer an answer to this, I suggest we include this in the article. What brings me here is this. This article from UKessays.com (usually a reliable, verifiable source) cites the following Wikipedia articles: satellite television, direct-broadcast satellite, and television in the United Kingdom. The satellite TV article has gone through some major expansion recently, but when this essay was written (it doesn't say, but it has probably been around for at least a few months, as I stumbled over it when expanding the satellite TV article), the closest WP article it resembled was the TV in the UK article. But it is still obvious much of the content of the essay didn't come from WP mainly because much of it still doesn't exist on WP and is contradictory to much of the WP articles. I don't plan to use this essay as a source on WP, just to let you know. Anyways, if someone can offer a solution to this, I suggest we include it in the article, probably under the WP:CIRC section.Qxukhgiels (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:CIRC says "Also, do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources." [Emphasis added]. Making a few citations to a Wikipedia article, or even borrowing a sentence or two, is not mirroring Wikipedia. Nor is it relying on Wikipedia. Now, if the source is being used to support a particular claim, and the particular claim in the source is cited to Wikipedia, then it requires a more careful examination. If the source is a general-interest source not known for expertise on the topic says "This isn't our area of expertise, but Wikipedia says the snark was a boojum25" then it the source does rely on Wikipedia and should not be used for that claim. If the source is by the world's leading expert on the topic, and it says "even Wikipedia manages to get it right, the snark was a boojum14" the source is not relying on Wikipedia and may be used to support the claim. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to make things complicated... one should also check the article history to see what was in prior iterations of our article . I have seen cases where an external source takes information from a Wikipedia article, but subsequently that information is removed from the Wikipedia article for cause.  We need to be careful not to (later) re-add the removed information, based on the external source (that was in turn based on the prior version of the wikipedia article). Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have done that with the WP articles cited on the UK essays source, and it's obvious most, if not all the claims have never existed on WP. If they had, then someone has managed to get under the radar with a big content removal job.Qxukhgiels (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This problem has a very easy solution, though you may not like it. First, I'd object to using this essay by a seemingly unknown author as a reliable source, especially when it doesn't have proper notation throughout the essay to determine which source the information directly came from. The next problem I have is that in the Bibliography, it lists 4 sources, 3 of those are from Wikipedia. Therefore, if we assume the information is evenly divided, this essay is made up of 75% WP material and that's a clear indicator that it probably relies heavily on WP content. The solution is simple. Go to the source in the Bibliography that's not a WP article and use that as your source for the information you want to include in the WP article. Now, I've already checked the source and there isn't a lot of information there. So that furthers my opinion that the essay is mostly based on WP content and is not a reliable source. WP:verifiable requires that the information from a source can be verified. The information in this essay can not be traced back to a reliable source. It doesn't really matter if you can't find the content in the essay on those WP articles, what matters is that you can find them in another reliable source. Hope this answers your concerns.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC, Insertion of a refimprove tag
Does the insertion of a refimprove tag come with the standard requirement for article edits that such an edit requires consensus, or is the insertion of a refimprove tag a priority edit, perhaps listed at WP:Edit warring? Unscintillating (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC), New timestamp: 16:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither - stop wiki-lawyering about the tag. That goes for Epeefleche as well.  In the time you have spent arguing about the God-damned tag, you both could have improved the article and, thus, made the entire tag issue irrelevant. Blueboar (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not here willingly. I wanted to discuss this the first time I said "time for the talk page" in an edit summary, diff, and I wanted to discuss it at Talk:Harlequin Shopping Centre.  I have been templated twice on my talk page, even though I have made no bad edits.  You said nothing when Epeefleche stopped S Marshall from moving the discussion away from here.  You have so far ignored my post on your talk page asking you to stop implicitly defending edit warring.  Meanwhile, this is a neutrally worded question that will clarify one of the points.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Are we really having this much of an argument over a refimprove tag? What's the harm in leaving it there, exactly? Worst-case, unsourced material will be removed, which is reasonable and allowed by policy in any case (for that matter, would you prefer removal of the unsourced material to the article simply being tagged?). Best case, interested editors will actually source the unsourced material. And if there isn't any unsourced material to begin with, then nothing will be removed. If you feel the refimprove tag is inappropriate and more specific tagging should be implemented instead, talk it over with the editor(s) who feel the article overall needs to be tagged.
 * TL;DR: If you have a problem with any level of citation needed tagging, the best approach is to provide sources so that the tagging becomes a moot point. It's a hell of a lot more productive than arguing about whether the tagging is needed to begin with. DonIago (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree w/Doniago's comment, above. Epeefleche (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

In my OP to this section, I mentioned the outright removal of unclear section tags. However, I want to reiterate alanscottwalker's point above, "a tag is subject to challenge also". For other approaches, Blueboar has demonstrated that the section tag can be removed and replaced with inline tags. It is also possible to remove the section tag and just add a perfunctory number of inline tags to get the ball rolling to zero in on the actual problems. If the entire article has one giant tag, it may be necessary to first replace the article tag with section tags before working on the individual section tags. Unscintillating (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Quote without comment from ,
 * Two-part answer from me. (1) On the underlying principle: Adding a "refimprove" tag is either a reasonable request for sources from a good faith editor, or else a vexatious or retributive edit by someone you've clashed with.  I have personally been on the receiving end of both.  I think it's important that this discussion comes to a conclusion that lets a good faith editor add a simple tag without jumping through hoops, but prevents one moron from wasting massive amounts of productive editors' time by tagging inappropriately.  Fortunately this situation is dealt with in the editing policy.  Adding a tag is something one editor can do.  Removing a tag is something one editor can do.  At that point you've passed through B and R, so you're into D.  During the D phase of BRD, the status quo ante should obtain, so all other things being equal the article should not have a tag on it until a consensus in favour of the tag is reached.  (2) On the question in context:  We've got a policy talk page being hijacked to deal with an argument between two editors about one tag on one article and I object to that rather strongly.  Will you kindly stop it and do as Blueboar asks please.— S Marshall  T/C 12:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, given that we're talking about a single maintenance template here (i.e. we're not talking about either multitudinous tags or actual article content), I'd argue that it would be better to retain the tag unless there's a consensus to remove it, if it becomes controversial. To my mind, better to keep a tag in place that may not, objectively speaking, be needed, than to remove a tag that actually is needed. If nothing else, the tag's presence may encourage other editors to turn up and either contribute to the discussion or fix the problem themselves. DonIago (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that it enables/empowers editors to use tags disruptively. NB: I'm not saying that Epeefleche's use of the tag in this case was disruptive.— S Marshall  T/C 15:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We're talking about a single refimprove tag at the top of an article. Even if that was intended to be disruptive...and I don't really see how that would work...once it was contested it would just be a matter of obtaining a consensus for removal. If we were talking about a dozen CN tags or actual content removal it would be a different story, IMO anyhow... DonIago (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm really not seeing a pressing case for an exception from the normal BRD cycle here.— S Marshall T/C 16:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think, with S Marshall and Blueboar that on this talkpage we should not really be taking a position about this one case. Whether a tag is justified or not is a particular case which can be different in different cases, whereas this talkpage concerns generalizable cases. Specific cases need specific discussions (the D in BRD).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the addition of a new refimprove tag requires consensus  if there is an objection to it.  The following excerpt is from policy. (See WP:CONACHIEVE.)
 * "After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus."
 * The policy does not seem to distinguish between tags or article text but rather applies to any "change or addition to a page". Similarly I think that if a longstanding refimprove tag is removed and there is an objection, then its removal would require consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @ S Marshal... Re: "enables/empowers editors to use tags disruptively." I am not sure I understand how adding a refimprove tag could ever be disruptive?  Please explain. Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This happened to me in January 2012. An editor who disagreed with me about something went through everything I'd ever written adding "refimprove" tags (and other similar tags) at the rate of about one a minute, and I ended up going to AN/I to make him stop.  Tagging can be retaliatory or vexatious, which is disruptive editing.— S Marshall  T/C 19:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But it's not the addition of the tag itself that's disruptive, it's the behavior that's the issue there. Though...I'm tempted to ask whether the articles that were tagged did in fact have sourcing issues... DonIago (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether an article has sourcing issues is always a matter of opinion. For short articles about uncontroversial things (e.g. individual asteroids, minor mediaeval saints, small towns in Ecuador, species of small brown beetle), one source in the whole article might be perfectly sufficient for most reasonable editors.  For long articles about fraught subjects, you can have two citations in every paragraph and still not solve all the sourcing issues.  If someone went along and tagged one of the articles I've created for sources, I would leave the tag in place until I'd provided a further source.  But if someone goes along and tags all hundred-odd articles below GA level that I've ever contributed, then that's vexatious behaviour and I'm just going to revert them.  And having been in that situation I definitely don't want us to come up with a rule that says I'm not allowed to remove a tag without providing a source.— S Marshall  T/C 11:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From Template:Refimprove,
 * "Please consider marking individual unreferenced statements with Citation needed instead of placing this template."
 * Considering the present controversy, this seems like the way to make progress. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't like the way the question is put. "Does this require consensus?" will be misinterpreted as meaning "Before adding this tag, do I have to get written permission to add it?"  You don't need written permission to add or remove these kinds of tags.  The first editor to actually address the substance of the complaint, instead of edit warring over the tag, is the real winner.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If we're talking about a pattern of adding tags, address it as a conduct issue. If not, add sources to moot the tag, or talk it over with the tagging editor and highlight the areas of the article that needs tags. It seems to me more than a bit silly to argue over the tag itself...and frankly if I were involved in the dispute and was facing this much resistance to a tag, it might encourage me to escalate the matter and start pulling the content that specifically concerned me as the next step in the process. More collaboration, less confrontation. DonIago (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Be Bold Tag if it you think the article as a whole needs more inline citations, or remove tag if you or someone else has given it some actual consideration and hopefully been able to add some and improve to where you feel the request has been filled. If there seems no need or you're not sure if tag can be removed, then I'd suggest try talk before removing it.   Markbassett (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In reviewing the shopping center talk page, my view is that template is without consensus and should be removed. In such situations where an article level request for sources is unspecific, and the article is a dozen-some-odd sentences with 5 footnotes, then the refusal by the templater to identify where a source is actually needed, means that the template is unwarranted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * To answer the specific question, which I read as "are tags exempt from 3rr restrictions" the answer is no. If we're worried that a reader might be exposed to some problematic article without warning, we can certainly tag the article or fix it. But there's no tag that absolutely positively has to be on a page (or alternately, be absent from a page). The broader question isn't really something we can answer within the scope of a discussion like this. Protonk (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of type of work
I'd like to suggest, in regard to:
 * The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:


 * 1) the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)
 * 2) the creator of the work (for example, the writer)
 * 3) the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press).
 * All three can affect reliability.''

including the following amplification following 'reliability': ... in a way that may depend on the type of work. For example, with scientific research, published in a journal, the reliability of the journal is the most important factor since its refereeing policies are what mainly determines the standard of what is published. But in cases such as book reviews for example, since the creator is unlikely to change the quality (as opposed to the content) signficantly in accord with where it will be published, the status of the creator is more relevant, as regards reliability, than where the review is published. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't agree as far as reviews are concerned. A high quality publication such as the New York Times isn't going to accept a review from just anybody. It is possible for a reviewer who has established his/her credibility by publishing reviews in well-known publications, and then publishing another review in an otherwise-questionable source, such as his/her personal website. In such case the exception for self-published work by a recognized expert would apply. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine — in this case the person is a recognised expert in the field that the book being reviewed covers, with his expertise being supported by articles in reliable sources. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I still wonder if some clarification might not be in order, particularly regarding the meaning and application of "questionable sources" restrictions. For example, a well known opinion blog like rogerebert.com would presumably be an acceptable source for a film review, but someone could argue that the QS prohibition on using sources that "rely heavily on...personal opinion" for "contentious" claims about others excludes an opinion published on such a site. In some cases the topic is completely about such subjective opinions, as in sections dedicated to film/book reviews or representative pundit reactions to a political development, so the sources are necessarily opinionated, and the guiding factors should be noteworthiness as determined by popularity, citations by others, representing a significantly held viewpoint, NPOV, normal page layout concerns, etc.. An historically significant work that might normally be considered unreliable, like Hitler’s Mein Kampf or Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, might be appropriately quoted with attribution in certain situations where coverage of such opinion is warranted, and not just in the two articles about the authors, or just claims about themselves (within the quotes).  Should QS policy be interpreted as preventing such citations? Because that's how some editors view it. Even quoted mainstream opinions by notable figures could arguably violate QS in the eyes of some if they're sourced to their own (third party published) books, which obviously represent their personal opinions.   VictorD7 (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, I get your point (more or less). Might my proposed addition help, by establishing an additional aspect to be taken into account?  The trouble is that there will always be editors who try to game the system, however you word the guidelines. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * True. I think your edit would help in the cases we both had chiefly in mind by clarifying and expanding the emphasis on the "expert exception", but I think the issue with QS is somewhat broader than that. The section could benefit from language clarifying that opinionated sources are suitable for sourcing attributed quotes of their own opinion provided that such opinions are deemed noteworthy per policies like WP:NPOV. I'm not trying to hijack your section though. Maybe I should have posted in my own instead. VictorD7 (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem! When I have the time I'll have a think about how to address the issue you raise, which I have a feeling has been a source of annoyance in connection with some of my own edits in the past. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically, what we want it seems to me is a statement of the order of:"'where a source makes a particular assertion, that source may be considered a reliable source for the fact that the writer asserted it, regardless of the reliability of the source concerned in general'."Is that the point that you have in mind, and might there be a better way to express it? --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's already my interpretation of policy for logical reasons, but plenty of other editors certainly read the text differently, so a clarification along the lines you propose would be enormously helpful. VictorD7 (talk)


 * I trust the first issue has been here for discussion long enough to indicate effective consensus, so I've updated the text of the guideline. With your other point, the question is where to put it.  It should act as a qualification to whatever is being misinterpreted to produce an outcome of the kind we consider misconceived.  Any thoughts? --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding "the fact that the writer asserted it", is your text intended to allow inclusion of this fact in a Wkipedia article just about the writer or is it also intended to allow inclusion of the fact in a Wikipedia article about the topic that includes the writer's assertion. The point is that if it is the latter, it may be a way to include information from an unreliable source into Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As I say below, the set of reliable sources varies by context. What's "unreliable" in a scientific context isn't when it comes to a film review. In a section dedicated to noteworthy subjective opinions there's no rational reason to limit reliable sources to opinion pieces appearing in outfits like the NY Times or Washington Post, while excluding the views of (maybe more) prominent people writing in well known opinion heavy publications (like the rogerebert.com example above), at least not for sourcing reasons per se.


