Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 63

"Reputation for Fact Checking"
It is my view that there is a prima facia presumption that any mainstream news source that has a professional staff of trained journalists and editors (i.e. "meaningful editorial oversight") is a reliable source. Yet some editors will claim, without any evidence, that this or that publication does not have a "reputation for fact checking," a phrase used twice on this policy page.

So where is one to identify and verify which publications have a "reputation for fact checking?" It may be easier to identify publications that have a history of failure in fact checking, and a source identifying such publications would be very helpful. But how are we to address claims that a source that employs professionally trained journalists and editors is not a reliable source based on an unsourced assertion that the source lacks a "reputation for fact checking," at least with the editor raising the objection to that source?–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This appears to arise from a discussion at Talk:Abortion_debate where some editors are arguing for using (for example) breitbart as a source for content about pro-abortion violence.  is stating that some of these sources are not reliable because they don't check facts, among other reasons. And generally it is a good idea if you notify editors of postings relevant to discussions, GodBlessYou2.    I have done that on the Talk page. btw, to the extent you are asking a real question above, this posting is a good thing.  The issue also arose in a now-closed RfC here: Talk:Creation–evolution_controversy where GodBlessYou2 argued to keep sources that other editors said failed this test. I do think the question is interesting.  Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that GodBlessYou2 is now topic-banned from the latter subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it is a good general question, which is why I raised it here in a general way without tying it to a particular ongoing discussion or specific source. I had hoped to see it addressed as a general question of principles.  Now, because you have posted an invite to this thread at the abortion debate page, I'm afraid the discussion will sink too quickly into particulars (especially conservative vs liberal conflicts regarding "trust" and "distrust" toward various media outlets) rather than remain at the highest level of general principles...which is what this policy page is supposed to be about.  Oh well.  You can't unring a bell.  (I also appreciate how so many editors track my contributions page just to chime in and cast disparagement on everything I write.  Is that stalking or flattering? And they are fast, too!)–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * sigh. No I am not stalking you.  I watch this page and saw your posting.  Questions like this never arise from a vaccum, and it is good practice to notify other editors of related discussions you open.  You are too aggressive for a new editor, GodBlessYou2. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Turning back to the original question. The question should really be asked at the guideline level - WP:RS most generally, and WP:MEDRS for anything health-related.  Those guidelines flesh out issues touched on briefly here, about what reliable sources actually are.  The relevant section of RS is WP:NEWSORG (which gives some good bullet points).
 * I also want to say, that if you are working on a controversial subject, it is a very good idea to raise source quality. Always, but especially in controversial articles, the best practice is to bring sources that no one - not even your "opponents" - would question, and to strive to write really NPOV content that stays true to what is the source.  There should never be a doubt about the reliability of any source you bring.  I generally find that disagreements over sourcing tend to happen when someone advocating for some particular POV (in other words, someone who comes into the article with pre-determined ideas) finds some source that expresses their point very well, and pushes to include the content and source into the article.  That is the opposite of how we are meant to work, which is that you read a bunch of mainstream, as-recent-as-possible sources on the topic, and craft content based on them.   The search for sources should go right down the middle of the plate - really unimpeachable stuff (for news, the NY Times, the LA Times, the Times of London, etc) and for health stuff (as described in MEDRS)  statements of major medical and scientific bodies and reviews published in mainstream biomedical journals.
 * And if you have have questions about specific content and whether its source is reliable for the content, you should first check the archives at RSN (for breitbart, you will see that it has been discussed a zillion times).  If you are not sure after that, you can present the content and source(s) (not just the source, but the content you want to support with it) in a new thread at RSN. And even after that, there may be subsequent questions about WP:WEIGHT which RSN cannot answer.
 * But I do recommend that you "close" this and ask the question at WT:RS.Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't for RSN because I'm not looking for input on any particular source or any particular article. I'm not familiar with breitbart nor advocating for it as a reliable source.  While I agree it would be great to find sources that no one would dispute, the reality is that even the most reliable sources do not cover all issues much less in full detail. That's why multiple sources are needed.


 * The importance of the general question remains, so I see no reason to close the conversation. What bothers me is that rather than address the general question and attempt is made to pigeon hole me and my question by "framing" it within other articles . . . and it is not you, but Andy who has been following me about.


 * So the question remains, how is a "reputation for fact checking" identified and established? Conversely, how is a poor reputation for fact checking identified and established?--GodBlessYou2 (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * you missed my point. I recommended you open the discussion at the Talk page of the reliable source guideline (WT:RS), where details like this are discussed. if you search the archives there, you may find it has already been discussed. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just did a little searching. see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_35 and also Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_39. The latter is especially instructive, I think. Certain aspects of PAG are left vague, to a certain extent, to allow room for the 5th Pillar (common sense) to operate with regard to their application to any given situation and to avoid the temptation for wikilawyering.   I don't think you are going to get clear "metrics" for what the "reputation" thing means, exactly.  But that's all I'll say here.  good luck! Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A little bit of information may help. You can read this short page if you want to know more.  A fact checker is someone who phones a source and asks questions like, "Did you actually say 'Our company earned diddly squat in profits last year' to our reporter?  No?  You said, 'Go away and leave me alone, you blood-suckers'?  Okay, I'll make a note to have your quotation corrected."  The fact checker is not the same person as the reporter, but is working from the reporter's notes and list of contacts instead of finding his own.  Depending on the publication's standards, they may check everything that constitutes "a fact", only direct quotations, everything except direct quotations, only major facts, only facts that fall into specific areas (e.g., medicine and money), or only facts that the editor is concerned about.
 * Almost no daily papers do this for more than a miniscule fraction of their contents. If the news happens at ten in the morning, is written up at two in the afternoon, and the press starts running at six in the evening, then there just isn't enough time to fact-check.  (What if your source is busy that afternoon?)
 * Fact-checking is common for magazines, especially high-circulation monthlies, but there's a range. A large health-related magazine is probably going to fact-check everything in sight:  in case of lawsuit, they want to be able to blame a named, licensed healthcare professional.  A small political newsweekly might check only things that seem like they might result in libel lawsuits (and the bar is very high in that area).  The seriousness of the subject or the biased-ness of the publication are irrelevant.  A fashion magazine is likely to more thoroughly fact-check an article about sexual positions than a legal journal does for an article about a proposed law.
 * The practical equivalent for a daily paper is the corrections column. A publication that posts corrections is usually deemed to constitute "a reputation for fact checking", even if we know that the paper does almost no actual fact checking.  You would not expect to find actual fact-checking at daily papers (like The New York Times) or in peer-reviewed journals.  (Peer review considers questions of experimental design, but not whether the author is an outright liar.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Understand that what I'm about to say is just personal musing, not what policy says or even an interpretation of policy, per se. But I've always looked at the fact checking obligation as at least colored by the issue of what the publisher has at risk. Most professional publishers — mainstream news, magazines, books — have cash on the line and investors/stakeholders/shareholders to tick off by loss of value: if they don't get things right then they're at risk of being sued for various things, the primary one being libel, but they also have their reputation on the line. Academic sources such as peer-reviewed journals don't have the economic incentive so much as the reputational one, but they have that one in strength. The further a publication moves away from these economic and reputational incentives, the less likely the publication has adequate fact checking. Oh, and just for the record, we always need to be cognizant of the fact that the question isn't really, "Is a publication reliable?" but "Is a publication reliable for X in instance Y?" Even though we generally regard peer-reviewed journals (at least the non-predatory ones) as our gold standard, there are parts of them such as their letters columns which may not be reliable sources. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good points by WhatamIdoing and TransporterMan. I agree with both observations.  They seem to underscore the phrase "a reputation for fact checking," as used in policy, is at least vague, perhaps misleading, often ignored (for lack of any way to measure it), and very possibly a phrase that creates more conflict than clarity.
 * I think it should be possible to come up with a better standard. Clearly, self-published sources are suspect. But once there is a layer of paid editors and publishers, as TransporterMan indicates, there is at least a fiduciary responsibility to provide what the publication claims to provide in the way of facts about the stories it covers.  In addition, the layer of professional paid journalists and editors, who are presumably trained in journalistic ethics, also supports the presumption that they are striving for accuracy and professional integrity (and perhaps eventually a higher paying job with a more prestigious publisher).  A secondary test may be the longevity of the publication.  A publication has been around for a while indicates that it has a reputation trusted by at least a substantial number of readers.  In short, publications with (a) fiduciary responsibility for content, (b) professionally trained staff, and (c) established market / readers or viewers would seem to taking the appropriate measures to minimize errors in their stories which may harm their reputation.
 * All of the above qualities can be called into question by evidence and reports that demonstrate that a publication is frequently misstating facts. So, evidence of a poor reputation for fact checking is clearly relevant, but that poor reputation should be at least referenced to a reliable source criticizing it, rather than simply something asserted by a WP editor with no support.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We get surprisingly few disputes about this point. (I know you're in one, but they're actually rare overall.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Reputation" is one of the key words here, and one that comes up a lot in the realm of music charts, strangely enough. There are tens of thousands of music charts, and one of the key ways to decide that a chart is legitimate is that it is being referenced by news outlets, i.e. that it has a sufficiently strong reputation for accurately measuring what they claim to measure that other reliable sources reference them. While I understand the concern that the word could be used by partisans to attempt to eliminate Fox News or Al Jazeera, it's an important word and an important concept. Rewording should be kept to a minimum.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * A general remark: one needs to be very careful using newspapers as a source. The requirement of "reputation for fact checking" is too generic.  Almost all news outlets have real news and fake "news", and it can sometimes be difficult to tell these apart.  There is a grey area in reporting called "human interest", which does not seem to be held to the same journalistic standards as the real news.  In such stories, one rarely sees such "facts" properly attributed to credible sources.  Even in newspapers with a good general reputation for fact checking, I don't think that human interest stories should be used as sources in an encyclopedia article.  These stories tend to come up every now and again on Wikipedia (anyone here remember the time that the guy supposedly solved P=NP, and it was reported in all of these slack-jawed human interest sources that went viral, and everyone here was like "ZOMG, teh sources, derp.")  We need to avoid that sort of thing.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Obviously, all else being equal it is better to use a more trustworthy source than a less trustworthy source. The editorial interests of the NYT and Washington post are not a perfect overlap with those of an encyclopedia, though. Let's imagine Vermiculture Weekly, a (fictitious) 3 year old publication out of Ouachita, Arkansas breaks a story that redefines the content of Compost. Twitter is abuzz with the news, and it leads to the NYT writing a human interest story that only says "Worm farmers are covered with dirt." Now, although Vermiculture Weekly has a professional editorial staff and demonstrably has issued retractions in the past, partisans at Talk:Compost say they must "focus on what the most reliable sources consider important" and fight any addition to the article besides "Worm farmers are covered with dirt." As to why they consider Vermiculture not a reliable source, they point out its age, small readership, and the fact its authors are part time worm farmers rather than full time journalists with journalism degrees. Also, no other reliable source has written about Vermiculture Weekly's reputation for fact checking.
 * An astute reader will notice that the qualities that are being objected to are characteristics that are fairly inevitable in a publication devoted to worm farming, and that their closeness to the topic means their research and fact checking in that domain is far better than the New York Times'. This however seems to escape the notice of editors when Compost is replaced with anything controversial. While more reliable sources are better than less reliable sources, I think too much is being expected as a minimal hurdle for reliability, especially for inline attribution of a non-BLP claim. Rhoark (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the hurdle is set too high: "Freddie Starr ate my hamster" as it appeared in The Sun: File:Freddiehamster.jpg -- PBS (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

History or First Presbyterian Church, McMinnville, Tennessee
First Presbyterian Church, PCUSA, of McMinnville, Tennessee was organized by the session of the Liberty Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 317 Liberty Lane, McMinnville, Tennessee in June 1839. It was organized as a Cumberland Presbyterian Church and remained so until the re-union vote of 1906. Source: 1).Rev. Harry Green stated supply pastor of First Presbyterian Church 11-13-11 til present. Pastor of Libery Cumberland Presbyterian 1974-1989. 2) Minutes of Liberty Cumberland Presbyterian and Minutes of First Presbyterian Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.85.107 (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have taken the liberty of copying your edit request from here, where it does no good, to Talk:First Presbyterian Church (McMinnville, Tennessee) where some editor interested in that article may eventually take it into consideration for inclusion. Note that this may take quite a while. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliability exception RfC
Please note that there is an RfC pending at Wikipedia talk:Notability which is really about reliability rather than being about notability. It seeks to create an exception to the requirement of reliable sources in certain cases. Editors with an interest here at V might care to weigh in there. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Televised interviews from established network news sources
Perhaps there should be a warning in the guideline as to not use video (or transcripts from broadcasts) from network news sources for establishing quotes and facts. Most network news source now edit interviews to the point that it is impossible to determine what the subject of the interview actually said. Some are even chopping up statements in mid-sentence and rearranging the order of phrases. Many times the edits are so skillfully executed as to be impossible to detect, even when examining the video frame by frame. For example, they will syncronize the edit to match the movement of the subject's mouth or change camera angles to make it difficult or impossible to tell that an edit was made. Even content which is labeled as "live" is often edited. I think a general warning should be included not to use television network news as a reliable source.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  20:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see any material difference between editing a video recording to make an on-topic "quotation" and editing an e-mail message to make an on-topic "quotation". The latter is done every day in print journalism.  Journalistic ethics are supposed to prevent you from misrepresenting the person's words, but not to prevent you from removing "um, uh, well" or irrelevant tangents.  You can look for corrections in which the allegedly quoted person claims to have been misrepresented.  Reputable news agencies promptly publish all such claims from people they quote.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference is that in the written form, an ethical journalist will include an elipsis, whereas many (most?) edited videos don't provide adequate indication that an edit has been made. When the video is subsequently transcribed — either directly by a WP editor or by an intermediate source — the indication of the edit is lost. I think some warning should be included in the guide about the potential for inaccuracy. Also, because of the proliferation of the technique and the historically ephemeral nature of video, many subjects don't bother to correct them (often for fear of drawing additional attention to whatever issue was being reported), so relying on interview subjects to initiate correction is not reliable.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  10:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Reputable journalists" only use an ellipsis of omission if they are dropping the middle of a single sentence. Most quotations in print are one sentence or less.  An ellipsis is not used if you only quote only one continuous phrase from a sentence.  For example, I would write that "Sparkie82 said, 'an ethical journalist will include an ellipsis'."  I would not write that "Sparkie82 said, '...an ethical journalist will include an ellipsis...'", even though your complete sentence has a long phrase on each side of what I quoted.  It's the same rules that we use for direct quotations here.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that in many cases, upon closer examination of an edited video, it is apparent that a word or phrase has been excised from the middle of a sentence. I've seen cases where a single sentence has been chopped up in multiple places. (i.e., it appears to be a single sentence -- there's no way to know for sure. I would not put it past some producers to completely reorder a subject's words.) The primary difference here is that with a video, it often appears to be a continuous uninterrupted account of what a subject said -- the edits are nearly imperceptible -- whereas in writing it is clearly apparent when a quote has been broken up, e.g., with intervening prose, or an ellipsis.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  21:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this really a problem of any significance? How often does it happen? Can you document that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering that a quote is covered by the stricter standards of WP:BLP, yes, it is a big deal. If you watch just about any major broadcast or cable network source, and carefully examine interview segments, you will see this issue. If you are not even aware of it, then it is a bigger problem than I thought.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  00:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not at all. That I am not aware of any such situation could very well be because there is no such situation. If you cannot provide evidence of a problem then the more reasonable explanation is that there is no such problem. And "carefully examin[ing] interview segments", as you suggest, would be WP:original research, which we do not do on. (WP is an encyclopedia: we depend on other sources to do investigations.) If you cannot provide documented evidence from WP:reliable sources of an actual problem, there is nothing to warn about. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is widespread. Here's a quick search that highlights just a few cases. Carefully examining how a source produces its content is not OR, it's due diligence. Not only is it permitted, it's obligitory.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  17:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Something to remember... we are allowed to engage in reasonable OR on an article's talk page... the ban on OR applies to the content of the article, not discussions on its talk page. In other words... examining a video source and coming to the conclusion that it has been edited is something you can discuss on an article talk page (for example, in a discussion about whether the video interview should be considered reliable or not)... what you can not do is add a statement saying that the video was edited in the actual text of the article (saying that would be adding OR to the article). Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

in my view, while i understand the concern with video editing, the same thing can be true of print. the key thing is the publisher - does the publisher of the video have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? A video actually published by major media can probably be counted on as not being unduly edited; any republication of that video (say on youtube) or a video posted on some blogger's site should be treated as just as any other unreliable source would be. fwiw, in general i shun video as sources as I don't want to force readers of the WP article to deal with the time and fuss of finding the place in the video where the content is actually sourced. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It really depends on the specific interview in question. There is no such thing as a 100% reliable source.  Even the most reliable sources (those with very high reputations for fact checking and accuracy) can be deemed unreliable when it comes to specific statements.  It's rare, and you have to jump through all sorts of hoops to successfully challenge potentially unreliable statements cited such highly reliable sources ... but it does happen occasionally. Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The distibution medium, whether it's broadcast, cable, internet, dvd, etc. really doesn't make that much difference. The important part with regard to reliability is the producer of the content. You also need to be sure that you are working with an unadulterated copy of that production. My original recommendation to assess reliability based on the distribution medium was probably incorrect.


 * The producer of video content is not the same as the network, cable company or website that makes it available to the public. A network or cable company does not always have the tight control over the content that the producer does, so in determining reliability I think more emphasis should be placed on the producer of the video.


 * Finally — and I think this is the key point I was tryng to make — when transcribing what someone has said from a video, it cannot be assumed that what appears to be a continous phrase or sentence is actually unedited. When transcribing a video, a change in camera angle within a video segment (e.g., from a close-up of a subject to a longer shot of both the subject and interviewer) should be treated as an edit and you cannot assume that what the subject said was temporally contiguous, even though it appears that way when watching the video. A change in camera angle should be treated the same way you would treat a closing quote in a printed quotation, and any words said after that cut need to be transcribed as a new quote, with intervening prose and another opening quotation mark in the transcribed text. Of course, if the producer explicitly states that the video is unedited, than you can assume that it is contiguous (assuming the producer is reliable.)  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  22:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Citing WP articles as a source
I always thought that WP cannot be used as a source, but it was just pointed out to me that WP:CIRCULAR does seem to provide for exceptions. Could some knowledgeable editors perhaps contribute to the discussion at Talk:ORCID? Thanks!--Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

US vs Snider
You asked for verification of the page United States v. Snider. I was his lawyer and would be happy to help. 75.135.186.149 (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Karla W. Simon


 * If you're not an experienced Wikipedia editor, you're probably going to find that process to be daunting. Verification in Wikipedia is through the providing of inline references to reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. The problem with United States v. Snider is that virtually nothing has that kind of references whereas everything there should. Since you, like me, are a lawyer you can probably learn how to do that by reading the "rules," rather than learning-by-trial-and-error-doing as most folks do. You need to at least read and understand the following policies and guidelines: Verifiability, Reliable sources, No original research, and probably Biographies of living persons. If you're going to rewrite any of the article rather than just provide sources, you also need to read Neutral point of view, but frankly, you probably shouldn't do more than provide sources since you have a conflict of interest. Next, if you're going to do any of that you ought to create a username and password and only edit logged-in. Finally, remember that the opinions issued in the case and the lower court cases are primary sources and, per that primary source policy, first, the article cannot be built only on primary sources and, second, that to the extent that you do use primary sources that they cannot be used to support a position which requires interpretation or analysis of the source. Best regards and good luck, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Help?
I left a post seeking assistance on a related talkpage, but since this one overlaps the topic in question I'm leaving mention of it here as well. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2015
209.143.36.168 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC) The sentence "Nazi Führer Adolf Hitler in emphasized that Germany should adhere to Hellenic values and culture – particularly that of ancient Sparta." is poor English and should be rewritten. A Subject and Predicate would be appreciated... As the word Hitler, does not appear on this project page, I assume you are talking about a different page, but don't know which. Please raise this on the talk page of the relevant article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ - This page is only for suggesting improvements to the page Verifiability.
 * Seems to have been in reference to Fascism and ideology. It was moved there from Fascism, having been put there in these edits three years ago. Odd that it went that long unaddressed. LeadSongDog come howl!  01:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2015
182.69.19.46 (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Given the nature of this page, you will also need to reach consensus before any significant changes are implemented. - Arjayay (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to Verifiability.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2015
49.145.185.152 (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Bare template placed, no edit requested. Samsara 09:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Number of Links Required to Satisfy Verifiability Requirement
This requirement is vague and open to whimsical interpretation. Please include how many links are required to satisfy the verifiability requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzerb (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Verifiability does not require links, it requires citations, which contain bibliographic information that identifies the sources used. See WP:Citing sources for details.
 * 2) Verifiability is not a matter of quantity (such as the number of links/citations/sources) but of quality. Particularly, it requires use of reliable sources.
 * 3) It appears your question arises out of a comment on your Talk page (User_talk:Xyzerb), which is really about notability. Please study that guideline.  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

NONENG proposed addition
I think an addition to WP:NONENG section is required to the phrase equal quality and relevance considering the discussion from talk:neutron magnetic moment. The assessment of these properties I think it requires a comparison for a specific field or book(s) by someone who knows at least a non-en language and has the understanding and ability required to compare.--5.15.183.125 (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Unnecessary rule expansion a/k/a rule creep. As for the translation issue, NONENG already provides for the proposing editor to provide a translation of the relevant parts of the non-English work, so that part's already handled by the rule. As for the part about understanding and ability to compare, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and the change you're suggesting would create editors who have the right to adjudge whether content should be included or not included. That's not the way the wiki works. However, if I read the discussion at the article correctly, you're advocating for an entire work to be included in the "Further Reading" section, not for its use to support a particular assertion in the text of an article. That makes the provide-a-translation requirement a bit difficult but, frankly, I don't see why this couldn't be handled by providing references to sources which establish the value of the non-English work in relation to the topic (e.g. reviews, references in academic publications, etc.) or by posting a request for comments to bring in comments by other editors who speak the relevant language (with perhaps an announcement of the RFC posted in the Wikiproject, if there is one, for that particular nationality or language group). Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not primarily insisting that an entire work be included in the "Further Reading" section of an article, although I remember seeing some other articles that I don't remember exactly with foreign language sources in "Further reading". The aspect requiring explicit specification is that foreign sources are not forbidden by this wikirule, as someone might have the impression.
 * The proposed explicit addition to the "equal quality and relevance available" is to specify availability for whom, namely "available to editors interested to improve articles".--5.15.0.185 (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources and publication
Currently this policy states: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".This includes material such as documents in publicly-accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see. Unpublished materials are not considered reliable."

-- PBS (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Clearly a primary source in an uncatalogued archive that is not available to the public is by the definition above is "not considered reliable". But what happens if a primary source from such an archive is placed onto an unreliable website. Has it been reliably published?
 * 2) There is mention lower down this page that "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, ... etc", yet his is also true for inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc. So if other self-published media are unreliable why is something carved in stone automatically a reliable source? If it is not then why are monuments and gravestones mentioned in the section "Reliable sources" but not in the section "Sources that are usually not reliable"?


 * For PBS's first question, if I interpret "unreliable website" in the normal English meaning of the phrase, the website cannot be trusted to faithfully reproduce the primary source from the archive; since I can't be sure what I see on the website is the same as the purported source, it shouldn't count as a publication. But for purposes of deciding if the work has been published, the website should be examined from the point of view of whether it can be relied upon to have faithfully reproduced the work; the website need not have any particular expertise in the field that is the subject of the document from the archive.


 * PBS's second question is, in part, "So if other self-published media are unreliable why is something carved in stone automatically a reliable source?" The assumption that something carved in stone is automatically self-published is wrong. The policy indicates the meaning of self-published as "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field." So a self-publisher, for WP:V purposes, is one guy, or a few guys. By that standard, a monument created by a state historical preservation commission or the National Park Service is not self-published.


 * PBS's questions do highlight a problem in the structure of the passage. It begins "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources...." Well, "third-party" should really be replaced by "independent", because sources that have come kind of corporate connection to a topic are not third-party, but they could be independent. Basing the article has to do with the main points of the article, and has as much to do with notability as verifiability. But it is acceptable to flesh-out the skeleton with information from self-published and primary sources. By the time we get to the part that says "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made" we have moved away from the main claims that form the skeleton of the article, and have started to talk about every claim in the article. "Gravestones" is in between these two parts of the passage. I would say that in most cases a gravestone is a self-published source (unless it's in some place like Westminster Abbey). So is "gravestones" in the part of the passage that is describing the kinds of sources that an article is based on (where self-published sources are undesireable), or is it in the part of the passage that applies to all sources (where self-published sources are sometimes acceptable)? That is the weakness in the structure of the passage. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jc3s5h you are misinterpreting some of what I wrote, I did not say that all words carved in stone are reliable, what I said was that they were included in the reliable section but not the unreliable section. However the gist is correct. A monument that springs to mind is not blue plaques in the centre of London, but that of Captain Cook at The Vache erected by an admirer -- this sort of monument can be found all over the UK -- much more common is the the type of monument found in parish churches which are basically posh grave stones. A point I am trying to make is that just like other media carved stone is no more or less reliable.
 * I have more to say on this issue, but I would like to see what some others have to say first. -- PBS (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the part about monuments and gravestones in public places is that they are published. Not all published works are reliable, but at least monuments and gravestones in public places have cleared the first hurdle of being published. They are reliably published in the sense that it is highly likely that someone will slither into a cemetery in the middle of the night and replace a gravestone with a different one that has a different death date on it. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jc3s5h is correct: Monuments and gravestones and even billboard advertisements are "published".  "Published" works, whether inscribed on stone, paper, or grains of rice, may or may not be reliable; to determine whether they are reliable, you need to consider things like "reputation for fact-checking" (see WP:NOTGOODSOURCE for a reasonably complete list).  "Unpublished" works are never reliable (for Wikipedia's purposes), even if they meet all other criteria.  "Being published" is an absolutely mandatory quality for reliable sources.  Monuments and gravestones (placed in a publicly accessible location) are always published.  Monuments and gravestones may, however, not meet any of the other (judgment-based and context-dependent) requirements for reliability.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing we have three criteria when assessing reliability "The type of the work", "The creator of the work", "The publisher of the work". I am specifically looking at the publishin aspect. We both agree that an unpublished work is not reliable. But what about other types of publishing, in you opinion is there such a thing as an unreliably published source and is there such a thing as a reliably published source? -- PBS (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * PBS, you ask above, "But what happens if a primary source from such an archive is placed onto an unreliable website. Has it been reliably published?" The answer is no. We've had some discussion about this over at RSN in connection with interviews. The statements of interviewees are generally considered PRIMARY sources when published in third party indisputably-reliable sources, at least when the interviewee is directly quoted in the publication. However, interviews are not even usable as primary sources unless they're published in a reliable source. For example, an interview of a third person (that is, a person other than the blog publisher) which is published only in a garden-variety blog is not a reliable source for our purposes because the source is not reliable under SPS. It is published, but it's not reliable. The same would be true of, say, a memoir or diary from a private, unpublished collection, selections from which are published only on a blog. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * PBS, you are quite uncharacteristically wrong. We do not have three criteria for evaluating sources.  We now seem to have three "aspects" to the word "source", or to quote the rather clearer original, "The word source in Wikipedia has three meanings:".  If you find the current wording confusing, then you might want to revert this change from almost two months ago.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There are all kinds of gradations about the reliability of a publication. For example, the Vermont Legislature publishes correspondence sent to committees expressing the writer's view about bills being debated. Hypothetically we could have a situation where a letter bearing the name John Doe significantly affects the debate on a bill; by the time the bill becomes law, we might have evidence in the state legislature's website and newspaper reports that the final form of the law was significantly affected by Mr. Doe's letter. Yet, we would have no evidence that Mr. Doe actually sent the letter, since the legislature makes no attempt to authenticate the identity of people who send correspondence. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Which is probably much of the reason for BLPPRIMARY which prevents the use of public documents (in the sense of public records, not just documents which are publicly available), such as legislative transcripts, as sources for assertions about living persons. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"is there such a thing as an unreliably published source and is there such a thing as a reliably published source?"