 * To answer Brian's question, I had in mind something like adding your wording (more or less) as an independent sentence in the QS section, or maybe tacking it on as a clause at the end. Maybe something like, "They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others in Wikipedia's voice, though they may be considered reliable for sourcing their own attributed opinions." Whether such opinions merit coverage is guided by due weight, NPOV, relevance, basic page layout concerns, editorial judgment, etc., which is what most editors use anyway. I think this tweak would clarify rather than change existing policy, as I see an attributed quote as "material on themselves", which is explicitly allowed. This would just prevent some editors from invoking QS to automatically exclude noteworthy, attributed opinions on pseudotechnical grounds simply because they come from a supposedly "QS" source. That it wouldn't lead to a flood of POV quotes across articles is evidenced by the fact that such a flood hasn't occurred with opinion writers at the NY Times, Washington Post, or other outfits not perceived as "questionable". Clearly there are plenty of safeguards in place to prevent it. This edit wouldn't have any impact except in certain niche situations where subjective opinion is explicitly called for, like the reaction to a film, and noteworthy opinions are sometimes being improperly excluded. It would also clarify that we are allowed to link directly to historically significant or otherwise noteworthy sources being covered and quoted from when appropriate per other policies/guidelines, even in articles not totally dedicated to such works or people. That routinely happens on Wikipedia anyway, but this would confirm that it's not a policy violation. Of course I'm willing to entertain any suggested wording tweaks that would alleviate any remaining concerns. VictorD7 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the text that you recently added to the policy, a person may be an expert in a field but not all of that person's ideas in that field may be sound and may not be accepted by reliable publications. That may be the reason why an unsound idea of the expert finds its way into an unreliable publication instead of a reliable one. Also, if it's an unreliable publication, there may be a question as to whether it is the writer's work, or whether it has been modified by someone else. I don't see a consensus for your addition and I note that someone just reverted it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But the set of what constitutes "reliable sources" varies by context, and the edit in question did distinguish between the examples of scientific research and a book review. Of course it goes without saying that we should be confident such a source faithfully transmits the author's views; in fact that's the Verifiability page's legitimate purpose. But there's a rich gap lying between third party publications with a reputation for fact checking that ostensibly don't rely heavily on opinion and truly dubious sources, and that gap is full of material (including but not limited to self published sources) that we can be confident accurately represents its authors' views (verifiability). I'll also note that the reverting editor said he didn't completely disagree with the edit, but that he thought it merited more discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some clarification is in order for people unfamiliar with these issues. A research paper makes certain scientific claims, and becomes part of the corpus of science when published.  It is therefore important to assess the quality, and some journals may have better quality control than others.  That doesn't apply with book reviews at all: they are clearly expressions of opinion.  They are solicited by editors and almost certainly are not sent out to referees for vetting, though naturally the editor would look through the review first, before sending it off for processing.  And the fact remains that reviewers do float their pet ideas, even in a journal like Nature.  It is a totally different world to the world of research and the distinction needs to be made. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding a reviewer floating a pet idea, not in Nature but in some source that in general is unreliable — Are you suggesting that the pet idea should appear in a Wikipedia article on the corresponding scientific topic because it's a fact that the reviewer stated it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am. And why not?  I'm only talking of ideas by acknowledged experts, of course, not yer average unqualified person. Where the idea is published should not matter. --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Re "Why not?" — Here's a previous comment I made,
 * "a person may be an expert in a field but not all of that person's ideas in that field may be sound and may not be accepted by reliable publications. That may be the reason why an unsound idea of the expert finds its way into an unreliable publication instead of a reliable one. Also, if it's an unreliable publication, there may be a question as to whether it is the writer's work, or whether it has been modified by someone else."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Is this even something that belongs in wp:V, or rather in wp:RS? The latter is normally sufficient for addressing the "is this source reliable" class of questions and it provides much more nuanced guidance than this policy can. LeadSongDog come howl!  13:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It is very curious that people raise no objections to these proposals for change when they are brought up on a talk page, but then suddenly object as soon as they are implemented. Is that normal on wikipedia?  Is there something I am missing here?  To my naive way of thinking, the idea behind 'before editing an article, put your proposals on the talk page of an article so they can be discussed' is that proposed changes are discussed before they are implemented so any desirable changes can be made before editing, not afterwards.  It can't be that the objectors were not watching the article, because they responded immediately when I made the edit. However, I am quite used to the fact that w'pedia operates in ways that anywhere else would be regarded as most odd, so what has just happened does not surprise me in the least (more sinister explanations for what happened also come to mind, but I will refrain from putting them in writing). --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not a bit curious. You propose a change, people tell you it has problems, you add it anyway, with the edit summary "added detail as per discussion on talk page" which falsely indicates the change was agreed to on the talk page, and the change was reverted. What else did you expect? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I responded to user Jc3s5h's objection and he did not come back to me, so I assumed he accepted my response. And to the best of my knowledge user VictorD7 is in agreement with my edit (I changed my wording a little from that on the talk page, but not any significant way). --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I generally support your edit, though I still think a tweak to the QS section along the lines you suggested above would be helpful (see my new post above). VictorD7 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Changes to content in policies require a fair amount of input from the community and very clear agreement that the change is acceptable not just to one or two editors but to many. This can be very different from changes one might want to make to an article. What ends up in a policy will be used all over Wikipedia so the content and nuances of content must be accurate and there must be agreement that the content is accurate. Even if one or two editors did agree here on a content change its possible and even likely that others would change that content if added. I know very well how frustrating Wikipedia can be, and even unfair, but here what you've run in to is a legitimate caution we all have to take to ensure policies are not misused. I'd just keep discussing your proposal until there is agreement here on what should if anything be added. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC))


 * Thanks for the clarification. I don't know if I want to waste my time arguing with the editors who have raised objections, but your comments raise the question of what one can do if pretty well nobody registers an opinion unless you go ahead and post a change?  It really looks as if you have to do change the project page to get people to take notice! --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Brian Josephson, Re "curious..." I only saw this section shortly before I made my comments above. Feel free to respond to my comments above about the substance of your proposals. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel it is not worth it now that others have muscled in, and I know what they are like, howling their disagreement. The two of us could probably have had a reasonable discussion and come to agreement as to what should be done, but now as it is that would be pointless.  Thanks for your consideration, anyway! --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict
 * Active editors can be pretty busy here and in their off-Wikipedia lives so sometimes discussion edit summaries don't catch their eyes while a change will. Blueboar is a highly experienced editor in terms of policy, an expert, in my opinion, so perhaps engage him and see what he thinks, see what nuances he'd suggest if any. Often policies and guidelines intersect so added wording may be repetitive or redundant. An experienced policy/guideline expert may be more aware of those intersections or redundancies. There is also a desire in general to stay away from too  much information in policies. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC))


 * I want to clarify that my comments are not meant in any way to be critical of your own experience. There are a very few long-time editors who seem to have specialized in policy and in some cases written many of them so they tend to have long time experience. Slim Virgin and BlueBoar come to mind. This doesn't make them right or wrong, of course, just that one can debate with them knowing they have this kind of experience. Anyway, hope you continue to comment on policy.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC))

I think most editors would resent being expected to repeat their objections over and over again. I think most editors consider their objection to be still in force unless they either strike it out or explicitly write that they have changed their mind. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In saying 'In such case the exception for self-published work by a recognized expert would apply' you appeared to have accepted my point. However, it is a gray area.  Are you regarding a book review in a journal as self-published?  That seems odd.  And if it is not considered self-published then the exception would not apply so it would need separate coverage. I agree that RS would be a better place to make the change as has been suggested.  Had I looked further on that page, I'd have seen that that list I quoted is there as well, but it said at the top 'The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability', so I ended up here instead.  --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I would agree in part, but also, this is a collaborative situation which means to me that If someone objects ask them what they could agree to, talk to them, discuss, compromise. A encyclopedia anyone can edit means everyone can discuss, can have an opinion. Respect for those opinions means talk it out. There is no definitive position.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC))


 * I note that my above met with a rather pointed rejoinder, which I assume was intended in good humour. While I endeavour to spend at least 170 hours/week on Wikipedia, somehow I still fall short, particularly when the weather is nice or the television is dreadful. Feel free to wp:TROUT me as needed. So far as I am aware, the community has as yet refused to fire me, or even cut my wages ;\)
 * Much of the proposed change is already substantially present in wp:RS at Reliable_sources, Reliable_sources, Reliable_sources, and particularly Reliable_sources. It is not at all clear to me why the particular bit of wp:RS being proposed should be needed directly in wp:V in preference to all the other bits. It has the appearance of policy creep. If there is a good reason, let's hear what it is so that a consensus for the change can be built. Who knows, we might even find a better way to state it. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * LeadSongDog, every time I talk to engineering about getting you more than the usual 168 hours in a week, I get complaints about the budget. We're also getting some pushback from legal, too; they're worried about liability if orbital changes affect the planet's climate (although enlarging the orbit ought to cool it slightly, which you'd think they'd all be grateful for).  I'm working on it, I promise.    WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Question: Is that normal on wikipedia?  Answer:  Yes.
 * In fact, the WP:Bold, revert, discuss idea is built on this idea: discussions may be overlooked or stall, but changing the article or policy gets people's attention.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The following is regarding one of the points I tried to make in my previous messages. (There's another point too.) For reference, here's the proposed addition again.
 * "where a source makes a particular assertion, that source may be considered a reliable source for the fact that the writer asserted it, regardless of the reliability of the source concerned in general"

This could reasonably be interpreted to mean that a source is reliable for "the fact that the writer asserted it" even if it is an unreliable source, which I don't think was the intended meaning. I think what was intended was the following.
 * "where a source makes a particular assertion, the question of whether the source is reliable for the fact that the writer asserted it, is independent of whether the source is reliable in general"

Unfortunately, I don't think this is OK either because the reliability of the source in general might imply that it isn't reliable for "the fact that...". --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

(Regarding the other point I referred to in my parenthetical remark above, I continued that discussion up the page with a message with the same time stamp as this message. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC))
 * Both that and my suggested QS addition above..."They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others in Wikipedia's voice, though they may be considered reliable for sourcing their own attributed opinions."...use "may", which simply acknowledges what's confirmed elsewhere in Wikipedia policy, that a source can be deemed reliable for facts about itself (including its own opinions) even if it's self published, published by a site that relies heavily on opinion, is seen as "extremist", or is perceived as being "QS" in some other way.  The idea is to clarify QS so it isn't invoked to automatically disqualify sources that are perfectly appropriate for a certain  section. VictorD7 (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the part of QS that says, "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves", I'd like to check with you that we interpret this the same way. For example, going by this part of QS, I think that if a questionable source gives an opinion regarding something to do with a given topic, the fact that the questionable source has that opinion should not be allowed in an article on that topic but possibly could be allowed in an article about the questionable source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So you would prohibit, for example, coverage of film reviews published by prominent figures in well known but opinionated sites like rogerebert.com, Breitbart, the Huffington Post, etc..? Or do you not see such sites as "questionable"? How about quoting directly from sources deemed pertinent to a section outside of their own articles, like Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto, or even The Declaration of Independence? What if, when covering an issue with multiple significant opposing views, editors understandably want to link to the opinionated sources (historical, legal, economic, or whatever) themselves? If you'd prohibit those things then we certainly have differing interpretations. The expert exception directly allows the last example (though it would be better if the QS section itself better reflected this), and I don't think QS does or should prevent the others. VictorD7 (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My last message was trying to get your interpretation of the excerpt from QS, "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves". Would you care to give it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, I consider an attributed quote taken from the source's words to be material about itself. Would you please answer my questions above? VictorD7 (talk)
 * Not yet. You gave an example of "material about itself", which I agree with, but you didn't interpret the meaning of the rest of the excerpt, "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves". For now, I'm not asking your opinion of whether this part of policy is worthwhile, I'm just asking what is your interpretation of its meaning.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're clear on what I include as "material on themselves", I'm not sure what you're asking. The rest of the segment you quote reads, "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of...". If you're implying that the text already allows the examples I've cited, I'd agree, but the issue here is whether it's sufficiently clear. If you're implying something else, however, then perhaps stating it directly and/or answering the above questions would help clarify your view. If it helps to clarify my own questions, by "prohibit" I meant you'd invoke QS to oppose or remove such material, though feel free to provide your own policy preferences along with your interpretation of current policy. VictorD7 (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you agree with my previous comment about the meaning of the excerpt? "if a questionable source gives an opinion regarding something to do with a given topic, the fact that the questionable source has that opinion should not be allowed in an article on that topic but possibly could be allowed in an article about the questionable source." --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I do, especially if one assumes a broad interpretation of what constitutes a "questionable source", but I asked the above questions to clarify your position and make sure. My position is that such content inclusion issues are properly governed by policies like NPOV, and that QS restricts claims, particularly those of fact or unattributed opinions, made in Wikipedia's voice.VictorD7 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Regarding the sources you asked about, I haven't looked at Breitbart, but I would consider rogerebert.com and Huffington Post to be reliable sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Breitbart is a news/opinion site; roughly the conservative equivalent of the liberal Huffington Post. The clearer example here is rogerebert.com. The section states that questionable sources "include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." rogerebert.com is almost entirely personal opinion, so on what basis would you not consider it questionable? VictorD7 (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are the two beginning sentences of QS that include the excerpt you gave.
 * "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion."
 * I think that the first sentence defines questionable sources and rogerebert.com doesn't seem to fit that description. The second sentence begins with "Such sources" so the comments in that sentence pertain to sources that fit the description in the first sentence. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So your position is that sources which express "views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion" aren't necessarily questionable? VictorD7 (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The question wasn't addressed to me, but my position is that "views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion" aren't necessarily questionable. This because one of those categories, sources that rely heavily on personal opinion, may very well be a self-published source expressing the opinion of the author/publisher. And there is an exception to the restrictions on questionable sources for "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Jc3s5h (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But is it an "exception" to the limitations placed on questionable sources, or to the sources labeled "questionable"? In other words, is such a source still "questionable" even it's deemed permissible in that case? The distinction is important when we aren't dealing with "self published" experts who have previously been published in sources normally considered reliable, but situations calling for opinions like in the aforementioned rogerebert example. What about film reviews published by that well known opinion site from critics who haven't been published in a newspaper source like the Seattle Times or Wall Street Journal, but who have become well known and widely read nevertheless? In this case how is reliability even relevant apart from being confident that the source is accurately relaying its authors' opinions? The set of reliable sources in such an example should be any published opinions on the matter in question where we're confident the author really said what's being attributed to him, with inclusion guided by factors like prominence, popularity, representing significantly held opinion, etc.. VictorD7 (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7, I wasn't taking a position on that, I was interpreting the policy with respect to rogerebert.com. Regarding "personal opinion" and rogerebert.com, that website contains opinions that go through an editor before they appear on the site. And as far as I know, it doesn't have a poor reputation for checking the facts or have an apparent conflict of interest, so I don't think it's a questionable source according to policy. Before we go on, what is your present opinion about whether or not rogerebert.com is a questionable source according to policy? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You said the extremist/promotional/gossip/rumor/opinion sentence only applies to sources meeting the criteria of the previous sentence. You specifically singled out heavy reliance on personal opinion as not necessarily making a source questionable, but the same would logically hold true for the rest of the sentence, which prompted my request for confirmation. If that's the case, then why include the sentence in the section at all? Regarding my own stance, I'm not sure precisely where the boundaries of questionable sourcing lie, or how "heavily" a source has to rely on personal opinion to be questionable, but rogerebert.com certainly seems to fit the bill. Of course my own stance on overall policy is that sites like rogerebert.com are usable for their own attributed opinions, because the QS section limits how they're used in Wikipedia's voice, and doesn't (and certainly shouldn't) control when their attributed opinions are deemed noteworthy enough to cover. As I said in reply to Jc3s5h above, when it comes to covering subjective opinions, especially regarding film reviews, I'm not sure how reliability or fact checking is relevant apart from being confident that the source accurately relays its authors' statements. VictorD7 (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So far I've been trying to see where we agree or disagree on interpretation of the policy and it's been a lot of work. I think this is important to know before we can discuss changes. My feeling now is that I've spent my limit of time on this so I'll wrap it up for me. I oppose the change that you proposed way back near the beginning of this discussion and I think your interpretation of QS regarding rogerebert.com is incorrect for the reasons I mentioned. So that does it for me. Feel free to seek other editors' opinions on these or other matters. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd cheerfully accept your disengagement without problem and thank you for your input, but since you just stated your opposition to my proposal I'm going to have to point out that you didn't answer any of my critical questions, or reconcile the apparent inconsistency between your claim that the current section doesn't label sources that rely heavily on personal opinion "questionable", and your reluctance to apply that same logic to the other categories listed in the "opinion" sentence. In short, we never quite got to why you oppose a clarifying edit. VictorD7 (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