To answer the important question: Yes! There are definitely sources whose publication process renders them unreliable for most types of claims. For example, a self-published blog post about what the neighbor said when she learned her grandson died in the Scary Disaster is unreliable specifically due to its publication process. A daily newspaper that publishes exactly the same information about what the neighbor said is reliable for that claim about the BLP because of its publication process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoingm you are of course correct, my apologies for my sloppy use of criteria. To follow on your example. Suppose that the blog publishes a letter sent by the neighbour to the newspaper which the newspaper used as the basis of their article, but did not mention it in their article. The letter is an primary source which if it had been published by the news paper would be a primary source published by a reliable source (and could be quoted in a Wikiepdia article). Can it be quoted in a Wikipedia article if it is published by the self-published blog (because as a primary source it has been published by the blog owner who has third party independent editorial control over whether to publish the primary source). If it can be quoted then we have a situation where the commentary on the primary source can not be used because it is a self-published blog, but the primary source published on the same website can be quoted. -- PBS (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no one-size-fits-all answer to this... because so much relies on the reputation of the self-publisher. Do we trust the blog owner to present a "true copy" of the original primary letter (ie one without anything added or subtracted).  With self published blogs, generally the answer is "no, we can't trust them to do so"... although there are some exceptions (the big one is the "Expert exemption" for experts who have published in the relevant field but run a blog as well.)  My rule of thumb... if there is any doubt, don't use the source.  Look for another. Blueboar (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * from my perspective, this is all barking up the wrong tree. we should stay away from primary sources as much as possible. if something isn't discussed in a secondary source (in other words, given no weight in a secondary source) then it ~should~ probably get no mention in Wikipedia.  Selecting that source in particular, crafting content from it, and deciding how much WEIGHT to give it, are all WP:OR in themselves, in my view.  We are editors, not authors. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , "Selecting that source in particular, crafting content from it, and deciding how much WEIGHT to give it, are all WP:OR in themselves, in my view." I disagree; that is source-based research, not original research. Without source-based research Wikipedia cannot exist. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * don't want to get into a big tangle, but every content policy and sourcing guideline (OR, VERIFY and especially NPOV, as well as RS and MEDRS) emphasizes secondary sources. Those are the sources we are meant to find, and let them (let the experts in the field) teach us what should be given the most WEIGHT - what is mainstream, and what substantial minority opinion, and what is just plain FRINGE.  Use of primary sources tends to reflect some agenda the editor brings to the table, in my view; use of primary sources (and insistence for them) is for me a flag for advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources are ideal for establishing DUE weight in particular. However, primary sources are often useful, and in particular are useful for "standard" information.  For example, there are few reliable (e.g., not astrology magazines) secondary sources that actually analyze birth dates and death dates for notable people, and yet we routinely include that information.  (A secondary source repeating information without analyzing or transforming it is still a primary source; see WP:LINKSINACHAIN.)  They are also useful for providing details that make WP:Brilliant prose more feasible.  In a few cases, especially direct quotations, the primary source is more reliable than any secondary will ever be.
 * BTW, it may interest you to know that the editor primarily responsible for MEDRS's emphasis on secondary sources now kind of regrets having started that section, precisely because of the stupid ways in which it gets promoted as the be-all and end-all of reliability.
 * We discussed here last year whether the addition of a weak source, like a peer-reviewed primary source (contrasted with, for example, a peer-reviewed secondary source) is grounds for reversion, and the answer was almost unanimously "no".
 * (Jc3s5h: I believe that the phrase source-based research disappeared from NOR a couple of years ago. Maybe we need to discuss resurrecting it.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"Suppose that the blog publishes a letter sent by the neighbour to the newspaper which the newspaper used as the basis of their article, but did not mention it in their article."
 * Absent a confessional memoir from the journalist, you could not know this. Your question doesn't depend upon this detail, so I will ignore this given.

"The letter is an primary source which if it had been published by the news paper would be a primary source published by a reliable source (and could be quoted in a Wikiepdia article)."
 * The consensus on letters to the editor (rather than proper op-eds) is that they should be treated like self-published sources. Although the newspaper exercises editorial control in deciding whether or not to publish it, they do not (often cannot?) send letters back for revisions, and thus have only partial editorial control.  If it is a proper opinion piece, rather than a mere letter, then, yes, it could be quoted with WP:INTEXT attribution as a statement of the author's opinions (but not necessarily of facts:  writers are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts).

"Can it [the same letter] be quoted in a Wikipedia article if it is published by the self-published blog"
 * My answer agrees with Blueboar's and shades into Jytdog's.
 * Let's be more specific: Pretend it's a garden-variety suicide note.  A neighbor posts a scan of the original along with scathing comments about how, if certain ex-spouses hadn't been such horrible humans, then this unstable person would still be alive.  You shouldn't use it.  You've got very little reason to think that anything in this is DUE, and some reasons to wonder, even if only slightly, about the veracity and level of information (about suicide in general) that the blog owner has.
 * But now let's pretend that it's a recently reported love letter, written by the late great Joe Film to his first girlfriend, and it's self-published on the blog of a well-known expert on Joe Film. You could consider using that.  Everything there points to it being a faithful scan of a letter whose authenticity was carefully considered by someone who knows what he's talking about.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with what WhatamIdoing says, above, but just so it's not overlooked (and just to be persnickity): The key word in her last paragraph (the one beginning "But now let's pretend") is the word "expert" and expert means, from SPS, "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (Bold facing in original, italics added.) Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC at WikiProject Film
There's a discussion that partly concerns this policy at WT:FILM. More input is appreciated. Lapadite (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Popular sources
I have a list of the most commonly cited URLs that may interest some of you: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/P587  There are no prizes for guessing the most popular ones.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2015
Martha Denniston was not the niece of Andrew Mellon.

2601:1:8900:E2A:2D32:C68B:67D1:4B98 (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  13:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the how-to guide Search engine test conflict with the policy page Verifiability?
"Needless to say, if they conflict the how-to guide is the one that needs to be changed" --Captain Obvious

This question is being discussed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Biased sources
Split from previous section

What about newspapers that are so clearly skewed by their own editorial agendas or owners' politics that much of what they publish is of dubious quality / truth / veracity? I'm thinking specifically of British papers like the Daily Mail or the Express, but they're not the only ones. Most of their news stories are basically National Enquirer level twaddle.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2015/apr/09/daily-express-weather-warning-beware-a-shower-of-extreme-inaccuracy http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/mar/17/dailymail-pcc and just to show I'm not a guardianista: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/24/1287082/-Guardian-s-NASA-climate-story-false-flawed-misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.73.219 (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not quite sure what you're asking. You put that entry here at the end of this section about primary and self-published sources, but I don't see how your question relates to that. Did you mean to start a new topic on just the subject that you mention or are you trying to relate it to the topic that's being discussed in this section? If so, how? If you're asking about particular sources (and not trying to relate it to this topic), you'd probably be better off asking your question at the reliable sources noticeboard since this page is really for the purpose of discussing the verifiability policy itself. These two searches show a lot of discussion at that noticeboard about those two sources in particular: Daily Mail, Daily Express. I've not plowed through them, but you should feel free to do so, though I suspect that the answer will be that, like most major publications, they'll be considered reliable for some things but not reliable for others. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Biased sources can be very useful. The challenge is making sure that they're WP:DUE.  See WP:BIASED for more.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. It's also important to focus on what you're citing them for; you can definitely cite a biased source for its own opinion, where that opinion is relevant and noteworthy (with an in-text attribution for that opinion), and sometimes to illustrate a particular view or position (if that that source is genuinely representative of it), with, as you said, the caveat in both cases that you have to make sure you're not giving them undue weight.  However, they are generally bad sources for statements of fact, especially facts that are controversial or self-serving; when in doubt, try to find a less biased source, and only use biased sources with an in-text attribution (eg. "So-and-so in such-and-such a periodical said...")  --Aquillion (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's an interesting dichotomy, if not perhaps a conflict, between WP:BIASED, which is a guideline, and WP:NOTRELIABLE, which is a policy. NOTRELIABLE says, in pertinent part:


 * I suppose that it might be possible to be biased, but to not have a conflict of interest in the senses defined in the quoted material, above, but it seems to me that would be a pretty small subset of biased sources. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC) PS: The word apparent in the phrase apparent conflict of interest makes the question of bias vs. conflict of interest particularly difficult, since even a source which appears to have a conflict of interest becomes a questionable source and unsuitable for sourcing purposes except in connection to references about itself. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above seems to be considering largely financial bias/conflict of interest. It does not consider ideological bias, where the views of the reporter or of those in charge of a news organization favor one side of a controversy or issue. this can produce at least as much bias as financial conflicts do. DES (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Every news source has some sort of bias if you look hard enough. Having a bias does not mean a source is unreliable. What we (as editors) need to do is be aware of that bias, and give it due weight. In the case of news media bias... one needs to be aware of the distinction between news reporting, and news analysis and commentary. Whether we are talking about Fox or MSNBC, the Times or the Guardian... they are all reliable for (say) a report that a riot took place in Baltimore, MD. That much is simple news reporting, and can be stated as fact (and cited without attribution - regardless of the bias of the news outlets). Now, the reporter may also attempt to explain the causes of the riot in his news report... that is news analysis, and may well reflect the bias of the media outlet. So that part needs to be treated differently - as opinion. Whether to mention this analysis in a specific article is a matter of DUE WEIGHT... and depends on a host of factors... but assuming that it is mentioned, that mention needs to be phrased as being opinion (and thus attributed) and not stated as blunt fact. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So what do you think is the effect of the "apparent conflict of interest" material in WP:NOTRELIABLE? It can't be to just eliminate the ones which are most clearly conflicted, due to the inclusion of "apparent." So what does it do? (In passing, let me note that in my opinion, the apparent conflict must be apparent on the face of the source: there has to be something actually said there which clearly sets up the apparent conflict. Just saying that, for example, the New York Times or Fox News, has a conflict of interest because because some folks speculate that they have a liberal or conservative bias isn't enough: the conflict of interest has to be apparent and apparent without too much original research or interpretation.) Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * says, "Whether we are talking about Fox or MSNBC, the Times or the Guardian... they are all reliable for (say) a report that a riot took place in Baltimore, MD." That is unfortunately not always true. Ideologically biased sources have been known to make inaccurate statements of plain fact. Sometimes this is deliberate, a blatant lie to support the source's favored position. Sometimes it is what might be called wishful thinking, a tendency to accept statements that favor their agenda without though checking for error. Sometimes it is mere laziness -- journalists have been known to accept statements by alleged witnesses without double checking simply because it is easier, even if it does not feed any particular agenda or bias. And there have been out-and-out news hoaxes, either to support an agenda or to gain circulation for the news organization, or reputation for the reporter. Obviously, the more widely visible the fact the less likely any of these sorts of error are. A totally false report of a riot in Baltimore is probably unlikely. A false report that during such a riot a rioter clubbed a policeman, or that a policeman shot a rioter is much more probable, as there may have been few witnesses and no images to verify the reported events. Consider the withdrawn Wired story on campus rapes, for an example. That appears to have included completely false statements of basic fact. Many other examples might be cited. DES (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is important to remember that there is no such thing as a 100% unreliable source or a 100% reliable source (examples: the National Enquirer is normally considered the epitome of "tabloid" trash... yet its reporting on John Edwards turned out to be quite reliable and was considered for a Pulitzer prize. Meanwhile, the New York Times is normally considered one of the finest broadsheets printed, until Jayson Blair came along).
 * The fact is, every media source has gotten specific reports wrong from time to time. When a specific report is shown to be wrong, we can consider that specific report unreliable... but we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... we do not tar everything the source has ever reported with the same "unreliable" brush.
 * That said, I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make in my comments. Most of the time, when people complain about bias in the media, what they are talking about is bias in the outlet's news analysis and commentary, and not bias in it's basic news reporting. Blueboar (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course you are correct that any source will make errors, and this does not make the source entirely and automatically unreliable, nor are sources often considered unreliable always so. And you are also correct that bias in news analysis and commentary is more often complained of than straight factual error. However, it happens that I have gotten on the email lists for several rather politally partisan news outlets. They quite frequently complain of outright misstatements and indeed intentional lies in the mainstream but ideological news organizations on the opposite side of things. I often can't personally verify such claims, and I suspect that at least some of them are overblown, but they are widely made, and at least some of them appear to me to be accurate. DES (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Definition of Self-Published
The following definition of self-published (taken from a 2007 arb-com decision) has been added: I think this definition is accurate, but incomplete. It does not account for self-publication of previously unpublished material written by others. For example, consider the scenario where I find a previously unpublished short story written by Mark Twain in my Great-grandfather's papers (not impossible, as they knew each other and corresponded). If I post this story on my personal website... I am not the "writer" (that would be Twain). I am the publisher. I am also acting as an "independent" editor. Yet I think everyone would agree that I am self-publishing. Blueboar (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "A source is self-published if no one stands between the writer and the act of publication (such as an independent editor or third-party publishing house)"
 * I'm not sure that everyone actually would agree with this, since you are publishing something that you did not write. How is your decision to make someone else's work public different from pulling something out the slush pile at a small publishing house?  How is your decision to make someone else's work public different from a professional archive making the same decision?  You didn't write it (nor did any of your own family members).  You encountered something that someone else wrote, and you decided to make another person's work available to the public.  Making someone else's work available to the public is not self-publishing.  You're also not using the most bureaucratic style of publishing-house publishing models, but you're not self-publishing.
 * Jc3s5h, corporate authors are easy: if "the authors" (e.g., employees instructed to create it) are the same as "the publishers" (e.g., employees of the same non-publishing business, who were instructed to make the other employees' stuff public), then that's self-publishing.  It does not matter how many thousands of authors there are, or how many lawyers are involved, or anything else.  All that matters is that the group that created it is the same group that made it public.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure we can peg it all on who the author is. The nature of the publisher also is a factor.  Let's amend my scenario... suppose I pay to have the book published.  I hope we would agree that if I write a book, and pay a company to publish it for me - that is "self-publication". So how is that different from my submitting the unpublished Twain book I find in my attic to the same company and paying them to publish it for me.  I am still the one submitting the book and paying for publication.  And... Going back to my original scenario... where I post the Twain book on my personal website... how is a reader to know that this gem actually IS what I claim ... an unpublished book by Mark Twain?   Blueboar (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How is a reader to know that a standard corporate publisher that publishes a book under the name of an author didn't instead write it in-house, so that it is self-publishing a falsely identified work? One can never know this for sure, the reputation of the publisher (and perhaps of the independent author) is what we base such an assessment on in practice. As for your decision to publish a previously unpublished work by another, i would say that is not self-publishing. But it does not make the published work a reliable source. If an irresponsible publisher publishes something, no little or no reliability is added compared to the author having self-published. If you hire a printer/publisher to put out a work, and the publisher has no practical right-of-refusaul, if the publisher does not act as a filter on what is published, then the publisher does not "stand between" the author and the public, and so the work is for our purposes self-published, even if the author does not do the technical work of publication. DES (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:blueboar, your publication of a previously unpublished work by Twain on your personal website is, mostly, not self-publication. But your website is a questionable source because it has no reputation for reliability or fact-checking. Thus it couldn't be used in Wikipedia. The only element of your website that is self-published is your explicit or implied statement that you believe it was in fact written by Twain. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with DES. "Self-published" does not mean unreliable, and "non-self-published" does not mean reliable.  This is really not a complicated idea:  self-publishing means that the author published it.  Blueboar's scenario might be an example of "non-professional publishing", but that's not the same thing.  Even dictionaries get this right:  self-publishing, MW, Oxford, etc.  It's really not complicated.  Blueboar cannot, under any circumstances, self-publish a work that he had no role at all in creating.  Blueboar's website might be a "questionable" source, but self-published is not an exact synonym for questionable.  We mention both concepts in this policy because they are separate issues.  Both need to be discouraged, and the combination (a source that is both self-published and questionable) needs to be very strongly discouraged.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User:WhatamIdoing wrote 'if "the authors" (e.g., employees instructed to create it) are the same as "the publishers" (e.g., employees of the same non-publishing business, who were instructed to make the other employees' stuff public), then that's self-publishing.' This interpretation of "self-published" confirms my view that I was correct to make this reversion. While the interpretation is one plausible interpretation outside Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia policies and guidelines have all been formed around the concept expressed in this sentence from WP:IRS: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field." The policies and guidelines have never regarded material produced by large organizations with significant internal editorial oversight as being self-published, even if the works do not give the names of individual authors. If such works were to be regarded as self-published the policies and guidelines would have to be completely overhauled to recognize that some such "self-published" works are among the most reliable sources available. (For example, where would you go if you wanted to know the population of the US, other than the US Census?) Jc3s5h (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The US Census Bureau is normally considered a reputable publisher, not merely an organization that decided to create something and put it out in the world.
 * Even if we did claim that they are self-published source, then the US Census Bureau easily meets the expert exemption.
 * The situation with the US Census Bureau contrasts strongly with, for example, all corporate/marketing websites, which do fall under SPS and cannot, for example, be used to make claims about any BLPs outside of their own organization.
 * To give a specific example: You absolutely may not cite Coca-Cola's website to make a statement about Pepsi's CEO.  Coca-Cola's corporate website is written and published by the same people (namely, the employees of Coca-Cola), and therefore it is self-published.  BLPSPS prohibits the use of self-published websites, including corporate websites, to make claims about third parties.  There is no exception in BLPSPS for "if they have enough lawyers" or "if editors decide that Coca-Cola has an internal editorial oversight program".  It cannot be used because it is self-published.
 * There really is no way around this. Please go look at a couple of regular dictionaries.  I think you will find that it will help you understand what self-publishing actually means.  And if we really do have to re-write policies as a result, then that's okay.  We can do that.  (I don't think that we'll have to, but that's okay:  policies can change if that's truly necessary.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * From American Heritage Dictionary 3rd ed.:
 * "self-published adj. Having one's writing published by oneself: a self-published volume of memoirs; a self-published poet.'"
 * This agrees with the definition used in the development of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This definition would have to be stretched rather thin to apply to corporate author/publishers.


 * Jc3s5h (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely true. At least in the U.S., corporations are people so the definition arguably would hold. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if you don't really buy the "corporations are humans" idea, it still fits. If Coca-Cola, Inc. writes and publishes something "by itself", then doesn't it seem obvious that Coca-Cola's creation and publication fits squarely within that definition?  There's no independent party involved in writing and publishing information on their corporate website.  They are doing it themselves.  In the end, it's the same as a small business website, written by the secretary and uploaded by the owner's kid, on a much grander scale.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The plain meaning of the dictionary definitions cited in this thread is that whenever one natural person (or perhaps a few natural persons) publish something without any independent party exercising editorial control, the work is self-published. That's all these definitions have to say. What to call a biased publication by a large corporation is a subject for a different dictionary entry (if there is such a word or phrase). Certainly we can't say that every time a group of employees of a large corporation or government agency publish something without the exercise of editorial control by an outside entity, it is self publication; the examples of the census bureau is an example of a corporate author/publisher that is not a self publisher. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So in your mind, if a husband and wife write a book together, and print it on their home laser printer, and offer it for sale, then this is not self-published, because two (2) natural persons were involved in it? Because if you're going to say that "a writer" obviously excludes "the writers of Coca-Cola's marketing department", then you can't really say that it excludes "two writers".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no bright clear line between self published and not self published. A few people who are accountable to no one would be self publishers. Large organizations are not. A few people who write something and publish it in the large organization's name, and are held to account later is debatable. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there is a bright, clear line in that definition, and the sheer number of humans involved in it is not where the line lies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Something to remember... self-published does not mean unreliable, or unusable. We limit the use of self-published sources, but we do allow them in those limited situations. A press release from Coca-Cola announcing the date that they plan to unveil a new beverage is self-published, but perfectly reliable for a statement in Wikipedia as to when the coca-cola company plans to unveil the new beverage. Another press release that says that the new beverage will be the best beverage ever is also self-published... and can also be used as a reliable source if presented as opinion. However, a press release from Coke that warns that Pepsi's new beverage causes cancer would not be usable... It is self-published, and because it talks about a third party (Coke's rival Pepsi) it would not be a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Umm...no. Publications from large organizations may have the appearance of bias because they often promote the interests of the organization, but they're not self published. Substantial organizations control what is published in the organizations name in order to achive the organization's goal, whether that goal is primarily to inform the public (census, New York Times, GPS broadcasts), convert people to a religion, or make a profit. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So who do you think creates Coca-Cola's marketing materials, if not their marketing department? And who do you think publishes those materials, if not the very same marketing department?  Are they doing that themselves, as in "self" publishing?
 * Do you believe that citing Coca-Cola's website for claims about Pepsi's employees would be prohibited under BLPSPS? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. Of course Coca-Cola's marketing department creates the company's marketing materials. But basing the definition of self-published on the motivation of the writer(s) rather than the degree of editorial oversight means that a web page written by one person with no editorial oversight is not self-published if it appears the one person's motivation is to honestly inform the public, rather than enrich himself.


 * 2. Citing Coca-Cola's website for claims about Pepsi's employees is not prohibited under WP:BLPSPS because it isn't a self-pubished source. It would be prohibited for contentious claims (but not all claims) by WP:BLPREMOVE because the claim would be poorly sourced, in that the source has an inherent conflict-of-interest. In many cases it would also be prohibited by WP:BLPPRIMARY since the Coca-Cola website is almost always a primary source. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * How would you assess what the motivation of the writer is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But Coca-Cola's materials about Coca-Cola are, to the most part, self-published: no organisation with final control over the content stands between Coca-Cola and publication. Nothing about "self" says "lone individual": a corporation is a perfect example of an single entity composed of multiple individuals.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then articles in the New York Times that lack a byline are self-published. The US Census is self-published. Technical information about Microsoft Windows on Microsoft websites is self-published. Information about disasters on the American Red Cross website is self-published. Yeah, sure. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The New York Times is not self-published. This red herring keeps coming up, so I'll explain below.  It is, however, true that all information, technical and otherwise, about Microsoft Windows on Microsoft websites is self-published.  They're experts on their own products, though, so you can still cite them (but not claim them as proof of notability).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The definition of "self-published" has always been that no editorial structure stands between you and publication. Coca-Cola has a professional editing process and a legal team that oversees it. Coca-Cola writing about itself would make its website a primary source for that material, but not a self-published source. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But who's "you"? In that case, "you" is "Coca-Cola", making it self-published. No editorial process stands between the Coca-Cola company as author and the Coca-Cola company as publisher. Now, if the Coca-Cola company was to have an essay contest and published submitted essays, we would be wary of bias, but that wouldn't count as self-published: the author (the essay submitter) and the publisher (the Coca-Cola company) are distinct.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "You" is almost always an individual, but it's sometimes a small group. The essence is the absence of a formal editorial process, the absence of oversight. Coca-Cola has that. Its lawyers could say no to probably anyone in the company; ignoring the lawyers would be very foolish. And even if they can be ignored, they exist and will make their views known in a way that has consequences for anyone ignoring them (e.g. that libel insurance would be invalidated). A self-published source has none of that. If a self-published source wants to add something to his website, he adds it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Slim, to my mind the distinctions you are noting are distinctions of reliability between two self-published sources... not the distinction between self-published and independently-published.
 * I see a company's website (when discussing the company and its products) as essentially qualifying for a corporate version of the "expert exemption" to WP:SPS... the company is an expert on itself. To the extent that it discusses things within its area of expertise, a corporate website is reliable... but that website is still self-published, and not independently published. Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your definition would mean everything was self-published. The New York Times wants to publish something, then publishes it; therefore (you are arguing) its material is self-published.


 * A company writing about itself is producing a primary source. That is a completely separate idea.


 * "Self-published" on WP has always meant "creator straight to publication," usually a one-person operation, or a small group: no editorial process, no lawyers, no editors, no managers, no meetings, no-one who can say stop. Someone has an idea and (perhaps only seconds later) publishes that idea. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree about "always" and about "meaning" but I doubt if a discussion of such absolutes is really worthwhile. You say, 'it's primary', she says 'it's self published', -- well it can be both, or like both in many different ways and many different contexts -- RS are always judged in context  Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that if you look into what reliable sources say on the subject, you'll find that there is commonly an explicit exception for traditional publishing houses. It is "by definition" not possible for an established publishing house, e.g., The New York Times Company, to self-publish a newspaper article.  In the newspaper model, the "independent" reporter and the "independent" editor and the "independent" publisher collaborate to produce a newspaper in the same way that the independent novelist and the independent editor and Random House collaborate to produce a book.  Anyone who thinks otherwise might learn more by expanding Editorial independence past the stub stage.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In general we should treat corporate statements as self published for two reasons: 1) they are actually self published, which just means editors should always look closely at the manner, method, and material, as SPS and Selfpub warn to do (it should be easy to come to a consensus on whether that "Coca Cola, Inc." piece or the "Predatory Charity, Inc." piece are really worthwhile, but the analysis should be done, regardless) and 2) someone talking about themselves does not mean that anyone in the RS world cares what they say, which is one thing to consider when you write about it (like maybe don't write about it, or if you do, give it very little play). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Saying explicitly that online copies of offline sources are not required
I recently saw at the Help desk a suggestion that an editor using an offline (print) source scan it and upload a copy, and a fear that not doing so would make the citation invalid. I would like to add in the WP:SOURCEACCESS section, the following: "'Sources need not be available online, as long as enough information is provided that someone could find the source and verify the citation. It is not suggested that an editor upload a scan or copy of an offline source, and if the source is under copyright, doing so would be an infringement and not acceptable on Wikipedia.'" Would any one object? DES (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * How about saying only "Sources need not be available online"? I don't think that the suggestion to upload copies is very common.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Magazines / Journals / Mainstream newspapers
Why are newspapers preceded by "mainstream", but this is not done for magazines and journals? First, we need to define "mainstream". I'd suggest linking the word to Notability_(organizations_and_companies), which as far as I know is the best definition of such a concept we have. Second, I think we should clarify that magazines and journals also should be mainstream. I will also note that that despite "Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources", WP:RS does not discuss the concept of mainstream, neither does it mention the word magazine at all, and it discusses journal primarily in the context of an academic journal. We need some clarifications here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Source needs translation needs help
It redirects to WP:NOENG for rationale, but it is not even mentioned here. See Template_talk:Source_needs_translation for my proposed fixes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate translation from official source vs. faithful translation
On the page My Teen Romantic Comedy SNAFU, a translated title "My Youth Romantic Comedy Was Wrong as Expected" is mentioned as the translation for やはり俺のラブコメは間違ってる. This is mentioned on the cover of the book which would supposedly qualify as a reliable source. However, people in Japan have a habit of attempting to make translations that turn out not to make sense or are inaccurate usages of English due to the relative lack of people who speak good English in Japan. That is, although they are reliable sources for whatever they work on, they tend not to be reliable in providing English translations. In this case, I would like to ask if it is appropriate to provide a more appropriate translation alongside the "official" translation (the official translation would still be mentioned) so that people are able to read what the actual Japanese means without needing to make guesses from an inaccurate or unclear translation.--Tosiaki! (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * At All your base are belong to us we did just that. It's well known that the official texts in that game are broken English, so it was a clear-cut case. Verifiability is the governing policy which, lacking a high quality external translation, would explicitly allow an editor to translate the non-english part of the text. Diego (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Distinguishing primary, secondary, tertiary material in op-eds, editorials, official blogs, documentaries
I've done a detailed write-up on this topic, in hopes that parts of it can be repurposed for WP:RS points, and perhaps worked into a supplementary essay. The confusion level with regard to these kinds of sources is high (see top of this talk page), inconsistent as to what the confusions are (ditto), and strongly indicative that the RS guideline and possibly the WP:V policy itself need clarification. (I added news publishers' blogs, and some other parallel cases like documentaries, editorials in journals not news publications, etc., since it was easy to cover them all at once, and they all raise overlapping issues.) I've posted it at WT:Identifying reliable sources. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