A question of weight?
Reading through this discussion, I think what underlies the questions and concerns is this: When evaluating the reliability of a source, how much relative weight should we give to each of the three factors we consider when determining reliability. I.E. should we give more weight to 1) the type of work (book, website, blog, etc.) 2) the reputation of the author within his field 3) the reputation of the publisher/venue.  I don't think this is a question we can (or should) make a firm and fast "rule" about... because we can not answer it out of context.  Each evaluation will give us a different answer. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is precisely why the QS section shouldn't be perceived as broadly categorical (especially regarding opinionated but trustworthy mainstream sources), and why a bit of clarifying language on what is and isn't being prohibited might help. VictorD7 (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well... first, I don't think prohibited is the right word to use. I have always understood QS to be a very strong caution against using questionable sources (because there are so very few situations where such sources would be appropriate to use), but that it does not rise to the level of being an out right prohibition (because there are those very few exceptional situations where it is appropriate to use them).  Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I'd still appreciate your input on whether those situations extend to coverage of their properly attributed subjective opinions, like film review sections quoting sources that rely heavily (or entirely) on personal opinion, per the rogerebert.com example above, or a review from a news/opinion site like Breitbart.com or the Huffington Post (not that I concede such sources are "questionable", but an editor will sometimes assert they are), especially (but not necessarily only) when the author is prominent, has been previously published in various reliable sources, and is frequently cited by other media outlets. VictorD7 (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Again... I don't think we can or should give a one-size-fits-all answer. We would need to know the specifics of the situation.  Remember that Verifiability (and the associated concept of reliability) is always context driven... and remember that we also have to factor in DUEWEIGHT.  Does mentioning the opinion of a specific author, published in the specific source, and used in a specific context in a specific Wikipedia article give DUE or UNDUE WEIGHT to a particular view point?  That has to be judged on a case by case basis.  You can give one example, and I might say "yes, that's fine"... but you can't extend that to make a generalized rule... because as soon as you change just one of the specifics, a very similar example might not be fine at all. Blueboar (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that due weight/NPOV/etc. governs such decisions on a case by case basis. My question here is specifically regarding QS policy, and is in direct response to certain editors invoking "QS" as an excuse to exclude opinions they don't like. In other words, they're saying that a source like Breitbart.com is "questionable" (their primary argument being that it's opinionated), and would therefore never be allowable as a source for a film review quote in a movie article, even in a section dedicated to such attributed opinions, and regardless of the quote's content or the nature of the opinion itself. In your opinion is that a proper interpretation of QS? VictorD7 (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, "questionable" often depends on context... take two sources that are often considered questionable: a) Fox News and MSNBC. Are they reliable?  Well, that depends on what you are talking about... for basic news reporting (for example: that there was an 6.0 Magnatude earthquake in Napa on such and such a date), both are reliable news sources.  Even in political reporting they can both be reliable (for example: that President Obama signed X bill on Y date).  However, both outlets also present news analysis and commentary.  In this they are both admittedly biased (Fox towards the conservative view point, MSNBC towards the liberal view point.)  This tends to be where people start to call them "questionable", depending on whether they agree with the view point or not.
 * In fact, in both cases, we need to look deeper than the venue. We need to look into the specifics of who is commenting, and on what.  The key is that we don't present analysis and commentary as "fact"... but as opinion.  Which is where DUEWEIGHT comes in...   An analysis by someone of the stature of Charles Krauthammer on Fox (not sure who the equivalent would be on MSNBC... they keep changing) is likely to be biased, but his reputation are such that we should give his analysis, commentary and opinions some degree of Weight. An analysis or commentary by Blond Anchor number 12 should not be given much weight at all.   Yet, even then, reliability and weight depends on the specifics of what they are talking about... Krauthammer does not merit much weight if he is commenting on baseball... it's not really his field of expertize (George Will's comments on baseball, however, would be reliable).
 * Hope that helps. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but if being "questionable" depends on context, it sounds like you're saying "QS" is not grounds for automatically rejecting Breitbart.com from ever being used as a source for a properly attributed quote from its own film review in the appropriate section of a movie article, especially if the author is a prominent and widely cited professional film critic (like Christian Toto), and that such inclusion decisions should be dictated by factors like DUEWEIGHT. Is that a fair takeaway? VictorD7 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No you essentially have it correct... we should never automatically reject any source.  However, that does not mean we should automatically accept it either.  Questionable sources are called "questionable" because they should be questioned... but the answer to the question will be different, depending on the specifics. The same source may be deemed reliable in one context, and completely unreliable in another context. Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

With regard t the original question. I would give relatively little weight to 1.) and much more to 2.) and 3.). In particular if 2.) and 3.) are higly reputable 1.) looks more like a largely irrelevant format aspect or issue.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you don't give weight to an opinion based on a reputation. Reputations swings both directions with "celebrity" news contributors. You might pick the opinion based on the reputation but due weight is a matter of how much of the opinion to use for the size of the article and the subject. Due weight should be a matter of how important that opinion may be to the subject matter and how wide spread the opinion is discussed, known etc. as part of the mainstream view. If Paul Krugman (probably the equivalent on MSNBC) says something that is an opinion and we give that opinion weight based only on his reputation...we are going to have differing opinion on that reputation. Maybe this was just a bad example. Look at it this way, if the British Museum uses says the Warren cup is an authentic relic but experts says it is not. Do we go by the more well known reputation of the current owner of the controversial relic? Or do we try to "balance" the weight with the information itself? I use this example because there has been some discussion of the reputation of some of the experts in a manner that might be seen as a way to add more weight to the opinion that it is real or not. It is not easy to decide weight and I think it comes down to a case by case basis depending on the situation and subject matter.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark... In your Warren cup example, none of the sources are likely to be questionable... so both sides would (and should) get fairly equal WEIGHT. However, let's say Prince Harry opined on the question of the Warren cup.  As much as his opinion may be interesting ... he is not an expert, and it would be UNDUE WEIGHT to mention his opinion (even if he said it in a highly reliable venue).  Blueboar (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but then that is also a slightly absurd example. Let me try again and this time with an outcome that ended with a block. Someone uses a Forbes blog opinion on an article and states that the reputation of the author is without question. Then an editor questions it, states his own opinion of the author's "reputation" and is immediately blocked for it. It was well deserved and I will not go into further detail but....if you give weight based entirely on the reputation of the author it does swing both ways but cannot be argued against...but can be argued...for. That is an unacceptable outcome of using reputation. Many reliable sources have very bad reputations by many editors. You cannot allow that to become a manner in which we choose sources or debate over them. The one saying good things will remain and the ones arguing a bad reputation will get blocked. It is an unfair debate because we cannot allow editors to "bash" the reputation of an author but we can allow almost loving sendups. So, my point is, weight is not a matter of reputation. It is a matter of the context, the content and the mainstream acceptance. Anything else is point of view.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Self-published sources
WP:SPS states: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." If the editor-in-chief of a journal has control over what content the journal publishes, would an article written by the editor-in-chief which appears in his own journal and expresses opinions about the work of a third party equate to a self-published source? Is there a lack of editorial oversight in these instances? - Location (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not matter who writes in a journal, if it is a reliable source because content written by the editor is subject to the same editorial control. However, if it is an opinion piece, then it comes under rs policy for them, and they are not considered reliable sources for facts.  TFD (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Issue raised: Does Wikipedia policy require that statements be supported by a single source?
The conversation on talk:Oathkeeper has branched out into whether a single source must support a given statement or whether multiple sources may be used. Given the discussion above concerning circular referencing, this topic may be of interest to Wikieditors interested in WP:V. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally, if the source is of a high quality and reliable, then a single source may suffice. But irrespective of the quality or reliability of a source, in the case of exceptional claims, or in the case of allegations about well known people, you definitely need multiple sources to support any material. In the absence of multiple sources, exceptional claims or allegations against well known people should be removed. Wifione  Message 05:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Syn already sufficiently explains what I believe to be the question you are asking. You can not take claims from one source and combine them with another source to make a new claim that's not directly supported by either source. Circular sourcing has nothing to do with this. Circular sourcing is when sources basically reference each other for the content of their material. So if a WP article cites Salon.com as a source and it turns out that the Salon article references WP as its source, then this is circular sourcing. Though you may be asking about something else, this is the only part of the discussion I remember having any relation to what you're asking here.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If the statement/claim/fact is controversial or surprising, it definitely helps to have more than one source. However, Scoobydunk makes a valid point... the sources have to directly support the entire statement, not just the various parts of it. Blueboar (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that Darkfrog has been misinterpreting the discussion at Talk:Oathkeeper. IMO, as Scooby noted, the discussion has little to do with whether multiple sources may be used to support a statement. I believe the discussion is rather about DF's efforts to insert information into the article that multiple editors feel is inappropriate because they involve synthesis in that the sources (on their own or in combination) do not explicitly state what DF would wish to see included. On a separate but related note, the reliability of the sources has also been called into question on several occasions.
 * There is no question as to whether multiple sources may be used, there is rather a proposal to require that statements comparing the episode to the novels upon which it draws must each be explicitly backed by a singular source. I would have hoped that such a proposal wasn't necessary, as I feel all it's effectively doing is restating policy as it current stands, but Darkfrog has been most vocal about their views, leading me to believe that it was necessary to come up with a consensus-backed and perhaps less ambiguous statement regarding the insertion of comparative statements into the article. DonIago (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also add that Darkfrog has been seeking to add these synthesized statements for almost three months now, despite consensus against it. She seems to be trying to find sources to support the statement, when it should be the other way around. Lastly, I'd point out that Darkfrog24 appears to be shopping for a different opinion, as the post here is but the latest in a very long series which include RSN, AN, AN3R and canvassing to almost two dozen other articles. It seems more than a little tendentious to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm forced to agree that DF appears to be engaging in tendentious editing with regards to this. DF was previously referred to Tendentious editing on at least one occasion. If the recommendation that they review it had any impact, I haven't perceived it. I've considered filing an RFC/U on the matter, but I have no experience with such things and my experience with their behavior is limited to a single article, so I'm not sure that would go anywhere.
 * My apologies if I've taken this off-topic, but at this point I just don't know what else we can do to address the situation with finality. DonIago (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, Scooby, I don't think you do understand what I was asking. Say we have two sources that support the statement, "The bluebird appears in chapter five of The Bird Book." One of these sources can establish notability but not verifiability and the other can establish verifiability but not notability. Respectively, these might be a newspaper article that cites Wikipedia (circular referencing) and the other might be a primary source, in this example the book itself (it's been argued that primary sources can't establish that content is notable).

Do we get to say, "Well we know it's notable from the newspaper and we can verify it from the novel, so the content is notable and verifiable" or must we find just one source that establishes both verifiability and notability?

As for Jack's and Don's claims, consensus was that the disputed content requires a secondary source, so I've been finding secondary sources (about nine of them at last count). "This is insufficiently sourced"/"Okay, here's another source"/"No not this source"/"Well here's another one" isn't tendentious editing. It's Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The source being used must be notable if you're trying to include it based on grounds of notability but it still must meet WP requirements of reliability and verifiability. So if the newspaper source is citing a WP article then it is no longer a reliable source for WP due to circular referencing.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see why circular referencing would make the exact line unreliable. It brings the factual accuracy of the statement into question.  What I don't see is why that negates the fact that the author and editor of the newspaper considered the statement worth noting.  They literally took note of it. (In this example, the newspaper is generally RS; let's say other articles from the same paper are used as sources elsewhere in the article, as in the case of AV Club over on Oathkeeper.) Why not establish notability from the newspaper and confirm the statement's accuracy somewhere else? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're confirming the statement via another source then why do you need the original source to establish notability in the first place? If the second source is a reliable source then notability is inferred easily enough, and if it isn't a reliable source then it shouldn't be being used regardless. DonIago (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In this example, Doniago, the other source can establish verifiability but not notability. For example, I can look at a novel and observe that the bluebird first appears in chapter 5. It's a straightforward description of a fact, permitted under WP:PRIMARY. However, one respondent to an RfC argued that the novel itself wasn't sufficient proof that the content was also notable.  The question is this: If we have one source that establishes that the text in question is notable, say a generally reliable newspaper (that in this case cannot establish verifiability, say because of circular referencing), and another that establishes that it is verifiable, say a primary source, is that sufficient to establish that the content itself is notable and verifiable?  I say yes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If the situation is really that convoluted then I don't think the information should be included to begin with. If you want to say "A bluebird first appears in chapter 5" because you observed it, then I think that's not notable. Find a reliable source that makes the claim and utilize it. DonIago (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Folks, the concept of NOTABILITY is about whether a topic deserves an article. It is not about the content of articles. The appropriate concept for article content is WEIGHT. Please use correct wikiterminology. Zerotalk 09:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Zero is correct... there is a difference between Notability and "Noteworthiness". Our various notability guidelines (such as WP:Notability) have nothing to do with whether X fact should be mentioned in an article.  That is an editorial decision based on WEIGHT and RELEVANCE.  Also, sources do not need to be notable, they need to be reliable. Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll go ask about this issue over there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason we use reliable sources is that they are supposed to be accurate. They are expected to use fact-checking not us.  In my experience, tendentious editors who want to add dubious information will add lots and lots of sources, without reading them and often not accessible on-line, causing anyone challenging their statement to carry out considerable research.  Certainly this is not something to encourage.  And readers don't want to see 8 or 10 references for each statement.
 * Furthermore, multiple sources cited for false information typically are ultimately sourced to the same original text. The book They Never Said That documents quotes that have been falsely attributed yet nonetheless can  be found incorrectly attributed in multiple "reliable sources."  As a general rule, when selecting sources one should use those most relevant to the subject.  A book about Albert Einstein is more likely to get facts about his life accurately than a book about film-making.
 * TFD (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Does the expert exception rule apply to pieces published in "questionable" sources, or only self published pieces?
Self explanatory title. The expert exception appears in the self published section, but an above discussion indicated support and no opposition for the notion that it would apply to questionable sources as well. Does the expert exception apply to "questionable" sources too, as long as we're confident that the source accurately transmits the author's words? VictorD7 (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the the policy explicitly states that, but I would think that that would be a reasonable conclusion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's questionable in that it has a significant conflict of interest or poor reputation for checking facts, I'd stick with the standard rules for questionable sources: Use it for information about itself, as in, "According to biochemist Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University, living things could have been made by an intelligent designer." Is Behe an expert? Yes.  He has a PhD.  However, he's a major proponent of a fringe view not held by most life scientists.  Stuff from his website is usable but it should be attributed to him. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there's a context to this question that I am unaware of, and there's certainly nothing wrong with in-text attribution, but I don't see how Behe meets the qualifications of an expert in regards to intelligent design. AFAIK, Behe's work in intelligent design has never been published by a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal.  Yes, there was on article that slipped through the cracks, but it was withdrawn by the publisher IIRC.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Self-published sources are a type of questionable source. What the expert exemption means is that if an expert astronomer says alien abductions actually happen then it has the same validity as if it had been stated in a textbook.  Anyone questioning the statement then has to provide other sources to show that it is a fringe view.  TFD (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * NO it doesnt, AT ALL. what it means is that if a an astronomer has been previously reliably published about astronomy, then other content she makes available about astronomy would be considered as valid as if it had gone through an actual publisher. It does NOT give her any "expert" status about aliens, and most certainly does not require third party sources to remove her claims about aliens. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The search for extra-terrestrial intelligence is a legitimate pursuit for astronomers. While this is an egregious example, there are well-respected historians, physicists, sociologists, climatologists, biologists, etc. who depart from the mainstream on such topics as the holocaust, evolution, relativity, free energy, racial equality, climate change, mental illness, and whether HIV causes AIDS.  And I see no reason why their self-published works should be considered as reliable as their works that were submitted to peer-review.  And while we all know that there are no little green men, the only way to determine whether fringe claims by reputable scientists are fringe is through familiarity with the reliable sources on the topic.  TFD (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The idea behind the expert exception is that the word of an expert is considered reliable on its own merits even if it is not published by a reliable second party. But there is still a need to know that what appears in a source as the word of an expert really is the word of that expert. If an academic writes something on their own web page, we can be reasonably sure it is due to them, but if something appears under their name on a random online forum, we don't know if it is really them.  If someone else on a random online forum claims to be quoting the expert, that counts for nothing at all.  In summary, it is only in the definitely self-published case that the word of an expert is reliable on its own merits.  No change to the policy is merited. Zerotalk 09:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * <Insert>Zero, that's why I specified as long as we're confident that the source accurately transmits the author's words. No one's suggesting a change in policy, but most editors seem to think the expert exception would already apply to such a source.....say a prominent, mainstream site the author is known to work for, not just some random online forum. It sounds like you agree with me that the critical issue is having confidence the person really said what's being attributed to him. VictorD7 (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Piggy-backing on the idea of "it is only in the 'definitely self-published' case that the word of an expert is reliable on its own merits," I believe this also entails the narrative/bias of the source published in. Many questionable sources are questionable for reasons like conflict of interest or being mostly opinion pieces. So authors who get published by a questionable source that has a clear bias or specific audience have to tailor their opinions/work for the source. For example, Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a well reputed scientist however, if Tyson writes an article for Nickelodeon Magazine or appears on a kids show, his words will be tailored for the show and they may not actually reflect his opinion. So if he's explaining to kids that stars/solar systems are like snowflakes in the aspect of uniqueness, it doesn't suffice to go to a WP article and say "Snowflakes are like solar systems," or a WP article about stars and say "Stars are like snowflakes," citing Tyson's article in Nickelodeon Magazine. The material came from a questionable source whose bias clearly affected the narrative and presentation of information by the reliable expert. I believe this is another possible reason besides verifiability why the expert exception doesn't appear in WP:QS.