When to use fact tag vs. just delete
This topic has had a lot of churn lately, so I thought people here might be interested in this discussion: Template talk:Citation needed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Um... which discussion? Blueboar (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Correction on the entry for Joseph Tainter
In the article on joseph Tainter, there is the sentance "Intense, authoritarian efforts to maintain cohesion by Domitian and Constantine the Great only led to an ever greater strain on the population." I think the author of this article meant Diocletian, not Domitian. You should have one of your editors review this. Diocletian preceded Constantine as the supreme ruler of the empire; Domitian ruled between Titus and Nerva some two centuries earlier when the Empire was (at least according to Gibbon) ascending to it's prime. Diocletian was the emperor that appointed a Caesar, subordinate to him, to rule the west while he dealt with troubles with the Germans (Danube campaigns) and the east (Syrian campaign). The final admission that things were out of hand for a single ruler was when he appointed four rulers. Later, Constantine's had some success against the Franks and the Germans and was able to reconstitute the Empire, albeit briefly. These gains were insufficient in the long run and are probably evidence to what Tainter was referring.

Sincerely,

Stephen Demos 209.119.129.74 (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit... You can correct this yourself. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2015
This is a real page of a real person and its a biography! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisconeribonilla (talk • contribs) 08:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The first attempt, which is the one I saw before it was deleted, was an advertisement, and written as a personal communication. Not allowed, sorry. Wikipedia is a reference work, not a place for attracting attention. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"Citing non-English sources"
In the "Citing non-English sources" section, I propose adding a paragraph something to the effect of: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability is not lowered by citing non-English sources. English is preferable on talk pages, and if the reliability of a given non-English source can not be established on the talk pages, the material citing it may be tagged or removed just the same as if citing any English source." See ex. Articles for deletion/Mohammad mehdi jafari, which is far from the only occasion I've encountered attempts to shift the burden to demonstrate verifiability onto the guy not speaking the language used in some non-English source.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC) [Instead of merely !voting on whether to make the change or not, please also try to present substantive arguments for or against the actual view/interpretation expressed in the proposed change.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)]
 * Oppose - The policy is clear that we allow non-English sources. The burden to demonstrate verifiability is met by supplying a citation to a reliable source - what matters is that the source is reliable, not whether that source is in English or some other language. Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly nothing of what was proposed contradicts your statement.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That might be your intention, but this statement will be understood like this: "I can't make heads or tails out of that source because it's not in English.  You say it's reliable, but I don't trust POV pushers like you anyway.  So obviously it's not proven to be reliable, and therefore you haven't met the BURDEN and I can blank anything I want."  If that's not the outcome you want, then it needs a complete re-write.  You might also want to read the footnote in BURDEN:  the burden is fully met if the editor supplies one (1) source that in that editor's honest opinion is (at least barely) reliable for the specific statement being made.  BURDEN requires the editor to supply a single source that – solely to the best of that editor's understanding and judgment, not to the best of your judgement or mine – is sufficient.  That editor can be honestly wrong about the source's reliability and still have fulfilled the BURDEN.  (And, no, you don't have to keep stuff that can only be supported by an unreliable source, even if the BURDEN is met.  You have the entire rest of this policy, all of NOR and RS, and all the assistance of RSN and NORN to deal with the problem of an actually unreliable source that met the initial BURDEN.  BURDEN isn't the be-all and end-all of sourcing.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whether the source is in English does matter, which is why the policy is clear that "Because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." and "When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations."


 * I addressed this matter in NeilN's WP:RfA, after Andrew Davidson brought it up. In response to Happysquirrel, I stated, "[Citing non-English sources] is allowed, but it is not ideal or completely fine. With non-English sources, there is the case that I need a translator and very likely will not find one if the editor who added the material does not translate. Not to mention, I have to trust that editor is translating correctly and is not abusing my WP:Assume good faith. By paying for a translator, I would certainly find one. The WP:Non-English policy (I'm glad it's a policy instead of a guideline) also makes it clear that online translator devices will likely be dubious, and states, 'Editors should not use machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people. If needed, ask an editor who can translate it for you.' [...] At least in cases that are strictly a WP:Paywall matter, I can pay and then read the source. And in the case of a source that is simply offline, I can go to the library or to some other store. Usually anyway." Flyer22 (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:BURDEN may be abused by unreasonable editors who use it to stonewall or disrupt development of an article (see Arbcom). Per WP:CREEP, we should avoid making matters worse.  Information has to be verifiable but this may require readers to exert themselves.  For example, one might cite a book (English or not) which is out of print.  Accessing this book might require a trip to a library.  The use of foreign language sources is problematic but this is a practical problem, not a matter of principle.  European languages are generally easy to deal with and so should not be prohibited.  Myself, I draw the line at languages such as Arabic and Chinese, but others have facility with these. Andrew D. (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I will also point out that the standard is that someone can verify the material... not necessarily that "you" (or any other editor) can do so. If a source is in a language that you don't know, you can get help from other editors who do know it.  Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The standard is consensus. The proposed change is not suggesting anything beyond that, and is certainly not even tacitly making any reference to "you".--Anders Feder (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Anders Feder, I think you should read WP:RSC. "I can't determine if that book is reliable for this statement because it's not in a language I know" is really no different in principle from "I can't determine if that book is reliable for this statement because I don't own it".  Sometimes you have to ask for help.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't see what problem this addition is trying to solve. The reliability of sources which have been challenged (both English and non-English) is always determined through discussion. --Neil N  talk to me 13:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So, to be clear, do you oppose making the proposed change because you "don't see what problem this addition is trying to solve" or do you oppose the statement made in the proposed change itself or both? If only the former, that would imply that you agree with the statement itself, which would be a helpful alternative to changing the actual formulation of the section.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unnecessary. The current text covers the situation. Your addition does not change anything. --Neil N  talk to me 14:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't what I asked.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See False dilemma --Neil N  talk to me 15:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What is false about it?--Anders Feder (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Simply unnecessary. They can try to shift the burden all they like, but BURDEN says, quite clearly what the burden and the process is, "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. "


 * We don't need to repeat this endlessly for every variation of subject and source that can possibly arise. That is, if we say it for non-English sources, do we also need to say it for books, magazines, newspapers, academic journals, television news reports, radio news reports, etc, etc? We have an adequate general policy here, we don't need to gild the lily for every possible application of that general policy. That's rule creep. If the ones attempting to switch the burden had a semi-credible argument based on some interpretation of, or ambiguity in, this or some other policy, then perhaps such a clarification might be needed, but I've not seen that. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would we say it for "books, magazines, newspapers, academic journals, television news reports, radio news reports, etc, etc"? Has anyone tried to make a similar argument for those types of sources? The following is my response to your previous comment: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability" means whatever it means in WP:BURDEN. In addition to the example given above, see also this exchange. Frankly, a lot of editors think they can just drop a reference to source that is not understandable by other editors and then they are scot-free - that if their counterpart in the discussion can't refute the contents of the foreign-language source (due to it being foreign-language), then it must necessarily be reliable.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose as entirely unnecessary. There is nothing anywhere in policies or guidelines which remotely suggests that the burden of proof is lower regarding non-English sources. Pointless instruction creep. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unnecessary duplication. And for the umpteenth time: A French or even Chinese source is not harder to verify for this average yokel than an advanced maths or theoretical physics source written (allegedly) in English. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sad that even supposedly experienced editors are so much more eager to !vote than to address the issue.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no issue to address, beyond pointing out that policy isn't any different for non-English sources. If someone is arguing that it is, they are simply wrong. This proposed amendment to policy changes nothing, and accordingly cannot resolve anything that existing policy can't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "proposed amendment to policy". There is a proposed change to a specific section of a specific page to make it clearer. There is nothing whatsoever wrong in making existing pages clearer. In fact, policy is seldom established without precedent and writing down existing state of the art practice is completely appropriate. But your mission on these pages is to be grumpy and I congratulate you on your success.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If you don't speak a particular language, you can verify the source by asking someone who does to read it for you.— S Marshall  T/C 18:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's entirely irrelevant - it has nothing to do with the proposed change.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is quite relevant to avoiding instruction creep. Establishing wp:V requires only that someone (vice anyone) can check that a source supports the assertion. If language presents an obstacle to doing so, we have wp:Local_Embassy, various national WikiProjects and wp:Babel to assist in finding helpful human translators, not to mention machine translations for less-critical tasks. Long before requiring translation, I would focus on the need for evidence that a source exists (say a library catalogue entry), but that's not about to happen either. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If "Establishing wp:V requires only that someone (vice anyone) can check that a source supports the assertion", why does the very first sentence of WP:V read: "verifiability means that using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source"? Obviously "anyone" needs to be read narrowly. But if you believe it should be read as narrowly as just "someone", why not change the opening sentence to actually say "someone"?--Anders Feder (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone with sufficient resources and motivation. I can verify content sourced to a book written in Swahili (a language I don't understand) if I had sufficient motivation. --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Where does WP:V say "with sufficient resources and motivation"? I'm all for making up random rules on the spot, but let's not confuse them with actual policy.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Anders Feder, I'm sorry for not elucidating my thought more clearly. Discussions like this have come up a lot on WT:V over the years I've been active here, and each time I think my replies have got more succinct.  Apparently they're now so abbreviated they don't make sense to the original poster.  I accept that this is unhelpful. Sources have to be verifiable.  If I use a source in German, as I sometimes do, I have to specify the source clearly and unambiguously so that you can find it.  But I'm not required to drive to your house and teach you German.  There are good reasons for this, but it's mainly the thinking that Stephan Schulz mentions: whether or not you can find the source is my problem, but whether or not you can understand the source is down to you.  If we didn't follow this principle, then we'd create a tyranny of ignorance where people who don't have the smarts to read the sources create large amounts of unnecessary work for the people who do.— S Marshall  T/C 20:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really disagree. It is not the source itself I am concerned with. It is the establishment of its reliability. Stephan Schulz mentioned theoretical physics sources in English. The material required to verify such a source will almost be English as well, and as such, unproblematic to follow: you generally don't need to understand theoretical physics to follow a demonstration of the reliability of a source about theoretical physics based on English-language materials. What is problematic is when someone cites a source in Klingon, and the material required to verify it is also in Klingon. If we say that whether or not other editors can understand this material is "down to them", we have effectively negated WP:BURDEN in all but letter. Is this what is wanted? Instead of NeilN's bizarre allusions to "false dilemmas", some form of yes-or-no response would be conducive here.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Simple enough. Yes, we do mean that whether or not you understand the source is down to you. Yes, this is intentional.  No, this in no way negates WP:BURDEN.  The consensus about this from previous discussions is old and strong.— S Marshall  T/C 12:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should change the opening sentence to "someone" or to "other people", just to stop the occasional editor from saying that he "can't" verify something because he "won't" spend any time/money/resources/effort on doing so. Also, it's worth pointing out that the sentence says nothing about verifying that the cited source in particular contains that information; the goal is that people be able to verify it somehow, including through methods like asking a reference librarian for help finding a reliable source that isn't cited.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I have the following specific problems with the proposed "clarification":
 * I agree that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability is not lowered by citing non-English sources", or even changed at all. However, the presentation of this fact appears to imply the the burden is higher for non-English sources:  it implies that if I give you a newspaper article that you understand, then you will accept it, but if I give you a newspaper article that you don't understand, then you won't, merely because you don't happen to know enough about the language to be able to figure out what it was (and because you can't be bothered to ask one of the thousands of other editors who speak more languages than just English, or to pay for a professional translation in the same way that you might choose to pay for a source like an academic journal article).
 * I agree that "English is preferable on talk pages", but this is a complete red herring. SPEAKENGLISH does not prohibit people from mentioning or discussing a non-English source on the talk page.  In fact, it's highly desirable for editors to discuss non-English sources on talk pages, even if that means putting non-English words (e.g., the title of the source) on the talk page.
 * I almost agree that "if the reliability of a given non-English source can not be established on the talk pages, the material citing it may be tagged or removed just the same as if citing any English source", except that the talk page is not the only place where reliability might be discussed and/or established, and also that singling out non-English sources implies a desire for (and will be interpreted as requiring) editors to apply a higher standard to non-English sources.
 * The whole feel of this is "we should hold non-English sources to a higher standard, because they're hard for me". If you actually mean "The rules for sources written in English and sources written in other languages are exactly the same", then you should write that instead.
 * An exercise that might be useful to you is to try writing what you mean, only about sources whose reliability you can't verify yourself due to your "failure" to have a nearly infinite amount of money to buy paywalled sources, instead of due to your "failure" to have learned every human language. The two issues are treated identically in Wikipedia's sourcing policies.  The burden is fully met by you providing a citation to a paywalled source, even if I can't afford to check the source myself (or sources that might help me understand whether the source is likely to be reliable); the burden is also fully met by you providing a citation to a non-English source, even if I can't afford to hire a professional translator so that I can check the source myself  (or sources that might help me understand whether the source is likely to be reliable).  In both cases, if you honestly believe that you have cited a reliable source, then you have fully met the burden.  Figuring out how I will get access to the source you've cited is my problem, not yours.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Academic urban legends and citations
Hey folks! I found this article published in Social Studies of Science exploring the history of one claim through multiple citations. It's a good read for anyone who has tracked down errors in published sources when writing a wikipedia article and I think it might be a neat addition to further reading or the notes. Since I'm not a regular editor of this policy page, I'd rather leave it here and ask the rest of the community for their thoughts. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be good to have a link to this; it's quite a story, and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in our verifiability policies as a cautionary tale. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Are opinion pieces primary or secondary?
SlimVirgin raised an interesting point to me earlier today when she pointed out that op-eds are generally secondary sources. This is true by a conventional interpretation, but WP:NEWSBLOG has a bluelink from "opinion piece" to WP:PRIMARY, and because of this I have been operating under the assumption that op-eds should be treated as primary sources. So, according to Wikipedia, are opinion pieces primary or secondary? --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I would say neither, in that the primary-secondary distinction presupposes an objective recounting of information. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on that? I don't have a concept of how to practically deal with 1.5-ary sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's sort of like saying that primary and secondary are classifications of English-language sources, but op-eds are in Urdu. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:PSTS seems to suggest that {primary, secondary, tertiary} is an exhaustive classification of sources. On a related note I have been in the habit of treating scientific papers as primary sources for their original claims, and as secondary sources for the background stuff, which can be invaluable especially in subjects where review articles are rarely written, but SlimVirgin also criticized me for not applying the classification uniformly to the whole article. Is that accurate? Or does the classification depend on which claims are cited?
 * I don't know what to make of Urdu op-eds. Is the bluelink to WP:PRIMARY just a misleading oversight? --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, reliability of a reference depends on the context where it's used, so it must be evaluated for each sentence supported by a reference. Therefore, a paper might be reliable (and secondary) for some sentences in the Wikipedia article, primary for others, and unreliable for some claims. Diego (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your approach to journal papers is the correct one. If it weren't, about 80% of WP material on scientific topics would have to be deleted as unreliably sourced.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the 1.5/Urdu approach isn't useful to us. Primary and secondary (and tertiary) are descriptions of content in their contexts, not of types of publication, no matter how badly WP:Reliable sources confuses this distinction and some editors don't notice the accidental bait-and-switch. The publication format and editorial arrangement of the content are not determining factors.  Any particular source may be a mixture of any two or all three, and may be primary with regard to one fact and secondary for another.   On, op-eds are primary and journalistic articles secondary, but there's a lot of wiggle room. Large swaths of many high-end op-eds are secondary material, bracketed by an opinional hypothesis that relies on that secondary analysis. Factoids repeated from, e.g., statistics sources by news articles are tertiary, while any conclusion drawn from them by the writer is primary if it did not come from another source attributed in the article; and so on.  We have to stop thinking in terms of "newspapers are secondary", "science journal articles are primary", "a subject-specific encyclopedia is tertiary".  It's like saying "a dish with chicken in it tastes good", "adult supervision will protect a child", "all Ford Tauruses run smoothly".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ideally an opinion piece is composed of two kind of statements: (II) these are the facts..., and (I) these are my opinions about these facts...
 * (II) is the secondary source part of the opinion piece, (I) is its primary source part. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me - you're saying that the distinction between primary and secondary depends on what claim is cited. So maybe this should be clarified in WP:PSTS? --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:PSTS tends to cause more confusion than it resolves... it needs an over-haul. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:RSOPINION, maybe also WP:WEASEL, which I suppose Wikipedia's current way of dealing with this. These are guidelines: giving full detail about what exactly is primary and what exactly is secondary in which circumstances is hardly something we'd write in a policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:RSOPINION talks about reliability and attribution, which are different issues. Whether a source is primary matters, for example, because it determines whether it is subject to the "extreme caution" required by WP:BLPPRIMARY, whether it counts toward establishing notability in an AfD discussion, and whether a Wikipedia article can be mainly based on such sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In the context of notability (AfD, sufficient basis for Wikipedia article,...) opinion pieces count as secondary sources (they contain at least a secondary source part, that part contributes to the notability as much as any other secondary source that is not a mere listing).
 * In the context of WP:PRIMARY the "caution" provision only applies to the primary source part of the opinion piece. As said the policy doesn't detail for every type of "primary" source what needs to be done. But an advantage is that for opinion pieces the way the caution needs to be applied to the primary source part is a fairly standardized procedure, which is described in the reliable sources guideline under the header WP:RSOPINION (in short: "attribution" is the way to exert "caution" in such context).
 * Regarding main content of a Wikipedia article: start with filling the article with the secondary source content. Possibly add some opinions to it, but don't start with a list of quoted opinions before giving the facts everyone agrees on:
 * statement "this film was released in year xxxx and directed by xyz, with a cash return of abc,def"
 * statement "y1 thought it a good movie, y2 thought it a bad movie"
 * Guess which statement should be used first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, for questions regarding source/article/statement combinations you have in mind, please go to WP:RSN: we can theorize about this all we want, but I sense you have particular questions to resolve in this sense, here is hardly the place to sort that out. If the general answers you received here have helped you out sufficiently, I was happy to oblige. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Opinion pieces play a dual role. In principle they could be secondary sources for facts they assert about the world at large, but because opinion pieces aren't fact-checked the way news pieces are, they usually can't be considered reliable, except perhaps those from a writer well known for his or her reliability. Other than that, they are primary sources for the opinions of their writers (e.g. in an article Smith, we might write "Smith, in an opinion piece for the Morning Bugle, asserted that taxes should never be used for ..." etc.). However, we then run into the usual limitations on primary sources -- we generally wouldn't use such material unless some independent secondary source (e.g. a biography of Smith) discusses Smith's positions on taxes; in this case, we might use one of his opinion pieces to illustrate what the secondary source is saying. EEng (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But could be secondary sources for facts they assert about the world at large, but because opinion pieces aren't fact-checked the way news pieces are, they usually can't be considered reliable, except perhaps those from a writer well known for his or her reliability is mix-and-matching rationales and definitions. An opinion piece that asserts facts is a primary source for them . That's what "primary source" . (Old sources, that were secondary when written, are be treated as if primary, because sources close to an event cannot benefit from later analysis of greater amounts of information, corrected factual errors, and broader analysis. Some publishers external to Wikipedia like to say that old sources "are" primary, but this is just unclear use of language. There is no transubstantiation from secondary to primary, and much confusion can be avoided on WP and in researching in general by being clear in one's mind about that.)  Furthermore a 'writer well known for ... reliability" does not have some magic Wand of Secondariness that makes their work not primary when it's just their own opinion, or not treated as if primary when it's 100 years old. [Obviously, an op-ed may also include substantial secondary material supporting their own primary material.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to keep a journalist from writing a column that analyses some primary and secondary sources, and draws some conclusion about them, which would be a secondary statement. The journalist could go on to express his/her own opinion, which would be a primary statement. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've been making this point elsewhere in the thread, and just wrote unclearly in that post. I'm clarifying it with insertion .  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to ask: does it really matter whether an Op-ed piece is Primary or Secondary? I don't think it does... The important question is whether a specific op-ed piece is being used appropriately.  There is a very good essay on the appropriate use of sources... see: WP:NOTGOODSOURCE and its sub-section WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD.  Whether we consider an op-ed piece to be primary or secondary (or some mix of the two)... I would say that there are limited situations in which it is appropriate to use them.  We always need to question how much WP:WEIGHT to give an op-ed piece... and when we do use one we should always attribute it to it's author. In essence, they should be treated as self-published works (even though they are not physically published by the "self" who wrote it). Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the primary/secondary thing does matter in two repects:
 * Does the Op-ed count when determining the number of third-party sources in a notability logic (primary sources usually don't add up in that logic)? The answer is YES, the Op-ed counts as a secondary source there.
 * Are a journalist's opinions primary or secondary? Well, they're primary, I chose to explain the primary source precautions mentioned in WP:OR, as applicable to the context, by referring to a guideline – sure the same can be done by referring to an essay, and illustrate it by "don't read the three core content policies in isolation of one another". --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as an op-ed counting towards notability goes... I think it is far more nuanced than a dualistic if Secondary = good / if Primary = bad. For one thing, not all op-eds are equal.  Sure, an op-ed on some topic written by a nationally known columnistand published in a large circulation, big city newspaper should count positively towards notability of the topic ... but an op-ed piece on the same topic, written by an obscure unknown and only published in a small town, low circulation paper does not have enough of an audience to count towards notability. It's more a function of audience than the primary/secondary nature of the source. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A nationally-known columnist published in a large-circulation newspaper absolutely does not have their opinional material somehow transmogrify into secondary sourcing. It is, of course, true that not all op-eds are equal, and that publisher and author reputability are important factors, but it is impossible for reputation to change anecdotal opinion into researched analysis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) With regard to Francis Schonken's first point, it cannot possibly be true that an op-ed necessarily "counts as a secondary source" for WP:N purposes, as if by magic. It would only do so when the substantial, independent coverage of the topic in the (reputably published) op-ed is actually secondary material based on previous publication and, in that part, is expressing few if any opinional claims as a primary source on the topic, even if the piece as a whole is advancing an opinion as its main objective. Fortunately, that is often the case, so op-eds can be used as sources that help establish notability. But this is not  true.  As with so much else, it's a case-by-case matter.[*] I agree on the second point. There's no such thing as an  that's secondary. Secondary sourcing is analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis (WP:AEIS) of primary and/or other secondary material, that is not advancing a novel claim beyond connecting the dots between its own sources. If it's asserting something new (expressing an opinion) beyond that, then it's a primary source (even if it also relies on previously published sources to arrive at the new hypothesis), no matter who wrote or published it. If all it does is catalogue, summarize, or list previously published material without introducing even AIES, then it's tertiary. All three kinds of material are often found in the same source (any subject-specific encyclopedic compendium by a subject-matter expert will almost certainly be a three-way mixture, for example, and any newspaper contains all three between its covers every day). The reason people on WP are are having difficulty with this is that WP:Reliable sources is poorly written and tends to speak of these categories in terms of types of publications instead of types of . This is something that badly needs to be corrected.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)  * Clarification: While WP:N allows for the use of non-secondary but reliable material to  establish notability, after there's at least one reliable secondary source, it does not follow that every primary source that could be reliable for something in one context is necessarily reliable for notability or any other purposes for other material in it or in every possible context, because WP:RS relies on multiple context-dependent criteria, and the PSTS nature of the content in a single work can vary. Newspaper book/album/movie reviews are generally considered to help (but not alone) establish notability because they're part of an editorial review process that includes substantial winnowing. If a review of a new work makes into print (or e-print, whatever) in a major, reputable publication, this is evidence of notability of the work for the very reason that it survived such a process.  When an op-ed writer, subject to little revision by publication's editors, writing about the environmental impact of Proposition 12 goes into a lengthy, promotional aside about how Green Today, Healthy Tomorrow by J. Random Activist, a self-published book no one's heard of (for all we know, the author is the writer's employer or spouse), was her inspiration for getting involved in the issue, and provides enough material about this book to be "non-trivial" "coverage", this does  actually constitute "coverage" by the reliable source (the reputably published newspaper) at all; it's just trivia and spam their editors didn't bother to excise. It has nothing to do with why they ran the editorial. The real substantiveness is in the political opinion of the writer on the environmental impact of the ballot measure. The  and neutrality of the material someone wants to claim is "substantial coverage" is actually quite important here. One of the principal problems with op-eds is that they are often non-neutral not just about the topic they express an opinion on (we already know that and we are accounting for it), but whatever other crap they're including, which often involves a . We cannot actually determine anything about the independence of op-ed material in most cases, yet independence is required in order for a source to help establish notability. Ergo, op-eds (vs editorials) often can help for WP:N purposes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Late reply: Blueboar's instinct is right:  It doesn't actually matter whether an opinion piece is primary or secondary.