 * This also applies to a questionable source's editorial process. An author who gets published in a questionable source may have had their original material compromised by the editing team to fit the biased narrative of the publication. So some things can be omitted or some things can be added to reinforce the narrative of the publication and those edits may not accurately reflect what the author actually thinks. However, a self-published source is more likely to represent exactly what the author/expert wants to say on a given topic and this is why the expert exemption is listed for self published sources and not for questionable sources. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Your first paragraph would be covered by other policies and guidelines, including DUE and general appropriateness, not QS. Your second speaks to being confident that the author really said what's being attributed to him. Unless he has a gun to his head, a column he wrote himself should be considered his words regardless of where he published it. His motivation and integrity are separate issues from his authority status. People can twist their own words or lie on self published blogs too.VictorD7 (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My first paragraph is covered by the policy of questionable sources. Your assertion that "Unless he has a gun to his head" is absurd. There are many instances where people have to edit or do things contrary to their personal beliefs or opinions to fit the narrative/criteria of their employer. There are many creationists science teachers that are still forced to change their language and teach evolution in the classroom. Who they are at work and who they are in person are two completely separate things. When a person writes in an article for a biased publication that they work for, the opinions expressed in their work can differ substantially from their actual own opinions. If they self publish their work they don't have to alter their opinions or answer to the editorial board. That's a valid reason why the expert clause exists in the Self published section and not the questionable source section.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because you seem to be attacking the notion of someone's expertise to begin with, an argument undermined by the expert exception rule and your own creationist point. If a creationist is deemed a scientific "expert" then he's still an expert in self published writing where he's espousing a minority view, and the decision on whether to include his view on a particular matter would be governed by DUE, FRINGE, etc., not sourcing policy. Same with the Tyson Nickelodeon example. The coercion point isn't absurd because conforming to a publication's standard is a voluntary process. They don't have to publish there. As experts, which policy determines individuals can be, they've used their judgement to publish their views in a particular venue. If you're questioning their judgment in doing so then there would be no reason to accept their self published work at face value either, but policy does. Your argument also doesn't address situations when there's no reasonable doubt that the publication has allowed the expert to publish his own views without substantive interference. VictorD7 (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's a questionable source is sufficient reason to doubt the publication and what gets published in it. Hence why the expert exception isn't a part of WP:QS, no matter how much you want it to be.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your response doesn't address what I said. We don't tag sources "questionable" for some reason and then reason backwards based on that supposedly absolute premise. A source may be reliable for one kind of content but not others. Here the hypothetical is an established expert giving his opinion in a high profile, mainstream venue where there's no reasonable doubt that he really wrote the piece. VictorD7 (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19, a recent posting on the fringe theories noticeboard illustrates my point. (See  "Cosmological General Relativity".)  The theory, which postulates a five dimensional universe, was developed by Moshe Carmeli, who was the Albert Einstein Professor of Theoretical Physics at Ben Gurion University and President of the Israel Physical Society, and the theory has been published in peer-reviewed sources.  One of Carmeli's researchers, John Hartnett, a  Research Fellow at the University of Adelaide who has published 200 peer-reviewed articles on physics, including on Cosmological General Relativity, uses the theory to promote creationism on fundamentalist websites.  His own website says, "Creation was only about 6 thousand years ago. God created the whole universe in 6 ordinary days and rested the seventh day."  TFD (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * From what you say, it sounds like Harnett qualifies as an expert on Creationism, and could be cited as such... of course there is a very limited number of articles where it would be appropriate to discuss creationist views (per WP:WEIGHT)... but in those few articles, I could see citing him. Blueboar (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * He qualifies as an expert on physics and cosmology and is not an expert on creationism. TFD (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is this site an expert SPS?
There is an RfC at Oathkeeper regarding whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert SPS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Should petitions.whitehouse.gov be blacklisted?
There is a discussion at WP:ANI about whether petitions.whitehouse.gov should be blacklisted. The discussion can be found here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on placement of ref-related tags
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates, on placement of reference-related inline templates (e.g. verify credibility and clarifyref2) inside or outside the <ref ></ref> element. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Questionable sources
"Questionable sources" says, "Questionable sources [which are not usually reliable include] those that...have an apparent conflict of interest." That seems unnecessarily broad. That could include practically all news media - NBC is owned by GE for example and most media receive revenue from advertising. Typically television stations for accept paid political advertising. The footnotes apply more to journalists. A newspaper should not ask a journalist to investigate possible wrong-doing in a company his or her father owns. But we expect that reliable sources resolve those issues before publication.

I do not see how as worded the policy is helpful and is an invitation to challenging reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the information added in the source link thoroughly describes the type of things that make a source questionable due to a conflict of interest. Your example of NBC and GE doesn't seem to fit that description. I don't see NBC focusing on articles or segments attacking the competitors of GE or shamelessly promoting GE. That's different from other sources that can be considered as questionable by conflict of interest standards. One example I've recently been in debate with is Breitbart.com which has Fox as it's parent company. Breitbart.com has advertisements for Fox all over their front page, frequently use polls and opinion pieces from Fox for their own articles, and frequently attacks Fox competitors like MSNBC and CNN. I think the footnotes speak more to the latter than it does about a business that just happens to be owned by another company. WP:QS also says "apparent conflict of interest" which implies that it's only really an issue when it is obvious. So if NBC was writing article after article of trashing GE competitors while writing multiple puff pieces about GE, then it would be an obvious and apparent conflict of interest. So, I think the language is just fine given that the footnote expands on what reasonably qualifies as a conflict of interest when addressing questionable sources. Did you have specific language that you wanted to suggest changing it to?Scoobydunk (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that "questionable" does not mean "bad", or "never use"... it simply means it should be questioned. We should ask: "is this an appropriate source to support the information presented in the article?."  The answer to the question might be "no, use another source"... but it could well be: "yes, this source is OK in the context in which it is used".  Even the most biased of sources can be appropriate (and reliable) in certain limited situations.  Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Conflict of interest doesn't apply to ideological bias or networks posting negative material about their obvious news competitors, other liberal outlets constantly trash Fox too, and the footnote examples deal with personal or financial COI that could be misleading in a particular case if not disclosed. The "holding companies" mentioned refer to situations where a parent company (something diverse, like GE) has a media outlet it owns run negative stories about a competitor for another product it makes (like light bulbs). As Blueboar says, editor evaluation should be context specific. Reason should apply. VictorD7 (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Dubious disambiguation pages
Why shouldn't they be verifiable? I have created a page on variations, which was replaced by Variation dismbiguation page. It claims that variations without repetitions are called n-tuples these days. I doubt that (I would say than n-powers is more suitable). So, I requested a citation but it was rejected as disambiguation page is not a subject of verifability. It seems that I can take any page, write some shit there and refuse to provide any proof by attaching disambiguation status to it. Is this right? --Javalenok (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages are not articles. They are (supposed to be) merely collections of links to articles with the same title.  -- Jayron  32  22:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I will read your response as confirmation that "I can post any garbage in the disambiguation pages." Thanks, it was very valuable clarification. --Javalenok (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion
I have added a brief passage to clarify that WP:BURDEN does not authorise non-compliance with WP:BEFORE, which is mandated by WP:DPAFD. I expect that this change will meet with more or less unanimous approval because it is already policy and will prevent WP:V being used as an excuse for disruptive vexatious AfD nominations of topics that are obviously verifiable and notable due to the existence of sources that can be immediately found with Google but whose articles do not cite any of those sources. James500 (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed this needless bloat. WP:BEFORE is of course important, but it is not and has never been policy.  (I think it should be, and in fact I proposed to promote it to guideline status in August 2009, but the idea was shot down.)  I'm afraid that no edit to WP:V will do anything to prevent disruptive and vexatious AfD nominations because the editors who make those nominations don't read the policy.— S Marshall  T/C 18:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The editors who make those nominations do read this policy and wikilawyer mercilessly over it (the gist of it was "WP:BURDEN says that I can nominate every article that lacks references en bloc without any attempt to look for sources"). I think the wording of DPAFD ("follow the instructions at the top of the relevant process page") is unequivocal. If I am wrong about that, something will have to be done. James500 (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not how BURDEN works. BURDEN applies to the readdition of material after it has been challenged. An AFD would obviously constitute a challenge, but I would assume anyone who's creating a large number of improper AFDs would be sanctioned for disruptive editing. Perhaps you misspoke? DonIago (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know about James500 but I misspoke. It wasn't in August 2009, but in May 2009, that I began a discussion about upgrading WP:BEFORE to a guideline (Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 55, last item).— S Marshall  T/C 19:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I respond to a person at an AfD who claims that I have to produce a detailed webliography of sources that can be found immediately with Google because BURDEN says that he doesn't have to look for sources at all? (This is something that looks like a time wasting tactic). James500 (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have to look for sources at all, but if you can produce even one RS that can be inserted into the article and satisfy notability guidelines then I believe that should resolve the AFD. Editors can demand whatever they want, that doesn't mean that you're obliged to comply. I assume it's not a closing admin who's requesting this. DonIago (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you link this claim, please? From your description it sounds like a user who needs our support and education.— S Marshall T/C 20:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't a claim, it is a question. It isn't based on a single user. It is based on a trend. How about a claim that BURDEN trumps NRVE (which says that an article shouldn't be deleted if significant coverage is likely to exist, something for which one obviously can't produce sources)? So I argue that an article can be kept if significant coverage is likely to exist, and another user denies that citing BURDEN and insisting it requires the production of such sources. James500 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Being nominated for deletion does not equate to actually being deleted. All it takes to "save" and article that has been nominated is for someone to identify one solid source that discusses the topic.  So, relax... having an article nominated for deletion is not the end of the world.  Indeed, it is often a great way to highlight an article that needs some attention, and get lazy editors to actually do a minimal bit of research in order to "save" it... and that simply leads to having a better article.  Of course, it there are no sources to support the article, then it should be deleted... as the topic would not be NOTABLE enough to be included in Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not the question that I asked you. The question that I asked was whether there is a conflict between BURDEN and NRVE that needs to be resolved by modifying one of them. Some users seem to think that there is. James500 (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @James500: if you refer to something like NRVE which is clearly mean to be a link to a section in a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and no one else has linked to it in the section in which you are writing, then please do not assume that everyone knows what initials like NRVE mean, or know what the content of the section in the policy or guideline off by heart. So please be courteous and provide a link as it take more time time to search for a term than it does to add six extra characters to WP:NRVE. If a guideline contradicts a policy then the guideline needs to be altered so that it does not contradict policy. There is another less well known policy criteria called WP:PRESERVE which for a time appeared to contradict this policy, but that was resolved in favour of WP:PROVEIT with the addition of "should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies" (one of those requirements is WP:PROVEIT). Can you link to a statement an another editor has commented thatthere is a conflict between BURDEN and NRVE? -- PBS (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Something to that effect was suggested at the AfD on SUBST. I don't think there is a conflict, because I don't think that BURDEN has anything to do with proof of notability (once existence has been verified with an independent third party source). I think the problem is that BURDEN is written in obscure fuzzy language that is liable to confuse (like most of our policies and guidelines). James500 (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. ... If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." This is effectively a restatement of WP:V, which says "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. ... While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article.", because any article not consisting entirely of tautologies will have its fair share of material which someone may dispute or just ask "how do we actually know that?", and no one is arguing for keeping stub-length articles consisting purely of obvious truisms irrelevant to the subject matter. WP:Notability follows from Verifiability; it makes no sense to consider them independent matters. — Keφr 15:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You do just that: provide evidence that sources exist and add them to the article, because it is easier to add a citation than to argue over why it is not needed. And this is the ultimate goal: actually having content cited, instead of conducting endless disputes over who is responsible for doing that. — Keφr 15:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the question that I originally posed. As regards your comments, requiring those in favour of the inclusion of notable topics to do more typing (which providing a webliography entails) could potentially rig the game in favour of those who want to delete notable topics by creating a situation where the later can cast !votes in a larger number of AfDs. I imagine that the only way that could work is if the number of AfDs and PRODs was significantly reduced to a manageable level for the amount of manpower available. James500 (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Rig the game"? So Wikipedia is about "winning" now? You asked "How do I respond..." — you respond by doing what I said above. When the only things you back up your claim of a topic being "obviously verifiable and notable" are links to passive-aggressive essays and meaningless numbers which any robot could produce, you will not be taken very seriously. AFDs and PRODs resolve after 7 days from nomination (most AFDs wait even longer), so the cumbersomeness of typing is a non-issue. I am sure you can manage to type up a list of references in 7 days. Spending time looking for references is never a waste of time — quite the opposite, in fact. It is one of the few activities here which actually accomplishes something. You want to see a real waste of time? Visit WP:ANI, WP:ARBCOM, WP:SPI, WP:LAMEST…
 * If you want to save some supposedly "obviously verifiable and notable" topic from deletion, take a look at the backlog and find some references for these before anyone ever considers nominating them. Unreferenced articles are not usually nominated immediately. — Keφr 04:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that your opinions require a substantive response. James500 (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean you agree with them completely? A bit surprising to me. Thanks. — Keφr 17:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what I mean. James500 (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, on the whole, with S Marshall here.