The reason it doesn't matter is that Wikipedia editors are almost never allowed to use opinion pieces to support claims of facts (e.g., "President Obama isn't a citizen of Kenya"). You may only use them to assert facts about the author's opinion ("Emily Editor wrote that Obama isn't a citizen of Kenya"). Regardless of the intrinsic nature of the source, opinion pieces may only be used on Wikipedia as if they were primary sources. Whether they truly "are" primary (and according to which academic field's standards, because they do vary) is a sideshow; you must use them as if they were primary. See the official rule at WP:NEWSORG:

That's been present and accepted for years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And in WP:GNG:
 * For any subject mentioned in an opinion piece published in e.g. a reputable newspaper such pieces are "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" so it adds up to the notability criterion for that subject. Also there the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction is mostly rather philosophical than practical for the determination of Wikipedia's content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I addressed above, that is not categorically true.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For any subject mentioned in an opinion piece published in e.g. a reputable newspaper such pieces are "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" so it adds up to the notability criterion for that subject, as addressed above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I've already addressed this above. That's usually going to be true for editorials, but not so much for op-eds, because independence from the subject can't be established with regard to the writer. You can't conflate editorials and op-eds on this, even if they are similar in many ways for other analyses.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What is primary or secondary does not vary for WP; different fields' individual academic standards for what they consider secondary within their ambit is completely irrelevant to WP:RS. The only reason we would care at all is that some judgement must occasionally be exercised when evaluating some external source's description of some other source, or the ways it relies on other sources. WP cares about the end-product that is the cited source. If it contains a novel not analytic claim, it's a primary source for that claim for WP purposes, no matter how it's authors defined "primary" and "secondary" for their own purposes.  Aside from that quibble, I certainly agree with WhatamIdoing's point.  There is no question at all that WP treats op-eds and editorials as primary sources by default, and absolutely for any opinion, conjecture, or hypothesis in them, and that there is no conflict on this point between the relevant policies and guidelines. Francis Schonken's point is better expressed as something like "where an op-ed contains secondary material that is substantial, independent coverage of a topic, that material can help establish the topic's notability".  But it can't go beyond that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that Francis is correct in one respect: editors at AFD often seem to believe the entire contents of a newspaper to be secondary, because they don't understand that WP:Secondary does not mean independent.  The result of this ignorance – or, let's put the blame where it's probably due:  the result of using a fancy scholarly-sounding word in WP:N without explaining what was meant and why we're including it – is editors declaring that eyewitness news reports are "secondary sources", which not even the most lax historian would ever agree to.  When questioned, they will tell you that the news story is secondary because the reporters only saw the events happen with their own two eyes, but did not directly participate in it.  That's the definition of WP:INDY, but they don't get it.  And they have no incentive to get it, because the fact is that the English Wikipedia routinely accepts articles about current events, under the GNG, for which no actual secondary sources exist.  So they're giving the correct, consensus-based "vote", but they're giving a rationale for it that would get them flunked out of an introductory class on history.
 * I have wondered on occasion whether the solution is to remove the "secondary" requirements from the GNG. We are probably putting too much emphasis on this fuzzy distinction, and not enough on writing encyclopedic articles with due weight given to all aspects. (Another fantasy-land alternative is to enforce it quite strictly on any article more than a week or two old, possibly with the aid of professional historians to tell editors when their favorite sources aren't actually secondaries.  I suspect that we'll just keep muddling through, though.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: 'Francis is correct in one respect: editors at AFD often seem to believe the entire contents of a newspaper to be secondary' – Sure, and it's a point I'm making consistently with him. But, 'they don't understand that WP:Secondary does not mean independent' – oddly enough, that's the point FS is missing about misuse of op-eds (vs. editorials) to try to support notability claims, even if he makes the same kind of point to others about some other kinds of sources.  I'm chalking it up a temporary blind spot. It happens; I even contradicted myself on this very page earlier, regarding one of the three revision proposals, and had to change one of my !votes after realizing that one of my GAMING concerns was due to a side effect of something I was supporting. [shrug]. I very, very strongly agree with your take on the "it's in a newspaper so it must be secondary" belief being common and notable problem. I think our #1 problem in the WP:V / WP:RS sphere is the misuse of "secondary", etc., as if they are permanent descriptions of entire publications of mixed content types, or even entire classes of such publications, rather than descriptions of particular pieces of content in a particular context.  This talk page is drowning in that confusion, even going so far as denials that journal articles can ever be secondary sources for anything unless they are literature reviews, and belief that third-party opinion piece (an  piece!) is a secondary source if it was published by a news media outlet. And this is coming from long-experienced, intelligent editors who are certain they understand this policy area. This is pretty much incontrovertible proof that the WP:PSTS wording has to be revised, though WT:V is not the place to propose the new wording.  If we do fix that, I think that this will auto-correct a lot of cascading problems, like confusing secondary with INDY with reputable and so on.  They're being confused because the meanings of some of them are not just poorly explained, but in some cases irrationally "un-splained" by turning their real meanings on their ear.  The misdefinition of PSTS as labels for publications or types of publications instead of content has been the result of a well-meaning but counterproductive attempt to keep it as simple as possible, to say "yeah, you can use a newspaper, now go write content". But the KISS principle only applies when oversimplification doesn't lead to increased complexity in the long run, which has happened here.  GNG isn't broken; PSTS is, and that's where the unnecessary fuzziness is. It's not been caught by enough editors because most of the time when we cite a newspaper we're citing secondary material in it, and a  problem isn't apparent. It's only shows up when the "logic" [laugh] of the PSTS wording is used in more complex debates and it collapses in its own backward reasoning. I'm reminded of the death throes of the "pig-lizard" turned inside-out by transporter malfunction in Galaxy Quest.   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh, none of this seems particularily relevant regarding the topic of this section. We can make infinite distinctions regarding the nature of sources, and SMcC is particularily expedient at that, none of this has however much relevance for dealing with practical questions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

How wide is the "original research" exception for articles on fictional works?
I am aware of only one "official" exception to WP:OR, and that is for plot summaries in otherwise notable articles on works of fiction. That exception seems to be detailed in MOS:PLOT, part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines, which is a subsection of the broader guideline WP:MOSFICT.

It reads: "'The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary.'"

However, I find that there is a really massive amount of detailed original research arcana in the article space on Wikipedia, generally completely unsourced, on various minor characters from fictional works, or "List of characters in ..." fictional work articles.

So my question is, are there other exceptions of WP:V and WP:OR. Places where, by policy, the community has decided that fictional work OR is okay, and verifiability is not important?

Thanks. N2e (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No - there is no exception to WP:OR. If not sourced to third parties, any plot summaries / commentaries/ character descriptions must abide by WP:OR and be merely summaries or uncontested condensations  of the primary source - policy does not allow any interpretation or commentary. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I get your point about "summaries or uncontested condensations of the primary source"; but I believe that is only applicable on (as I quoted MOS:PLOT above) a " a page about that work, [which] does not need to be sourced with in-line citations". So I get that plot summaries must not include additional sythesis.  So I may have asked my question poorly.  Let me try to clarify.


 * My question is really then, given that, how many other articles get this "plot summary" exception and don't need to be sourced to published, third party reliable sources? Can the exception to WP:RS, once allowed for a plot summary for a work of fiction, be allowed to then be extended to other articles?  For example, to an unending list of minor characters?  I occasionally run into editors who assert that the plot summary exception can be applied to a fair amount of arcana about particular characters in other articles, way beyond the original article on the named work of fiction.  Here's one example:  "'It's sourced TO THE TV SHOW ITSELF. It's not original research to give a summary of a work of fiction using the work of fiction as the source itself. It's the primary source. You just don't know the rules when it comes to writing fiction and how EVERY page on TV shows, film series, comic books, and book series all do the same thing.'"


 * I agree with that editor that a (very) large number of article pages "on TV shows, film series, comic books, and book series all do the same thing." They have LOTS of unsourced OR detailed plot-related arcana about obscure characters in the show/book/etc.  I'm just trying to find out if it is okay to extend the plot summary exception to WP:RS to all of that?  N2e (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, there's no exception to WP:RS, nor to WP:V. "Third party" sources ("..independent of the subject..") is a WP:GNG concept. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Expanding (ec):
 * (GNG:) if there isn't significant coverage of the subject in reliable third-party sources, you haven't got enough base material for a Wikipedia article on the subject (article can be deleted by AfD, PROD, or in extreme cases speedied).
 * (OR/V/RS:) once there is a viable article its content and its sourcing should comply to NOR/V/RS (et.al., like NPOV), none of which make the exclusive use of third party sources obligatory. Not for any subject. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Re. "It's sourced TO THE TV SHOW ITSELF" – WP:V is only complied to when the TV-show is obtainable (unedited at least for the part on which the Wikipedia content is based) after such information is added to the article (and no interpretative claims etc.). Very detailed Wikipedia content not covered by secondary sources may however present WP:BALASPS problems; on the other hand, a basic description of any subject based on available primary sources (when other reliable sources only have other content on the subject) is never a problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Plot summaries are not "an exemption" to WP:NOR... they are explicitly allowed by that policy: "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. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, Blueboar. N2e, are you interpreting the WP:OR policy to simply mean "unsourced"? Something can be unsourced, or without an inline citation, in an article and still not be WP:OR. Like the reference in the WP:OR policy states after the word exist for its second lead sentence, "By 'exists', the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source."


 * The play, book, television show, or movie is the source, just like you've been told. I've told the same thing to editors who've insisted that the plot section is unsourced and/or WP:OR because it lacks inline citations. If an editor engages in WP:OR with that plot summary, then that's obviously a problem. I understand that you are wondering how you can know if the plot section is true unless you've read the book or watched the show or film. Well, like I've stated on such matters, when it's not true, an editor usually comes along and corrects it. It's also commonly easy to Google the matter and see what's true and what is not; at least for some of the plot material. One area where this is difficult, though, is soap operas because daytime soap operas commonly air five days a week with a new episode each day, and usually don't play reruns (if the reruns happen, it's usually on holidays); that's how it usually is for American daytime soap operas anyway. See the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 5 2011 discussion about this. Recently, American soap operas have been dying off, though, with occasional resurgences. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That was a very helpful response, Flyer22, and Blueboar. So I see now that I was confused as to exactly which actions in this sort of description of fiction is OR vs. Notability vs. etc.  OR is not the same thing as just putting in a plot summary, in a named article on the work of fiction, without any source, etc.  And, yes, definite problem is it is very  challenging to insure Wikipedia keeps an NPOV in these cases were first-person research (but not OR) is done from viewing/reading the work of fiction.  N2e (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue may be a conflation of several concepts. While WP:V, WP:OR , WP:NPOV (and its subsection WP:UNDUE ) and WP:N have inter-relations and impact how the others are applied, they are distinct concepts on their own, and how they apply depends upon the question being asked.

For example, "Do the policies allow me to put into an article the statement 'Marge Simpson's hair is blue' based upon the TV show itself?"
 * Does the statement pass WP:V? Yes, it is verifiable by looking at the show that Marge's hair is blue.
 * Does the statement pass WP:OR by not making any claim or analysis or implication that is not directly supported by the source? Yes, it passes WP:OR in that any person watching the show will agree that Marge's hair is blue.
 * Does it pass WP:NPOV? In this case the answer is "It depends". If the article is about the Simpsons, then in many cases "yes". If the article is about hair salons in China, then probably no, talking about Marge Simpson's hair color would be WP:UNDUE.
 * Does the claim and the source establish or help establish that the article the sentence is in meets WP:GNG? No. The TV show is a primary source for the color of Marge's hair and does not establish that third parties have discussed the subject. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, very helpful response TPoD! I've been conflating some of the core policies, for sure.  Your delineation of the policies and issues is quite helpful.  Moreover, now I realize I may even be confusing some of the good people trying to help me as the Talk page section title is "How wide is the "original research" exception for articles on Fictional works?", but we are really talking about a larger issue, and what WP core policy says with respect to that, and what are the implications for the quality of the encyclopedia, and particular articles, as a result.  Should I perhaps change the section title now, to make it more clear?  Or start a new section???  N2e (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't change the section header name at this point because it would change the context of other people's comments. You may wish to insert a subsection header. Or if the conversation below is heading in the direction that answers your question, just let it roll. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The article the OP is talking about is List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters. When the editor arrived at the article, it had no sources at all (see this version)
 * On the Talk page, at one point they seem to make the error applying NOTABILITY to specific bits of article content (e.g. whether to discuss a particular character at all, and perhaps how much) which is a mistake - NOTABILITY only applies to articles as a whole.  I think the WP-appropriate policy question is whether the mention of the character (or weight given to the description) is UNDUE, which you can generally only settle via independent, secondary sources.  That is a good question.
 * IP editors arguing with the OP on the Talk were making the point that the descriptions of the characters didn't need any sourcing per MOS:PLOT - in other words, the whole article didn't need sourcing at all. That seems to be a bad argument to me, as nothing showed NOTABILITY for the article as a whole (but List articles are generally a nightmare to me)
 * The OP seems to making the claim that this article, List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters, is not the article on the show, which is Power Rangers Dino Charge and so MOS:PLOT does not apply anyway.  That seems kind of wiki-lawyer-y to me. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As an aside, the article has all kinds of interpretative language in it, cited only to the show:
 * "Tyler Navarro is the enthusiastic and adventurous leader of the team, "
 * "Shelby Watkins is a clumsy, slightly ditzy tomboy who works as a waitress at the Dino Bite Cafe inside the Amber Beach Dinosaur Museum. Shelby also has a vast knowledge of dinosaurs, "
 * "Chase Randall is the suave laid-back member of the group from New Zealand with a cat and mouse personality. He is a skateboarder and likes to flirt with pretty girls."
 * "Wrench is another of Sledge's generals who has a whining personality if he is badly hurt. "
 * The "color" in these description is WP:OR I believe, as we cannot interpret primary sources. Seems like a fan-blog, not a wikipedia article.  Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK... here is my advice on the article... first is the issue of WP:Notability ... the lead of the article needs to establish that the characters of "Power Rangers Dino Charge" are notable enough as a group for Wikipedia to have a separate list article about them. For that, we need reliable secondary sources that are independent of the TV show ... sources that discuss these characters as a group. If this can not be established, the list should probably be merged into the article on the show (as a sub-section).
 * Assuming we can establish notability, we then move to the issue of content... which characters to include and exclude. This is a function of WP:Due Weight... It may be that some of the characters are worth mentioning while others are not. Characters that appear in every episode would appropriately be given more weight than those that only appear occasionally, and those that have only appeared in one or two episodes are probably too marginal to be worth mentioning at all.  Characters that have been discussed by reliable sources should be given weight... those that have not been discussed by reliable sources should not.
 * Finally, once we determine which characters are worth mentioning, we have to determine what to say about them. This information needs to be Verifiable. VERY BASIC description ("Fred Smith is the Taupe Ranger - it was established in episode nineteen that he is gay") can be verified by the show itself.  Character analysis and evaluation (such as "Fred is likable and kind, but overly trusting") requires an external source. Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes.Jytdog (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Slight persnickety: "Fred Smith is the Taupe Ranger - it was established in episode nineteen that he is gay when he came out to his parents" => OK - content of the show directly establishes claim. "Fred Smith is the Taupe Ranger - it was established in episode eighteen that he is gay when he said he likes to arrange flowers and listen to kd lang and admires Harvey Milk" =>Not OK - evaluative interpretation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with the spirit of Blueboar's comment, but I believe the implied line described here is too tight. Broad aspects of character that any reasonably competent reader/viewer will notice is not OR.  (I am too old for the Power Rangers, so I will switch examples.)  "Scooby-Doo is easily scared and not too bright."  Do we really need to source the fact that he is definitely no Einstein?  If you insist. Choor monster (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How dare you! scooby doo is a genius!  see here.  :)  pop culture articles in WP give me hives. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Can I point out that WP:PRIMARY, which is part of the no original research policy, says in one of the strongest statements in Wikipedia policy: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Note the word "evaluate." I would suggest to TRPoD that his statements about the color of Marge Simpson's hair and that about Fred Smith aren't necessarily consistent, though as I'm about to say I generally agree with the end result. That is: I agree entirely with TRPoD's statement about Fred Smith, but I'm uncomfortable with the one about evaluating Marge Simpson's hair color as blue, at least in Wikitheory. On the other hand, I'm okay with evaluating her hair as blue as one of those kinds of local exception to policy which stand because no one reverts it and which thus weakly implies that no one disagrees with it. But like all of those exceptions, if someone objects to it (either because they disagree with the evaluation — is Scooby Doo's coat tan or brown? — or merely because it violates the no-evaluation rule), then a "positive" consensus has to be formed to support the exception or a reliable source has to be found to support it. Choor monster, yes, indeed, we do need to source that fact and if it's that important to the character it's certainly been discussed in some episode or third party source.Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me just say that I greatly appreciate the help in clarifying and interpreting the Wikipedia policy(ies) that have emerged to make this such a great, and very useful, encyclopedia. I've learned much, including that the presumption I had in my original question in the Talk page section header above ("How wide is the "original research" exception for articles on Fictional works?") was incorrect. While OR does not allow synthesis, it is fairly clear that WP:GNG and WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE are probably more of the problem in the sorts of articles with excessive (often unsourced) fancruft in articles on works of fiction that brought me here to ask the question.