The problem I tend to see is a different one; that some editors think wp:before requires the editor challenging material -- not an entire article at AfD, but rather uncited material that has been inserted in an article (where the article is not being AFDd) -- to do the work the original editor should do, and find supporting material. That's the opposite, of course, of what wp:burden requires. Ignoring the issue of AfDs (where wp:before does apply-and I support wp:before applying at AfDs), wp:burden makes clear that material within an article can be deleted without the deleting editor having the burden of looking for support for the uncited material. As well it should be. If anything, we have way too much uncited material at the Project. This should be a case of "let me drop all sorts of and amounts of uncited stuff that may or may not be true into wikipedia articles, and let other editors sort out which is made up and which is accurate." -- Epeefleche (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, Epeefleche, I'm not 100% sure we agree. When someone removes easily-sourceable material under WP:BURDEN I sometimes find myself a little irked with them.  Both WP:BURDEN and AfD take minimal effort for one editor to use but can cause large amounts of work for others who don't wish to see their carefully-crafted articles hacked up for no better reason than mistrust and ignorance.  In extreme cases, both of them can be used as griefing tools.  I've said before that I think that misusing WP:BURDEN should cause warning templates to appear on your talkpage and repeatedly/blatantly misusing it should lead to a WP:COMPETENCE block.  And I don't think that's quite your position, is it?— S Marshall  T/C 23:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors are free to be irked by our rules. I sometimes am.  But wp:burden is for AfD, not for the individual uncited "this may be BS or not but I didn't waste my time sourcing it" stuff.  Editors are of course free to spend their hours researching and supporting or deleting the additions of others.  But the burden is not on editors other than the text-adder to do so. That's clear. I think editors who fight for the addition of unsourced material that has been challenged are fighting the wrong fight. Ultimately, as when we got rid of completely unsourced bios, the Project slowly moves in the direction of sourcing.  Not away from it. There's nothing sacrosanct about text -- even if true -- that has been added by an editor just taking a giant dump on a page.  And leaving it for other editors to spend time sourcing what is true, what is OR, what is BS.  That's not even the best use of other editors' time. IMHO.  Though you are free to spend your hours doing that, if you like that sort of thing. Perhaps editors who add stuff we can't source should be templated. Certainly, that is a far greater concern than the deletion of "could be true -- but I'm not going to waste time adding a ref for it" material. In the balance, the deletion of material that has lies is more important than the inclusion of true stuff that nobody cared enough to source.  It can always be added back with a ref, as well.  But spreading information is far more important. Epeefleche (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Surely you meant to say that BEFORE is for AfD and not individual passages within articles, rather than BURDEN. James500 (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah... BURDEN most definitely relates to the content of an article (the individual passages), not the issue of whether we should have an article in the first place. That said... every article should include some content that explains why the topic is notable.  If that content is challenged under BURDEN, and removed because there are no sources to support it... then I think sending the article to AfD is quite reasonable. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * @James -- thanks; yes -- your correction is spot on. Epeefleche (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal
This comes up every now and again. We might be able to reduce the time lost to these discussions by very briefly addressing this in the policy. Here's my initial proposal:

This language is largely lifted from WP:NRVE, so it doesn't create any new ideas. It might help reduce the number of people who feel like they're being told, "The Policy™ says that you have to add sources to the article before the end of this seven-day WP:DEADLINE, and the Policy™ also says that I don't have to lift a finger to collaborate with you!"

If people want to extend the idea a little further, to what the community has generally said and believed over the years, then we could say something like "BURDEN applies to individual statements and claims made in an article. BURDEN does not relieve any AFD participants from the necessity of collaborating to determine whether sufficient sources exist." But I'm thinking that it might be better to start with a baby step, and see if that's enough. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC) ?
 * By "the policy" do you mean the Verifiability policy? -- PBS (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, now tell me how all of this is supposed to be enforced. How a closing administrator is supposed to react when confronted with AFD with two editors, each shifting responsibility for proving notability to the other? The original poster complained that the current policy is supposedly written in "obscure fuzzy language". On that front, the proposed latter addition (and arguably the former too) makes things worse, because the responsibilities of each side are no longer clearly stated. — Keφr 06:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Even now, an admin would probably react to that situation by closing the AfD as "no consensus", which means that the article is kept by default. James500 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * …which is a terrible outcome. Each "no consensus" closure is a failure of editing and deletion processes. This effectively means that any editor can WP:BLUDGEON the process by shifting the burden of proof to the other side. Which is precisely what WP:BURDEN is supposed to prevent! — Keφr 19:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, "no consensus" introduces a hysteresis into the process, and that tends very much to stabilise bistable systems. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the principle of this proposal. James500 (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Let us suppose that there is an article stub one sentence long with no citations. The above wording is put somewhere (as my question has not been answered I am not sure where -- as it seems to me to be beyond the scope of verification). The AfD is closed with no consensus, so someone remove the stub sentence with with WP:CHALLENGE. What happens then? Does the article remain blank with just the stub template at the bottom? If not the person who restores the text must also provide an inline citation. So what is the point of the above? -- PBS (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes... the article is temporarily blank... There are two things that can happen then: 1) someone returns the deleted sentence with a citation (which may or may not establish notability) or 2) someone uses the "blanking" as an opportunity to completely re-write the article... hopefully with a clear statement as to why the topic is notable, and at least one solid independent secondary source cited to support that statement (in either case, BURDEN no longer is an issue).  Blueboar (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

A different proposal
The Notability section here should simply say: This would resolve the issue, I think. Blueboar (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC) That said... I do think our Notability guidelines need to include some language that clarifies where the burden to supply sources regarding notability lies. The point of my proposal above is to make it clear that such clarification needs to be stated at WP:NOTABILITY (where it directly relates)... not "slipped in through the back door" by stating it in the Verifiability policy (where it only secondarily relates). Blueboar (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Verifiability policy applies to the text of articles (article content). It does not govern whether whether Wikipedia should have an article on a particular subject or topic (project content).  Project content is governed by our various WP:NOTABILITY guidelines.

Proposing enhanced verifiability for contributions of a WikiProject
I have made a proposal at "No original research" that touches on the issue of verifiability. Please feel free to comment. Samsara (FA • FP) 16:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Interviews
I've just written Interviews, an essay to try and clarify the how interviews relate to Wikipedia's sourcing policies. I've tried to make it reflect policy and current practice as best I can, but there are bound to be things that need to be clarified further, or perhaps even flat-out errors, so I'm hoping to get others to look over it so that it can be as accurate as possible. If anyone here could take some time out to check it and/or improve it, I would be very grateful. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 11:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what problem this essay is trying to solve and the section on notability is flatly wrong. If the New York Times does interview with someone, that absolutely is evidence in favor of notability.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily... For example, the fact that the NYT interviews the local Chief of Police of a small town about a murder investigation is not "evidence" that the chief of police is notable (Although I could see the interview being considered "evidence" that the murder investigation is notable.) Blueboar (talk)


 * The essay is a good idea, precisely because it's hard to get right how to use them as references. As it's placed in project space, we can tweak it to get it neutral. I agree that interviews do count toward notability if the source covering it is reliable, they're essentially the RS reporting that "person X said Y" (which would clearly count toward notability if not written in interview format). When the source that publishes the interview is not reliable, THEN you shouldn't count it as notable.
 * Shall we move this talk to the essay's talk page? Diego (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said, feel free to edit it. And yes, the essay's talk page is probably a better place to discuss this. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of discussion that needs input
There is a discussion at RSN that could use more comments: lukeisback and sexherald dot com. (Re porn sources; stalled after a few comments.) Lightbreather (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2014
please check the border of mamluk dynasty as nepal was never a part of their kingdom.

115.112.161.254 (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * NOT DONE... since this policy page does not mention either Nepal or the Mamluk dynasty, there is nothing to edit. Perhaps you posted this request on the wrong page? Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Citing objects rather than claims
I'd like to get some clarification on a topic that seems to come up for me again and again. I frequently see references included in articles that point to an object of the article itself rather than a claim about the object. Some recent examples: I'm broad-minded about sources and per WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS I believe that sources such as those in my example can often be used, however in in all three of the above cases I objected to their use due to the fact that in my view none of them make a claim. This is kind of similar to the copyright concept of the idea/expression dichotomy. The intangible idea that a painting is pastoral cannot be cited whereas the concretely expressed claim (i.e. the tangible claim fixed in a text or audio medium) can be cited. In the first example, it may be true that Hogarth's work is pastoral but to me this represents the interpretive claim of the Wikipedia editor. In the second example, it may be true that the character can use a certain shield or a particular evasive maneuver but the game isn't actually making a claim by including these elements in its substance. In the third example Knievel may indeed jump over 10 schoolbusses and the editor, the reader, and all others surveyed might also come to the same conclusion after watching the video but this conclusion is in fact nowhere concretized in a tangible medium. I view references as borrowed authority. As an editor I view my job as presenting the claims of those who are in a position to make authoritative claims. My intention is for the reader to be able to verify claims with links to claims made by an authority. What I see in the above examples are invitations by the editor to the reader to perform her own analysis to verify the analysis of the editor interpreting primary source material. The counter-argument I tend to see is that these claims are obvious. ("Clearly Knievel jumps over 10 busses. Count them yourself. Here's a link to the YouTube video.") I consider this kind of argument to be an appeal via WP:BLUE/WP:MINREF. My position is then that these claims don't need citations at all. If they are obvious, non-controversial, unlikely-to-be-challenged claims then they don't need any reference at all. Well, community? Am I right about this or am I being a stickler for no good reason? -Thibbs (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I worked at an article the topic of which had been the subject of numerous works of fine art. Claims were made along the lines of "The 1745 depiction by William Hogarth included pastoral flourishes." The citations were to jpg-file copies of the artworks hosted by reputable fine arts sites.
 * 2) I gave advice on a video game article where certain gameplay elements were the topic of discussion. Claims were made along the lines of "The main character can defend himself with a bioforce shield or by using a double jump to escape." The citations were to the games themselves.
 * 3) I reviewed an article about a performer whose act was described in detail. Claims were made along the lines of "In one show Mr. Knievel jumped over 10 schoolbusses laid end to end." The citations were to episodes of the performer's show.


 * I think you're putting too much emphasis on the notion of "claim." While that word is used in V occasionally, the basic rule, BURDEN, is stated in terms of "content" and "material," not "claim". Also remember that "likely to be challenged" in BURDEN doesn't mean that it's likely to be challenged after viewing the cited source, but whether its likely to be challenged without regard to the source. Personally, I'd think that all three of those examples would be likely to be challenged and ought to be reliably sourced; whether the sources advanced are adequate is a different question: Of your three examples, I believe the first should be sourced to a reliable source other than the work itself because whether something is "pastoral" or a "flourish" or not requires an element of artistic analysis, definition, and judgment, not mere observation and common meaning. The third one I'm okay with (provided that the link to the YouTube video is not a copyvio, as it often is) and there's no visual ambiguity about the number of the buses or the fact that it's Knieval. The second one turns on just exactly what the game shows: Is the double jump a defense, per se, or is it just something the character can do which might be used in that way? Is the "shield" clearly named in the game as a "bioforce" shield or is it just a self-generated shield which might be telepathic, a mutant power, a magical power, etc.? Are there other possible defenses since this claim implies that these are the only two? Without actually seeing the game, I can't answer that but would AGF unless I was extremely sure that it didn't show it. Finally, remember that articles cannot be entirely or primarily built upon PRIMARY sources. That's my two cents. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * An interesting question, well put. And I think that "claim" is proper here, as basically everything in an article can be taken as a claim of some sort.  This also touches on original research (prohibiting "any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves"), and particularly on routine calculations. While there could be some variance as to what constitutes a "pastoral flourish", counting what are clearly ten school buses would seem clear enough. (Or does it matter that, say, one of them is not really a school bus? Sigh.) This is perhaps no different in the essentials than counting the number of theories listed by an author, which (presumably) can be verified by any editor.


 * But observations of game experiences seems rather less than obvious. E.g., how do we directly observe that the hero can defend himself without engaging in the game? And how do we know that this applies only for certain cases? To make a definite statement (lacking a clear statement by the source itself) would seem to require considerable experience with the game, perhaps across a wide span of players, which implies expertise beyond that of the typical editor. If an editor did have such expertise, his/her writing on the subject would be more in the mode of first-person journalism. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

My thanks to both of you for your thoughtful responses.
 * TransporterMan, I appreciate your comments on example 2 regarding whether the shield was "clearly named in the game as a "bioforce" shield". That's my preferred line of inquiry on that question as well. On reflection I think you're probably also correct in your interpretation of "likely to be challenged" from WP:MINREF. J. Johnson has probably found the exception that is most closely on point for counting objects, though it still leaves the question about simple analytical claims like:
 * "X has brown hair. " or
 * "Y eats apples. " or
 * "Factory errors at the pressing plant resulted in some copies of The White Album with two A-sides. "
 * WP:BURDEN is not a bad point of reference, either, but I guess my main question is what is meant by "directly support" in WP:BURDEN? Is (A) a citation to an artwork/game/episode considered "direct support" for encyclopedic claims regarding the elements of the artwork/game/episode? Or does (B) "direct support" require tangible claims made by a claimant? In the B case there is a third party (i.e. not the Wikipedia editor and not the reader), even if it's only the author of the work, who serves as the authority supporting the encyclopedic claim. In the A case the editor is expressing what she hopes is common sense that the reader will agree with if verification takes place. I think J. Johnson may have hit on the precise policy at issue.

I'm still interested in hearing from others as well. These kinds of questions can be quite irritating when they arise at FAR, GAN, DYK, etc. so the more opinions the better. -Thibbs (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * J. Johnson, that line from WP:OR is exactly what I was looking for. Specifically, the use of the word "stated" gets to my point about concrete/tangible/fixed expressions constituting claims. Clearly looking at a picture and determining that X has brown hair is not much of an analysis, but WP:OR pretty clearly bars "any analysis". This is where I start to feel extremely pedantic. I feel silly arguing for stronger sources than something clearly and easily analyzable which when analyzed could really only result in one conclusion. Perhaps this is one of those rare cases where WP:IAR should be used. But how would IAR manifest itself here? Would it be better to ignore WP:V and say that no sources are actually needed? Or would it be better to ignore WP:OR and ask for sources that don't actually state the claim but require a tiny bit or reader analysis to verify? Or should that simply be a case by case matter - say for example ignoring WP:V unless challenged and ignoring WP:OR if/when challenged?


 * We don't get to dictate to the creators of reliable sources how they should write. It is not appropriate to disqualify a source that contains the information we are interested in just because it isn't stated in the manner some silly Wikipedia guideline wants it to be stated. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While WP:OR does not allow editor to engage in analysis or interpretation of objects... it does allow us to give basic description of objects (which can, if needed, be cited to the object itself). The question is often whether the description is basic enough. For example...
 * The statement "The west end of the cathedral is dominated by a large rose window" is a basic description that can be verified by anyone who goes to the cathedral and looks at the west end itself.
 * The statement "The west end of the cathedral is dominated by a large rose window depicting the martyrdom of St. Eggfroth" is iffy... there is a secondary question as to how we know that the window actually depicts St. Eggfroth. Does the window contain the Latin caption "Hic Est Eggfroth" so the viewer knows who is depicted?...  Or is the statement based on a wikipedia editor's semi-expert knowledge of medieval iconography (for example, knowing that you can recognize St. Eggfroth because he is usually depicted holding a flower pot)?... if the latter, then it is OR... since the average person would not be expected to know this fact.
 * The statement "the west end of the cathedral is dominated by a rose window in the English Perpendicular Style" would definitely be OR without a secondary source... the average person would not be able to verify the statement by simply going to the cathedral and looking at the window... recognizing the English Perpendicular Style requires some degree of expertise.
 * In other words, OR often depends on exactly what is written in the article. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts, Blueboar. I'm not so much talking about blatantly interpretive OR as I am about the kind of common sense claim that references a source in which no such claim is stated. So the first example statement ("The west end of the cathedral is dominated by a large rose window.") is directly relevant. Here we have a basic descriptive claim generated from first principles by an editor whose novel statements give voice to unstated elements of primary source material in a manner that comports with basic common sense. The reader will deduce the same from an independent analysis of the pictures and everyone who examines the matter in good faith will agree that the claim is verifiably accurate. You suggest above that such a claim "can, if needed, be cited to the object itself." Does this mean that the default should be to leave a basic description like this unsourced until and unless challenged? That would in fact be my gut feeling. These questions often arise in the context of a quality review (FAR, GAN, DYK, etc.), however, where rigorous sourcing is demanded. Do you think these quality reviews should demand sourcing for basic descriptive claims like this or would it be ok to promote an article despite its containing an unsourced subsection like "Basic description of the cathedral and grounds" that arose from the editor's novel common sense description? -Thibbs (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thibbs, first let me note that (as usual) I agree with what Blueboar has said above. Next, I just have a moment and want to respond to your new three examples by saying that much is in the context and detail: Brown hair — If this was important, I'd probably challenge it; brown is pretty subjective (is it brown or auburn) and can be temporary, if it was just a minor or passing detail and wasn't just pretty clearly contentious or wrong, I'd leave it. "X eats apples" — insufficient source, especially if made as a statement of preference or habitual practice or if the fruit in the picture is not clearly an apple, but in any event a person can pose for a picture in which it appears that they're eating it when they're not: X could be an actor and this a screencap from a movie when, in fact, X detests apples. White Album — insufficient source, could be fake or dummy, could be that it has two A-side labels when the tracks are actually A and B, could be a single, unique error such that "some" is incorrect. In general, whenever you refer to a thing itself as a PRIMARY source, it must be absolutely unambiguous, and, indeed WP:PRIMARY says, as policy,"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. ... Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."(Emphasis as in original.) Come to think of it, is that perhaps the clarification that you were seeking? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Re Thibbs's question: "Does this mean that the default should be to leave a basic description like this unsourced until and unless challenged?" ... well, I would make the argument that a basic descriptive statement like "The west end of the cathedral is dominated by a rose window" is in fact sourced (to the cathedral itself)... the question is really whether the source needs to be cited. That's a judgement call. There is no default in such cases.  You can cite the cathedral itself if you want to... or you can wait until someone challenges the statement.  It's your choice.  That choice goes away if someone actually does challenge it.  In that case you would need to format a citation to the cathedral itself (well... I suppose you could attempt to convince the challenger to drop the challenge... but that is usually a long, difficult and frustrating battle, and not really worth the effort... it takes but a few seconds to format a citation, while it can take weeks to convince someone that a citation isn't needed). Blueboar (talk)
 * Thanks again to both of you. TransporterMan I appreciate what you're saying and I agree that context is usually everything in determining reliability in specific cases. But its your comments on the general case that go directly to the heart of my question. And I do agree that PRIMARY serves as about the best direct policy support for Blueboar's comments from yesterday re "basic description". Blueboar: "Basic descriptive statement like "The west end of the cathedral is dominated by a rose window" is in fact sourced (to the cathedral itself)..." - Now that's nuance! I like it a lot. :) And point well taken about sources versus cites. Unless there are others who wish to raise opposing views, then, I think I well grasp the community view now. This discussion has been very helpful for me. -Thibbs (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion?
I've pointed to this page, but an editor who disagrees is following me around the Project, reverting my edits as "vandalism" and the like, etc. I've had [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tiptoethrutheminefield#wp:burden a long conversation with him. And already given him many warnings]. Any suggestions? It's becoming difficult. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * could you link some of the articles? Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that you should be deleting content unless you genuinely believe the material is wrong or unverifiable. Please note that this policy states that content must be verifiable, not verified.  For example, if an article stated that "Paris is the capitol of France." without a cite, can anyone honestly saying that they don't believe that Paris is the capital of France or that it's impossible to find a source?  If that's what's happening, deleting such content is POINTy in my opinion.  You asked for suggestions so I would suggest using the  tag instead.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I of course agree that "the sky is blue" comments don't require a ref, and therefore should not be deleted. If you look at the reverts in this string, that's not what we are talking about here. Epeefleche (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @Blueboar. Sure:


 * 1) This began when I took a position contrary to that of the other editor at this AfD.
 * 2) That was followed by the talkpage discussion relating to wp:v and wp:burden reflected here.
 * 3) And by the editor restoring uncited material here.
 * 4) And then by the editor following me to an article I had just edited, and reverting me, restoring uncited material (he later submitted a ref for 1 sentence, but restored 2 wholly uncited sentences without providing a ref) here.
 * 5) The editor then wrote: "It seems as if I am going to have to watch all of your edits in the future".
 * 6) He then followed me to an article I had just created, and deleted a cat I had just added to the article, under the incorrect assertion that the article did not relate to the cat.
 * 7) He then wrote to me: "I said I will continue to take a look at those of your edits that consist of deletions of content."
 * 8) These are just some of the instances of the many articles which he followed me to. Through all of this, I discussed wp:burden and wp:v with him multiple times, and both requested and warned him multiple times to stop hounding me. Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What A Quest For Knowledge means is the WP:Preserve policy. That stated, some content should be deleted even if it's not wrong and is WP:Verifiable. Flyer22 (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup... verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. And WP:Preserve is balanced by WP:CANTFIX.  The key word in there is balance. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor makes a good point; WP:BURDEN is not a free pass to remove content that lacks citations, as was discussed at length not too long ago. If you delete content merely because it's unsourced, you're being disruptive; WP:BURDEN requires a good faith assertion that you believe the content can't be sourced at all. Once you have made that good faith assertion that the article can't be fixed by adding a reference, the burden is on the other party to provide references; but you're expected to be somewhat knowledgeable of the topic to challenge the content, if only because you've tried to reference it yourself and failed. As with all policies regarding inclusionism vs deletionism, WP:BURDEN is balanced with WP:CHALLENGE. If you don't want to bother with checking references and try to source the content yourself, you can always tag the content with and let others do the work. Diego (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If someone writes "Sasquatches are aliens from outer space" in an article, I'll remove it without bothering to check for sources.— S Marshall T/C 10:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Diego - "If you delete content merely because it's unsourced, you're being disruptive"... it's more nuanced that that... yes, going around on a pointy deletion crusade can be disruptive (being pointy about anything is disruptive... even enforcing "the rules"). However... a focused, article specific removal of unsourced content is not disruptive.  There is almost always a rational behind it (even if that rational is not expressed). Blueboar (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully concur with Blueboar. I'd also note that it is my opinion the assertion provision is not mandatory — note the "please" — and that, in any event and opinion aside, it does not require "belief" but only "concern", a much lower standard. Though everything that we do here must be done (and, absent evidence to the contrary, must be presumed to have been done) in good faith, there is no specific or special requirement that the assertion be made in good faith. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't seem to convince the editor to stop following me around as described above, to corners of the project, as described most recently here, despite that exchange and this one. Epeefleche (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Focusing on deleting article content is not a good idea, and someone needs to check what is being done and revert if desirable. It would be fine to pick a small group of related articles and actually work on them—that would involve content additions as well as deletions. However, a habit of drive-by deletions is not desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for the record... I do not think Epeefleche is engaging in "drive by" deletions... nor "focusing on deleting content". Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Dismissing some edits as "drive-by deletions" is I think too simplistic.

There is a book called 1066 and All That full title is 1066 and All That: A Memorable History of England, comprising all the parts you can remember, including 103 Good Things, 5 Bad Kings and 2 Genuine Dates. One of the notable things about Wikiepdia is that it is aimed at a global audience of all ages. What is common knowledge in one group of people may not be to another. I doubt that there is a person schooled in England who does not know that the Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066. However should we assume it is known to all that fact for all readers of this encyclopaedia?

The problem becomes more complicated when one considers the recognisability clause in WP:AT "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." Once a person get involved into more than superficial editing an article they become familiar with the subject of the article. Once that happens there are lots of basic information that expert books on the subject assume that a person reading the book already knows, and so a source for the basic information may not be readily available in the sources used to write the article, but which the editors take for granted, because of their knowledge around the subject (they can not see the wood for the trees). In these cases it often takes an outside passing interest to note that a well known fact is not well known to everyone.

Sometimes articles can be improved by the editors who work on them. For example if one compares the Battle of Waterloo at the start and end of 2007, the text of the article had not changed much but by the end of 2007 it was just about fully cited. I was involved in that exercise and finding sources for things that I knew for a fact was not as straight forward as it would at first seem (because one forgets where one has read the fact one remembers so well, or one does not have access to the source). Although the text has not changed much, because of the citations the article, casual readers could be reassured that most of the content was based on third party reliable sources and could identify those parts which were not -- making it a much better article.

However not all articles are subject to that sort of internal upgrade (often because of the "familiar with the subject of the article" syndrome). For example I know that the citations Battle of Worcester article (over the attack on the west side of the city) need to be improved, but the text is roughly accurate, so I'll go to the effort of fixing it tomorrow (when I have more time). Two years later it sill has not been done!

In situation like Worcester, and lots of articles other where the editors think either something does not need an in-line citation because it is common knowledge, or it is covered by the general references at the bottom of the article, a tag with fact needed and then deletion some months down the line if no citations have been provided, can ginger up the the editing of a page and in the end nearly always the page is much better for it. As an example see: Between Mid November and Middle January a collaborative effort had taken an article that did not even have a general references section to to one that had over 30 inline citation (including multiple citation to the same sources). But to get there there was an acrimonious debate talk page, and without WP:BURDEN being as clear cut as it is, it is unlikely that (a) the edit war would have ended as quickly as it did and (b) the article would not have been improved as quickly as it was.
 * Synchronous motor: mid November 2013—Massive Row on the talk page including an RfC on unsourced material in previously-tagged article—mid January 2014 (diff)

-- PBS (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If I correctly take your point, let me summarize: "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." Dr. Samuel Johnson, Life of Samuel Johnson, James Boswell. 'Tis FSM's own truth. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes { -- PBS (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh god, not Synchronous motor again...I still have nightmares about that...(shudder) :p DonIago (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Link to External links/Perennial websites
An editor added a link to the "the external links policy" but it's an essay, not a policy. I thought about simply changing the verbiage to say "the external links essay on perennial web sites", but perhaps a link to the External links guideline might make more sense. I'm not sure. So, I figured I would start a discussion on the talk page to see what others thought. At the bare minimum, we shouldn't call an essay a policy. But beyond that, I don't have any strong opinions either way. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I added the redirect template chiefly because I think it's currently confusing that WP:TWITTER and WP:Twitter point to different places. I don't mind you changing "policy" to "essay" in the second parameter, but I do think that having a redirect of some kind there is going to be useful for editors who get tripped up by the current redirect situation.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  12:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Would that compromise suit you?  It Is Me Here  t /  c  15:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's fine. (Sorry, I forgot about this discussion.)  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=prev&oldid=631484191 Done].  It Is Me Here  t /  c  16:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Can a description with a citation in a source be used in Wikipedia, if the description is not supported by the citation?
A description (South Korea remains a major destination for travelling Japanese men who exploit children through prostitution.) is written in a source (ECPAT report) with a citation (a blog which is a translation of Munhwa.com). However the citation discusses nothing about the child prostitution at all.

Before initiating a general Policy/Guideline issue here, I would like you to comment as a case study at Talk:Prostitution in South Korea. All suggestions are welcomed.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If source X cites source Z for statement "Y", but it turns out that Z does not actually support "Y", then we can question the reliability of source X for "Y" - note that this does not affect whether X is reliable for other statements ("A", "B" or "C", etc.)... even the most reliable sources can occasionally contain an error. Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Right. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that source X as such in the case described, and indeed arguments might be possible about whether X is an expert source that understands the other source Z better than the average Wikipedian. So maybe we should still cite it, if we want. But the practical principle is that if we do have a doubt, as in the case described, we need no source at all in order NOT to use a source. If editors agree there that a remark Y in a particular source looks a bit weak, there is nothing forcing us to use that source for that remark.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That said... in the specific case the best solution is simply to swap in another source... there are lots of other sources that an be used to support the basic statement. It's not like the EPCAT report is the only reliable source to note that South Korea is a destination for Japanese men who are engaged in child-sex tourism. Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it can. References are there to provide sources/verifiability on facts, so if a reference to a fact doesn't have any information on the fact, then it's not really relevant to the subject. As per Blueboar, in that case, the best solution is just to find another source to replace the existing one instead.  -Fim atic   (talk &#124; contribs) 02:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Source -- Google News Aggregation Standard
I've noticed some editors who object to nearly any article from a niche or specialty news service or source, arguing that "main stream media" outlets. One of many problems with that approach is that the niche and specialty news services often cover a topic in greater detail than main stream publications.

Looking for an objective, third party reference point for such debates, it seems to me that there should be a default acceptance of a source as verifiable and reliable if it has been accepted and is indexed by Google News. If you read the Google News requirements for news sources they are clearly in keeping with the general goal of Wikipedia's goals for editors to use verifiable, secondary, published sources.

I recommend that we add language to the "What Constitutes a Reliable Source?" section a statement like: "Generally, any publication that has been accepted for aggregation in Google News requirements for news sources Google News should be accepted as a reliable source."

In essence, this default standard acknowledges that there are third party evaluators of significant reliable sources (such as Google 's news aggregation team) who don't have a bone in the fight over particular Wikipedia articles. Anything we can do to minimize the conflicts of the likes "your source is not as reliable as my source" would be beneficial for the whole community –GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree and oppose. The Google guidelines put little emphasis on the things we consider important in determining a reliable source, especially a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Our standards as an encyclopedia are necessarily different than those needed for filtering by a news aggregator. Conflicts over the reliability of sources can ordinarily be sorted out at the reliable sources noticeboard or, if necessary, through content dispute resolution without too much difficulty. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that recourse to input and evaluation from the reliable sources noticeboard should still be valuable. But I think it should be used to "disprove" a source as reliable rather than required to prove that a source is reliable.


 * Reducing editor's conflicts begins by clarifying prima facia standards for inclusion of sources. I think that using the Google News standard (if I may call it that) is sufficient to establish a prima facia evidence that the source is one that is reasonably accessible, widely read, and certainly meets the criteria that "people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source."


 * In my experience, editors object to allowing the use of from niche media arguing (without evidence) that the New York Times, for example, is more reliable, even though the New York Times may have dropped the story or provided less coverage of it. Usually, at the core of the dispute is not over facts but over interpretation of the facts, with one side arguing that their sources interpretation of the facts deserves more weight.  Disputing that a source is "unreliable" is a way to arguing against giving any weight to interpretations of well known facts, even by experts, when those experts were interviewed by niche media sources rather than main stream media.


 * Policy states: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." For wiki-lawyers, pushing a viewpoint which was widely reported in the "main stream media" that's the golden ticket for disputing and widely read articles from niche news services for which there is no reason to question their fact checking, but only a dislike for their editorial slant.  Generally, there is no evidence that they these other sources do not provide the fact checking which is as careful as that which we hope takes place at the New York Times and the Rolling Stone (mentioned for their recent outing of their failure to check on facts -- a lapse which every major paper has experienced at one time or another).  Nor does any other editor contesting that these are unreliable sources have any true "inside" knowledge on which they base their allegations. All of this is just POV policing.


 * In short, I think the Google News standard is sufficient to establish a prima facia case of a source being not only a verifiable source, but also a source that has garnered at least a respectable readership. Because it includes niche publishers, it will have many point of views represented, which is good, because even main stream media includes points of view.  In short, the Google News Standard is good prima facia of verifiablity which should then be considered in reflecting the weight given to multiple interpretations of the facts reported.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I can see no reason whatsoever for abandoning our own standards regarding reliability, and instead handing over such decisions to a commercial enterprise with entirely different objectives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't about abandoning reliability standards. It's about setting a prima facia starting point for asserting reliability.  Just because a publication is a not widely known metropolitan newspaper does not mean that it's editors and reporters are not reliable and using good journalistic practices.  I believe it is up to critics of a source to do more than just say "it's not a mainstream news source," as if that is itself proof of non-reliability.


 * I would also point out that the Google News group does require those publications seeking to participate to abide by "journalistic standards" and "accountablity" and has a process for reviewing complaints that will lead to banishment from their aggregation service. Again, I'm not saying Google News should be treated as having the last word on reliability of sources cited by Wikipedia, but it is a reasonable third party starting point for establishing a prima facia case for the verifiability of a cited source. –GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What you are proposing is precisely 'abandoning [existing] reliability standards'. Our existing policies and guidelines may have their faults, but they are ours, and have evolved over many years. Reversing the burden of proof based on the assessment of a particular commercial concern regarding whether sources meet their very different objectives would be a clear and unambiguous lowering of standards, as your own arguments make clear. And Wikipedia does not hand over control of editorial decisions (which of necessity include assessments of reliability of sources) to third parties. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no way. The criteria Google News uses is reader interest, not reliability.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reader interest is a measure of weight. If a source has a large readership, it is indicative that a similar proportion of readers of Wikipedia may be interested in the point of view "fed" their own POV by that source.GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * a measure of weight, but by ZERO means a measure of reliability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * nope it includes such doozily "reliable" sources as Breitbart.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about Breitbart. I went to the site. It clearly seems to have a political angle, which suggests it also has a political bias.  But it is obviously a well funded site with a staff of editors and reporters and commentators, at least many of which I would presume have training and experience as journalists.
 * Do you object to any of these Breitbart articles ever being used as a source in Wikipedia because you object to the publisher's slant on the news it covers? Or do you have documentation of repeated false presentation of facts by this news source?  It is one thing to accuse a news source of biased interpretation of the facts, or omission of facts that don't support their slant (accusations I could make of nearly any and every news source), but it is a more damning accusation if they simply make up facts on which to base ideological assertions.=GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The site makes stuff up, in part by doctoring images and video. The Breitbart article describes several high-profile hoaxes that the site has created. It is in no way a reliable source. Ca2james (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No evidence that Google News screens for the reputation for factchecking and accuracy required by our policy.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the source of any evidence presented for measuring the factchecking and accuracy of any source?-GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I'd be more impressed by such arguments if certain editors were less keen on invoking sources such as Skeptical Inquirer where the content toeing the partly line seems to be the main form of fact-checking that is employed. I think GodBlessYou2 has it exactly right. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You think that it would be wise for Wikipedia to hand over editorial decisions to a single commercial enterprise that is already widely-criticised for its near-monopoly of some online media sectors? A commercial enterprise with entirely different objectives than Wikipedia, and with a clear incentive to make decisions regarding what material it considers appropriate to present based on its own commercial interests and those of the concerns it derives its advertising revenue from? That surprises me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's have proof, or saving that a rational argument, that Google's commercial interests are relevant in this particular context. I don't believe they are.--Brian Josephson (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And what rational arguments are you basing your beliefs on? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 *  Oppose - Editor judgement is needed in most cases, and we can't abdicate that responsibility with a blanket assumption on reliability based on Google News aggregation. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the impression that I was suggesting that editors no longer exercise their judgment? I'm simply asking that editors respect the good faith sources of others who identify sources meeting at least this minimum standard of verifiability.  Issues or weight can and should still be raised, but such a policy may slow down that rapid blanking of material just based on the bias of an editor who declares the source is not sufficiently mainstream.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose obviously, but I wonder if the proposer realises that Google uses an unknown algorithm which is automated. This alone makes the proposal unworthy of consideration. --TS 14:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Revised proposal
Based on feedback, I'd revise my proposal as follows, adding to the Reliable sources section:
 * "Any publication that has been accepted for news aggregation by sources such as Google News requirements for news sources Google News is a verifiable source and has prima facia credibility as a reliable source. Editors objecting to the use of such a source should have a specific explanation for excluding it beyond just claiming it is not sufficiently mainstream to be accepted as reliable."

I ask those objecting to this proposal to suggest ways to improve my recommendation in ways that would make it more acceptable. This is not about granting fiat to Google, as some unfairly suggest, it is about reducing arbitrary wiki-lawyering among editors in a way that does not limit criticism, good judgment, and compromise, but rather encourages respect for reasonably relevant material identified by contributing editors.-GodBlessYou2 (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * give it a rest. No, we are not going to subjugate our principles for a third parties. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Restating the same thing in different words isn't a 'revised proposal'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, again, per Andy and TRPOD. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the others here... Google news is similar to Google itself... it is a great tool for finding reliable sources, but you have to wade through a lot of unreliable crap to find those reliable sources. Determining that a source is reliable takes human judgement, not an algorithm.  So, no... we can not consider a news source reliable just because it was picked up by Google news. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reliability is contextual. There are no sources that are "always reliable", and no sources that are "always unreliable".  Declaring any source to "be reliable" (which is what the OP means when he writes "a verifiable source") is inappropriate.  A source can be reliable for certain statements.  It cannot be reliable for anything and everything.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per everything stated above.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose strongly. To think that mere aggregation makes a source reliable is absurd, shows an utter lack of understanding of just what reliability is about. And, sorry, there is no way to make the recommendation more acceptable, as it is inherently unacceptable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose strongly. Google News asks webmasters to identify advertising and non-news content, which is not something I trust them to do. Roches (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No.  This is essentially the same as the first proposal.  Google News is very useful, but it also includes mountains of unreliable sources.  The burden is on the person who adds the source, not the person who challenges it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Our goal is different from that of Google. Wikipedia aims at quality, and there are no shortcuts to quality.  DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WhatamIdoing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Hard as it can be at times, we have to apply our own standards and not rely on someone else's. Zerotalk 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Google news is a place to start in finding reliable sources but not every result given is reliable by our standards and definition. Ca2james (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As noted by others, Wikipedia recognizes that the reliability of a source is dependent upon context. There is no shortcut around the evaluation of a source in context. - Location (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no we're not Google. We're trying to be better than that. Have you seen the hideous nonsense that sometimes makes it through their filter? --TS 14:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Assistance requested
I am requesting assistance at Synchronous motor. The article has been tagged for needing citations since January 2014, was tagged previously, and beyond the article tag, sections of the article have themselves been tagged.

Yesterday I tried to clean up some of the unsourced material, but I have now been reverted twice, the second time after noting that WP:BURDEN was applicable.

This article was already the subject of an extensive RFC relating to the appropriateness of removing unsourced material.

Any and all assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLUE seems to apply to your problem. You are removing material merely because it is uncited, even though the content is quite uncontroversial to anyone with at least an intermediate knowledge of the subject. From a pragmatic perspective rather than as a purist, my judgement is that uncited material should only be removed if you know it to be false or have genuine reason to doubt it. Doing as you are doing undoubtedly creates a purer artefact for academic appreciation by those who are totally familiar with the subject. Unfortunately, on my sample viewing of your edits, you are removing insights which may be of benefit to those who are less familiar with the topic - ie you are devaluing the material to the audience who will benefit most from it 78.32.68.244 (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not written with the assumption that those reading them will have pre-existing familiarity with the subject matter, nor should they be. My reasons for doubting the unsourced material is that it has remained uncited for months. If in fact references are available, why are none being provided? In addition, on the article's Talk page I have specifically asked that editors provide options beyond leaving the material in the article or deleting it, and have not been provided with any alternatives.
 * In any event, WP:BLUE is merely an essay, and as such carries as much weight as WP:NOTBLUE. In this particular case I would argue that the latter should be more of a guiding principle as this article discusses material which you yourself suggested requires a baseline knowledge of the subject to make any determination as to its validity. DonIago (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Being uncited is not coterminous with being wrong.


 * If your rationale for doubting it is that it is uncited, then your logic is damaging to the article. To remove the material, you really should know that it is wrong or have a basis in fact rather than citation to doubt the material. The most you should do otherwise is ensure that the material is flagged as 'citation needed'. This is not about you as an editor, Wikipedia is for the readers and you should empower them to make their own decisions on evaluation and acceptance of the material.78.32.68.244 (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Our standard is not "validity"... its verifiablility. The BLUE SKY exemption for something like "Paris is the capital of France" is not based on the fact that the information is "obviously true" (much less that someone familiar with the topic will know it is "valid") ... the exemption is based on the fact that such statements are so easily and obviously verifiable that no one (even those not familiar with the topic) will question it (or to put it another way... since there are literally thousands of sources that can be used to verify such statements... it is highly unlikely that anyone will invoke BURDEN and challenge it). Even then.... if someone does question a statement like "Paris is the capital of France", and demands a citation... our policy errs on the side of saying: "OK... here it is".  After all, a real BLUE SKY statement should be really EASY to cite.  It will take two seconds to find one of those thousands of sources and slap it into the article (and before you complain about the "hassle" of having to do so... compare this with the hours you will spend trying to convince someone that a citation is silly.  It's much less of a time waster to simply give a citation).
 * Furthermore... If it will take you more time than a few seconds to provide a source... then the information is probably not actually BLUE SKY level information.
 * Finally, don't get upset because someone removes information... The removal is not permanent... the information can be returned... it just needs to be returned with a citation. Blueboar (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Plainly Wikipedia is for the producer-editors not the consumer-readers. As a consumer-reader, I am well able to cope with 'citation needed' and evaluate for myself. I am not above removing stuff myself if it is wrong. But I respect and value all the effort which goes in, even for the uncited stuff and I would not countenance removing anything because it was uncited. Given that people are evidently keen to remove stuff flagged as 'citation needed', I now have severe misgivings about flagging anything as 'citation needed'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.68.244 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortuately, not all of us consumer-readers are as smart or capable as you are. I'm definitely not... so when I am reading an article on a topic I know little or nothing about, I appreciate having the information supported by citations to reliable sources... That way, I know I can trust the information in the article... and can follow up by reading the cited sources, and thus learn more. Blueboar (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I appreciate citations in the same way as you. And the 'citation needed' flag is valuable in discerning the quality of the information. But from where I sit as a reader-consumer, I think that 'verifiability' is getting confused with 'verified'. I see good verifiable material - for which citations could be found - being removed by people on the grounds that it is not actually at that point verified. And when those people confess to not being experts, I do not see heroes who are improving wikipedia. I see personal crusaders striving for an editor's perfection but doing damage. I could use their techniques with malice to destroy a lot of work in areas I know nothing about, simply by flagging material as citation needed and coming back 6 months later to remove it because no one had provided a citation - not that I would ever do such a thing. As far as I am concerned, editors who do not know enough about the subject domain - eg Synchronous Motors - have nothing to contribute if their contribution is to delete material flagged 'citation needed' without any sense of whether the material is valid. If 'policy' is on their side, then 'policy' is wrong. Now I can see a place for such policy in soft subjects such as history or biography where all the 'facts' are really matters of interpretation which need sources, because ultimately, there is precious little validity - at base it is all verified from sources and you can be certain that things are verified even if they are not valid. But for hard subjects such as synchronous motors, I see no need to delete valid material as long as it is clear what the verification status is.78.32.68.244 (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But the concern here isn't that the material has not been verified. The concern, which seems reasonable after no citations have been provided despite a months-long request, is that the information can not be verified. I made an effort to verify it and could not, and you've already indicated that you're not going to look for references yourself. If the only editors expressing any interest in the material cannot or will not provide sources, then in my opinion there's ample reason to doubt that references in fact exist for the material. You claim the information is "valid", but how do you know that? If you know it because you read it somewhere, then the best thing you could do is provide your sources. If you will not provide sources, then it is inappropriate for you to fault others for wanting something more substantive than your word. You are not a reliable source. DonIago (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me! I never claimed to be a reliable source, and I am not claiming the material to be valid [nor would I accept being quoted as saying it is invalid - its status is indeterminate]. My gripe is that you are just going round on a mindless crusade deleting material because no one has got around to citing it. Fair enough, if you have grounds to believe it is dross, then state an argument and delete. But the fact that it is uncited does not mean that it is dross. Your argument that because no one will cite, the material cannot be verified is false. And even if it is Wikipedia policy schmolicy, it is not even a figleaf of justification for a mindless crusade.
 * On topics like Synchronous motors, or indeed a lot of engineering, most people live on past undergrad lectures and could probably prove many of the contentions you are deleting because their working knowledge is from first principles. Because it can be proved from first principles, there are no divergent sources and as a consequence most people conversant with such topics do not have - or need - a grasp of the sources in anything like the way in which historians for example would have such a grasp. But Wikipedia is not tolerant of this approach, although proof from first principles is actually more rigorous for validity than verifiability by citation.
 * DonIago I can appreciate your position as applied to softer subjects. I am beginning to accept that in the world of Wikipedia, your take on matters would prevail. But ultimately, I am quite concerned that when your view does prevail, it will devalue Wikipedia for Engineering in particular because it does not take account of the fact that the knowledge base is not vested in sources, it is vested in an understanding from first principles. None of the academic practitioners I have encountered has ever shown that they give a damn about sources, all they care about is the ability to prove from first principles. So you will find that practitioners would be quick to remove material which is wrong and provide an argument based in validity, but you might need to wait an inordinate time to get a citation.
 * Ultimately, if Wikipedia and its editors cannot be sensitive to differences in the nature of the knowledge base between different domains, then Wikipedia may not be the right repository for certain subject domains.78.32.68.244 (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concerns, but Wikipedia articles, regardless of domain, are generally governed by the principle that information should be verifiable, and in instances where that verifiability has been challenged, sources should be provided as a means of proving that the information is verifiable. I don't feel it's appropriate that a technical article should contain information that has been challenged and for which nobody can and/or has been able to provide references, and Wikipedia policy supports my right to remove it. I've asked editors to present alternatives to outright removal, and for all that you've spoken both here and at the article's Talk page, you have failed to provide any, and in fact have refused to do any work to provide citations yourself. If the best option you're willing to provide me with is "leave the unsourced information in the article forever", I don't consider that acceptable, and I'm not going to change my editing approach based on the policy-unsupported opinion of one editor, especially when it seems clear from this discussion that your view is not consistent with consensus. If you won't provide other options and won't do any work to improve the article beyond saying it should be left as is, then I fear there's little else to say on the matter, though you may want to consider dispute resolution if you really do feel strongly that the unsourced information should be retained. DonIago (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Now we are getting to the core of it. It is about your 'rights' under Wikipedia policies, which I am not going to dispute. In terms of Wikipedia editorial perfection, you are undoubtedly improving the article in your own sight and in the sight of others who share your outlook. But in terms of usefulness to reader - consumers your 'mindless crusade' [from my perspective] is rendering the article less useful. Pragmatically, if material remains there for ever, but flagged as citation needed, then I find that beneficial. I would also find it beneficial if it were removed due to being wrong or there being good reason to doubt it [lack of citation is not a good reason to doubt validity]. And I would rather see the material flagged and make up my own mind than have some zealot on a mindless crusade prevent me from seeing it.
 * Undoubtedly you have won the argument, but as far as I am concerned, you have won it by convincing me that the Wikipedia policy is deficient here and my heart and mind is completely untouched by your argument.78.32.68.244 (talk) 09:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * DonIago, did you try to find sources for any of that material?
 * I don't think that an 11-month delay in adding even more citations to an article is usually very urgent. We've got articles that are ten years old and still have zero.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I did, as noted at the article's Talk page. If nobody else has been able to find sources in 11 months, and I wasn't able to, I think it's reasonable to doubt that sources are available.
 * I also made a point of asking other editors for options short of either leaving the material in the article as-is or removing it/moving it to the Talk page. Thus far I haven't received any. DonIago (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's good that Don has some actual basis for his doubt about sourcing, but there's absolutely no requirement that an editor look for or add sources before deleting unsourced material so long as he has any good faith doubt about the verifiability of the material (and good faith is to be presumed). That's especially true for material which has been tagged for more than a few days, much less months. The problem isn't with removal of recently-tagged unsourced material, it's with the retention of long-unsourced material, especially, but not only, long-tagged material. Yes, the best-practices response is to look for and add sources, but it has been established time and again on this talk page that it is acceptable to simply delete it, with perhaps (this has never been established very well, but I believe there's weak consensus for it) an exception for editors who make a routine practice of doing little more than just going around and deleting unsourced material. That's not Don. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources that borrow minor details from Wikipedia
I made this edit just now and was reverted. Per my edit summary, I had already posted on what I thought was the relevant talk page, and got no opposition. I hadn't noticed that this page already included a similar warning. My proposal is in the above edit: any problems with it being re-added? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you give us an example of a source that uses minor stylistic elements of Wikipedia please?— S Marshall T/C 11:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Anime News Network: Akira Toriyama is best-known for his manga, Dragon Ball. In January 2012, someone altered the Wikipedia article on Toriyama to say that he was best-known for "Dr. Slump and Dragon Ball". Up until January 2012, ANN described him as being known for Dragon Ball, and after January 2012 they started describing him as being known for Dr. Slump and Dragon Ball. Last month I attempted to remove the reference to Dr. Slump (I eventually found a workaround that satisfied all parties) and was opposed partly on the basis that ANN described him as being known for Dr. Slump.
 * The Austerity Delusion by Mark Blyth, Professor of International Political Economy at Brown University: Mimics Wikipedia's current style guidelines for the formatting of Japanese personal names, as "Takahashi Korekiyo" was born pre-1868 but "Osachi Hamaguchi" and "Junnosuke Inoue" both just happened to be born very shortly after 1868. This means that Blyth follows Wikipedia in somewhat clumsily (and uniquely) mixing two naming conventions based on an arbitrary criterion that no one ever used before a small group of Wikipedia editors developed it roughly a decade ago. One can imagine the reason a Brown professor would be consulting Wikipedia for this kind of thing would be that Japanese nomenclature is not his area of expertise and is peripheral to the main subject of his article. Which brings me to...
 * Sources that barely mention a subject but are being used to justify maintaining the status quo on the Wikipedia article on that subject: Some of the comments on the RMs on Talk:Empress Jingū and Talk:Emperor Jimmu are exemplary.
 * I gave a few more in the post I linked to in my edit summary in the diff above. I imagine virtually every idiosyncrasy on Wikipedia has been duplicated somewhere else.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I am still not sure what the concern is... It seems you are in a content dispute, not a dispute related to style. Could you clarify... because it does not seem that you are using it with the same meaning as WP:Manual of style?  Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You are mixing together factual issues (such as what Akira Toriyama is best known for) and stylistic issues (for example, rendering Japanese in an English-language article). I don't think a useful discussion is possible before this confusion is resolved. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Blueboar: Sorry not to be clear -- I'm not involved in any dispute, content or otherwise. There was a content dispute on the Toriyama article, and another user cited a source that, on examination, was clearly copying Wikipedia. The reason for this was that an otherwise reliable source had, in the very minor issue that was under discussion, seen it as appropriate to refer to the subject the same way Wikipedia did at the time, presumably because when one Googles "Akira Toriyama" the first thing that comes up is our article. Minor issues such as how many items to put in the parentheses after his name are something people are often free to use Wikipedia for. (I consider "how many items to put in the parentheses" a "style" issue, and this problem applies to it in the same way as Japanese naming order and how to write Japanese names in the roman alphabet.) Given this (and the other problems I refer to above) I think we should encourage more caution when using otherwise reliable sources to prop up the Wikipedia status quo in particular.
 * @Jc3s5h: Okay, I think I should clarify -- no one (even in the big fustercluck last month on the talk page) thinks Toriyama's best-known work is something other than Dragon Ball. The problem was whether we should put his second best-known manga on the same level, and (to a lesser extent) whether he is better known for Dr. Slump or Dragon Quest. Japanese mainstream media usually describe him as being known "for Dragon Ball" or (less commonly) "for Dragon Ball and Dragon Quest". The inclusion of two items specifically, and Dr. Slump as one of those, was a unique Wikipedia format. "How many items to but between the parentheses" is what I meant when I said a "minor style issue"; like "which order should I write this person's name" and "should I spell this person's name with an m or an n", it's a minor formatting concern that, a lot of the time, writers are free to just do what feels right, and sometimes that means they'll copy Wikipedia. It's either because they don't have any particular incentive to find out why Wikipedia is the way it is and make an educated decision on whether to copy Wikipedia (this is presumably the case with ANN and Blyth), or because they do have a particular incentive to use the most recognizable formatting, and since such-and-such is most readily searchable on Wikipedia (most small coastal municipalities in Iwate Prefecture are not widely known outside Japan...) they went with the Wikipedia formatting.
 * One might wonder why this matters if it's only about minor formatting differences, but the fact is that this page already discourages use of circular sourcing where a source explicitly consulted Wikipedia, but when an otherwise reliable source (deliberately or otherwise) got certain points from Wikipedia and didn't make this explicit it means we also can't cite those otherwise reliable sources when specifically addressing those point, and use of Wikipedia for minor formatting points and stuff only peripherally related to one's particular topic seems to be pretty prevalent.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * in my view the analysis that Hijiri88 is doing is too fine and becomes a sort of peer review that we as editors cannot do. The analysis that either source uses WP at all, much less deliberately or "otherwise", on fine points like this, is something that I do not think can be verified.  (btw I do not know what we are intended to see here),  In this kind of situation the best thing would be to report conflict between sources (if it exists) or simply report what the source says, without editorializing/OR.  We should not introduce this into a policy page.  This set of issues is quite different from what is described in WP:CIRCULAR. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Self-reference
I sometimes run across an editor who wants a citation for a detail about a published book, like year published or the like. Once I updated an author's bibliography, noticed that the formerly forthcoming book&mdash;fact referenced to the author's website&mdash;was in print, so I deleted the citation and someone put the citation back. In each case I point out that the book itself contains the information&mdash;that is, the "reference" is actually in-lined&mdash;and they accept that. Can the policy wording be modified to clearly accommodate this? Choor monster (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You might find some help in WP:Inline citations, but in general, if someone wants to add an unnecessary tag, it's simpler to let them do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Linking to the Preservation policy
and I bumped heads when I deleted unsourced content he had added to article. He reverted, saying that per WP:PRESERVE I should have copied it to the Talk page. In reply, I cited this policy (which is referenced in WP:WONTWORK - specifically, "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". I didn't say, that WP:PRESERVE says nothing about copying unsourced content to the Talk page.  Anyway, to correct his perceived conflict between the two policies, Kendrick edited this policy as follows and left a nice note on my Talk page telling me he did so:

"Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed, but should be preserved on the talk page . Please completely remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately."

I reverted, asking for discussion for a change to policy; Kendrick unreverted (and left a not-so-nice note on my Talk page) and deleted it again. So here we are. Does anybody want this change? I don't. There is too much crappy unsourced content in WP as it is, and I already spend more time than I like maintaining articles that I watch than I do building new (well-sourced) content: the burden should not be on me to copy some lazy editor's content to the Talk page. Which, i will re-iterate, is not even described in WP:PRESERVE. Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC) (self-trout -- copying to the Talk page is in WP:PRESERVE. oy. Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC))


 * I don't want the proposed addition, which is why I reverted it, and I agree with you on the matter. I noted in the edit summary, "WP:PRESERVE lists different options; we don't have to preserve the content on the talk page." There was also this and this matter involving Kendrick at the WP:PRESERVE policy, and this other matter at the WP:PRESERVE talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair points. This wasn't meant to be a change in policy; WP:PRESERVE is already policy after all. I was simply attempting to bring greater awareness to this section of the WP:EP. As such, a link without changing the underlying language will do just as well. -- Kendrick7talk 02:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is probably the most deceptive edit I have seen in Wikipedia. Ever.  And to a policy page nonetheless. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how a link exchange between two WP:POLICY's is either controversial or deceptive. -- Kendrick7talk 03:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * piping a wikilink to WP:PRESERVE at the word "remove"? If you cannot see the tension there, I don't know what to tell you. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose linking WP:PRESERVE to the word "remove". Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  07:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggestion... I think the Other issues section would be a better place to include a link to PRESERVE.
 * Oppose per Reyk. Doing that implies that the obligation to copy to the talk page trumps BURDEN while WONTWORK makes it clear that if anything it's the other way around. Just because unsourced material was removed without copying it to the talk page doesn't mean that the editor who restores it doesn't still have the obligation to not do that without providing sources; if he does not want to do that then the remedy is for him to copy it to the talk page, not restore it, or to report the other editor to an administrator or to ANI. Moreover, there's not an obligation, per PRESERVE, to copy it in every case, but only in those cases in which the page is "rewritten or changed substantially" (emphasis added) and that, too, makes it a bad idea to link it to BURDEN with those implications. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We ought to link WP:PRESERVE from somewhere in the policy, I think, although I tend to agree with Reyk and TransporterMan that the suggested place is less than ideal. Some editors wrongly feel that there's a tension between WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN.  There is no tension.  WP:PRESERVE says to preserve appropriate content.  Content that fails WP:BURDEN is inappropriate and thus is not shielded by WP:PRESERVE.  Perhaps we could find some way to make this clear without bloating the policy too much?— S Marshall  T/C 15:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Before this edit by Chillum last year, there was tension between WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN, and, with this WP:Dummy edit, I pointed Chillum to the very discussion showing that to be the case. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have been BOLD and added it at the end of WP:V... I think the link works very well there - but feel free to revert if you disagree, or even if you agree but think it simply needs more discussion. :>) Blueboar (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * With this edit, I see that you also tweaked the WP:PRESERVE policy. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That change to the WP:PRESERVE policy is certainly an improvement. The previous version did not accord with actual practice, and it was completely unrealistic to suggest that every time an article is substantially changed we preserve all removed content on its talk page. That would make talk pages completely unworkable. Goodness knows what the person who put that in the policy had going through their head. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's so tough about having a "Deletions" section with a list of difflinks, but the behaviour is more concerning. Editors changing policy and guidance should be familiar with wp:TALKFIRST and the rest of wp:PGCHANGE. Multiple reverts amount to disruptive behaviour. Just don't do it. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A list of difflinks may be useless in practice. Most of what I remove, at any rate, is either obviously wrong (e.g., putting information about X in the article about Y) or inappropriately detailed (e.g., any cure for cancer that has only been tested in a cell culture) and doesn't qualify for preserving; I assume that the rest of you largely remove things for similarly necessary reasons.  But even if the removals were limited to the potentially useful ones, then a list of "[//example.com][//example.com][//example.com][//example.com][//example.com]" won't be very useful to anyone who wants to find things.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB, social media, and involvement of third party as sources scenario
I'm looking for some guidance on a scenario involving self-published material (social media) about the subject of the article (Person A) that includes a claim about a third party (Person B) with the third party involved. In this example, a the third party, Person B, tweets an image and message of him and Person A stating that they are childhood friends. Person A then shares the Person B's tweet on Instagram, adding a response message providing more details about that relationship (when they met, etc.). For illustration:


 * Person B (on Twitter): This is a picture of me and my childhood friend, Person A!
 * Person A (on Instagram): This is my friend, Person B. We met when we were 13. This is a picture of and my childhood friend, Person A! - PersonB

In this scenario, is the Instagram claim considered verifiable and therefore an appropriate source for Person A's page? Normally it would if it was just about Person A, but it also includes a claim about a third party, Person B, (that they have a friendship), which is contrary to the allowable circumstances for WP:SELFPUB. I'm unclear because by strict definition, the answer would be no, because it's a self-pub that makes claims about a third party, but it's clear that the third party's own self-pub substantiates the basic claim, which voids the inherent dubiousness with self-pub claims involving third parties.

Additionally, the friendship alone seems verified through the shared communication, but do the added details in the Instagram status update (age when they first met) then also meet verifiability, since the integrity of the larger claim has been established? Meanwhile, the general claim that they are childhood friends is also supported by a reliable source (a published interview).

And finally, what should be sourced in that case? Just one item (Instagram) or both items (the Instagram status and the Twitter status from both parties)? As is the nature of Twitter and other social media, message trails from separate status updates are often chained together in a single status update. Is it redundant to source each individual status update? Any guidance would be helpful and appreciated!

So to summarize:


 * Do two self-pubs from two different parties that make a shared third party claim about each other meet verifiability?


 * If one of the two aforementioned self-pubs adds details to the shared third party claim about each other, are those details also considered verifiable by the self-pub?


 * What is the appropriate source for the information. Only one of the two self-pubs or both self-pubs? Luminum (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well... my first question... before even getting to the issue of verifiability, is one of relevance: Why is the childhood friendship between A and B worth mentioning in the first place?  If the friendship was truly worth mentioning, surely some independent secondary source would have already mentioned it.   Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. A good question. As mentioned above, an independent secondary source (several, actually) has reported on their childhood friendship, and is added as a citation to that general statement. Both parties are individuals with their own Living Person entries on Wikipedia, with their own independent sources establish significance outside Wiki. However, the question is one of additional information. Independent sources have reported that the two are childhood friends, who continue to be friends in the present. One is a former musician turned actor and the other is a current musician in a popular band. Independent sources state that when the two were children, that is when they started playing music and creating bands together. The self-pub sources simply provide more specifics on the age when they met and where (for example, in school, or through family friends, etc.) So, if the statement currently read as:


 * "Person A and Person B met when they were children and became friends, starting several underground music bands together."


 * And was to be changed to:


 * "Person A and Person B met at the age of 12 in middle school and became friends, starting several underground music bands together."


 * ...that information on age and location is only through a self-pub source where one party stated it social media exchange with the other. It could be argued that the added information is irrelevant or trivia, but my argument would be that it provides clarity where a reader may assume that meeting while "children" could mean anything from toddler age to late adolescence.


 * If we're to get into the issue of verifiability, however, the question I'm most interested in is when the information does "involve claims about third parties", but meets all other requirements for WP:SELFPUB (it's neither an unduly self-serving nor exceptional claim, there is no reasonable doubt to its authenticity, and involves events directly related to the source) and is in a cross-communication self-pub between both parties, is the selfpub considered usable or not? The inherent issue with third party claims in self-pubs is that one party could completely fabricate a claim about another. But when it's clear that both individuals corroborate the general issue, and the claim is not exceptional, the reasonable doubt as to the claim's authenticity seems to no longer be a concern. Social media self-pubs when evidentiary back and forth communication are apparent and traceable seem to be a different situation than those specifically accounted for in WP:SELFPUB criteria. Luminum (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, if they were in bands together during their formative years as musicians, then mentioning the friendship is potentially relevant (the implication is that they might have influenced each other's development and growth as musicians).
 * That said,I think mentioning the specific age that they were when they met crosses the line into unnecessary trivia, and is not really relevant or important enough to mention (what matters is that they met, not how old they were when they met). I would omit it.  And, if you don't mention the specific age, then there is no need to worry about whether the self-published source that supports this bit of trivia is reliable or not.  Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for the advice. Do you have any thoughts about the verifiability issue in abstract? A general piece of information about two individuals reported by a secondary source, followed by a more specific piece of information stated by one of the subjects in a self-pub? One hypothetical scenario I've used in discussion with another user is: A secondary source reports that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have bought a house together in California. Jolie writes a tweet saying that she loves their new house in California and tags Pitt in the status. Pitt retweets her message and adds that he loves their new house in San Francisco, California. In this instance, more specific information (San Francisco) appears in a self-pub that includes a third party (Jolie), and that adds additional information to a secondary source's claim (not just in California, but San Francisco more specifically). Would a primary source self-pub like that be usable? Obviously, if another secondary source comes along later that states the same details as the tweet, then it will be a moot point, but in lieu of that, is the source acceptable?Luminum (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Generally, in my view most things on social media are going to be WP:TRIVIA and too fleeting to be encyclopedic (see WP:RECENTISM). I have a hard time imaging truly encyclopedic content that could only be sourced from social media, and I would reckon that someone who was trying to source something that is only source-able to social media is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia in one way or another. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your input!Luminum (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)