I've learned a lot, and am still learning, from the discussion here. Thanks. N2e (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Would anyone be willing to help with a project—or point to a project if one already exists—to develop a set of friendly, policy-compliant "best practices" to use when one approaches a WP article on a fictional characters to improve the encyclopedia and do it in a civil and constructive way? I'm thinking of lot of WP articles that are full of fancruft, and nearly "Wikia"-ish in the actual content one sees in the article, rather than Wikipedish.  So if an editor would like to help, at the margin, and select an article or few to improve over time, is there a "best order" (e.g., article notability [{WP:OR]]/WP:SYN; or just looking for secondary sources first; or ???) that might have emerged as a good way to tackle such improvement efforts?  Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed this conversation, but might recommend Manual of Style/Writing about fiction as a good starting point, though it isn't character-specific. I'd be willing to help with the development of the project in a limited capacity, but don't really have the resources to do any significant article improvement at this time. DonIago (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not going to wade into this in whole-thread detail. I concur with TRPoD near the top. The MOS guidance here is not some magical NOR exception; it's an interpretation of V / RS. If people are engaging in their own novel analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis (WP:AEIS) of a work of fiction that's an NOR problem. On a side note, the wording in MOS cannot be interpreted with WP:LAWYER level nit-picking. :-) All of WP:POLICY is interpreted in relation to all the rest of WP:POLICY; the fact that WP:SUMMARY exists and tells us to branch long articles into subarticles automatically means that any guideline that applies to the main article on work of fiction doesn't stop applying if some of its content forks out into sub-articles to keep the main one from being a mile long. A published work is still a source, naturally, for what the published work says. And the published work is actually cited, once, at the article on that work.  What the MOS bit means is we don't add redundant citations, statement after statement in plot summaries; the entire plot summary as a whole is sourced by the most reliable source possible on what the work says, itself. It's perfectly legitimate to cite a list of characters in the work to the work. It's not legitimate to add personal interpretations to the main or sub-articles.  It's also unwise to only cite the novel/whatever one time in something like a list of characters, but rather to do so once per entry; if the work is notable enough to need such a list, its highly likely that secondary source material has been written about various characters and that details from such sources will be added to our list article, citing those sources. As with glossary articles (which character lists are often formatted as), such pages are almost always best sourced on an entry-by-entry basis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of challenged material
WP:V contains this text:
 * "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"

while WP:BLP contains this text:


 * "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation."

Given these policy statements, once material has been challenged and removed, under what circumstances can an editor restore it without providing an inline citation in the same edit? Any? Or is the editor obligated to find the source prior to restoring the material? If there's an acceptable lag between restoration and sourcing, what is it?&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The restoring editor might be putting the disputed statement back in one edit, then intend to provide the source in a subsequent edit. I think a suitable lag would be the time it takes to find and fill in a CITET template. I'd give it an hour, tops, assuming the restoring editor isn't explaining why it might take longer than that. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  14:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And, politely, without intending to hound: why don't we demand that the editor find and fill in that template before saving?&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In purely practical terms, and with sometimes mildly demanding wikitable markup, it's much easier to add the citations alone rather than re-insert sections into tables along with their refs. Plus, it's easier to work with a crib sheet of "missing answers".  As long as it's not controversial, there shouldn't be a problem.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Some articles have the list of references in a section the the bottom, such as this one. It's not unreasonable for someone to edit one section to add the info, put the citet template in the references section in a second edit, then come back to do the inline[1] thing in a third edit. I think an hour is generous enough for someone who's slow about it. I don't think waiting forever on the off chance they might come back to source their stuff is required. Generally if you've got a reason for breaking the process up into multiple edits you'd want to communicate why in edit summaries. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  16:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the RfC template as the question is answered in great detail on the policy page, both in general for WP:V (see WP:V, third paragraph of the section) as in particular for WP:BLP (WP:BLP, and subsequent subsections). I oppose calling an RfC for a question that basically comes down to: can you point me to the appropriate section in the guidance?

When you're challenging the guidance, first ask, before calling an RfC. Or go straight to a dramaboard (which this talkpage isn't). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Francis Schonken I've restored the RFC template, for the reason that the interpretation of those sentences is being disputed to the point that I am risking being desysopped for enforcing my interpretation (which is that the source must be provided in the same edit). I was hoping to get an interpretation divorced from that conflict, and I guess that opportunity is shot to hell now, but it is apparent that there is some community disagreement about the timing and sequence of when the source must be supplied vs. when the material is restored.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, then go read the policies. You'll have your answer. Sorry to hear about the challenging of your sysop bit. Calling an RfC for something that is plain in the guidance is however not how a sysop should behave (and would incline me to support removing the sysop bit if I were interested enough to have my voice heard in this). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read the policies, Francis Schonken. Can you point at any piece of them that supports the restoration of challenged material while unaccompanied by an inline citation?&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not every removal of unsourced material is "challenging" – it may e.g. be plain vandalism. BLP has a few conditions built in, e.g. that the removed material is "contentious", if you can't make the judgement call whether material is contentious or not, you shouldn't be "enforcing" anything. Removals of non-contentious material can often be reverted with the addition of a cn notice (which WP:V describes), but that also is a judgement call, e.g. countering plain vandalism removals with a cn may be heavy-handed. So the answer to your question, when material without an inline citation is removed can it only be reinserted with a citation is: IT DEPENDS, and requires a judgement call more often than not. Trying to shortcut the judgement call part goes against policy, and editors acting without the judgement call part would probably better not be enforcing anything. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How could there possibly be any GREATER "challenge" to content than outright removal????? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Really, is that the level of this discussion? I'm not going to see a removal like this one as a "challenge" to the validity of the removed content. ever. whether there are refs in it or not, no difference: removal, but no "challenging" of material. Repeating my proposal to fold this discussion with a link where the discussion was (and still is) going on before this forumshopping began. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is an unexplained removal of cited material, not what we are discussing at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "outright removal" is not by definition a "GREAT challenge", QED. Quite often it's not even a challenge of the material at all.
 * Re. "what we are discussing" – whatever we're discussing, platitudes don't help. FYI, I was discussing "Not every removal of unsourced material is challenging", that's the comment you replied to. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we were all discussing removal of unsourced information. And you replied by linking to an unexplained removal of sourced info. To which I responded "What does that have to do with what we are discussing?" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The off-topic "How could there possibly be any GREATER "challenge" to content than outright removal?????" remark came before I gave the example that contained both sourced and unsourced material. Besides the example contained enough unsourced material to illustrate what was said: vandalistic and/or clueless "removals" don't "challenge" encyclopedia content on any level, whether the removals contain sourced or unsourced material (or both). So, no "outright removal" is not necessarily a challenge to content, and certainly not by definition one of the "GREATER challenge(s) to content". So can we skip platitudes and get to the topic being discussed here? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not "off topic" to point out that your position was based on the weird presumption that removal of content is not a challenge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is, again, not what I said. I said it is not always a challenge. Can we quit this non-level of discussion? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Francis Schonken, cn is only discussed in terms of what an editor can do before removing challenged material. There's no mention at all about using in when restoring text.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, if you can't distinguish between "removed material" and "contentious material", and think "challenged" applies to both in the same degree, getting better acquaintance with the actual policy would probably be more beneficial than fighting the desysopping. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comments center exclusively upon what practices policy indicates should be addressed in the context of removing material, and do not address the question I attempted to start an RFC over at all.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your question was about "challenged" material. "Challenging" is not a mechanical concept (we'd have bots to handle it if it were). The policies explain the nuances, depending on circumstances, of what challenging is. No RfC is needed to explain "hey, don't interpret challenging as if it were a mechanical concept, for example by enforcing that no removed content would be brought back without an inline citation". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about undoing a vandal's section blanking and in the process restoring an unsourced paragraph. We're talking about material removed specifically because it is unsourced and, yes, that is a bright line rule, just like 3RR. It is never OK to restore it without a supporting citation. The only question is whether there's a bit of wiggle room about the sourcing and the restoration being in the same edit. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  19:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A vandal removing a single unsourced sentence and writing "challenging unsourced statement" in the edit summary would still be a vandal. So "unless the challenged statement is vandalism or potentially libellous" (as it was in the answer already given to kww before coming here) the editwarring is a far brighter line than the judgement call needed to assess whether a removal is a WP:V challenging that supersedes WP:BITE and whatnot (as carefully explained to kww before coming here with the same question he had already gotten an answer to). --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "A vandal removing a single unsourced sentence and writing "challenging unsourced statement" in the edit summary would still be a vandal."- nope, you are wrong. That is not vandalism, ever. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  20:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Re. "That is not vandalism, ever" – It could be vandalism, easily: below "retaliation" is mentioned as a reason why it could be vandalism, to which I'd add other possibilities like WP:SOCKing; WP:DISRUPTing Wikipedia for whatever (lack of) reason; WP:GAMEing the system;...and whatnot. All of which require sensible editors to interpret whether that's the case or not. Rewriting WP:V in bulldozer format so that these judgement calls are no longer necessary is not helping the encyclopedia at all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: WP:FORUMSHOP is also a very bright line, and I'm inclined to fold this discussion with a link to where the original discussion is taking place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The BURDEN section of this policy says, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." (Emphasis added.) I would ordinarily argue that the "should" makes that a best practice, not a requirement, but the language first quoted by Kww, above, says "must" so I think that this is merely a re-emphasis of that requirement, not a new rule, and is therefore mandatory. Moreover, any unsourced material can be removed, whether it's a restoration or a new edit, so in some ways it doesn't matter. However, it should be noted that there's no exception to 3RR or the edit war policies for removing restoration of unsourced edits. On the "same edit" question, I agree with Reyk. Heck, though I'm absolutely committed to previewing and providing edit summaries on every edit I make, I still sometimes hit the save page button before I remember to do so. Editors are human and instantaneously reverting a restoration fails to AGF. Give them some time and then remind them of their obligation and give them another chance before reverting. If they still revert after that, take them to ANI or seek dispute resolution, don't edit war. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * To the above I would add, the BURDEN section of this policy says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored 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." Right there is the answer to the question of whether the citation must be added at the same time the material is restored. And, I might add, a claim that X won Y award followed by [Citation needed] or [unreliable source] tells the reader not to trust the claim. Deleting it when you have no real reason to think it is false harms the LP (slightly) if it turns out to be true. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Guy, that tells you that the speed of the removal depends on numerous factors. It pretty clearly states that restoration should not occur without an inline citation.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Imho this highlights the problem: picking one ore two policies while ignoring the broader context of other, as applicable, guidance. Thinking that taking half a paragraph of this policy is a token with which to smash all other relevant guidance including WP:BITE, WP:AGF etc., even when the second half of that same paragraph clearly indicates limits with which this can be enforced.
 * It is clear why kww wants to have this discussion on this talk page: in order to maximise ignorance of behavioral constraints (note that ArbCom cases generally judge behavior, not content) – so, repeating my proposal to hat this discussion here to take it back, with an appropriate link, to where the discussion is taking place since before the forumshopping began. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * First, this discussion ignores the possibility that the restoring editor has provided a valid reason for not providing an additional citation. Instances I've seen of editors failing to recognize a valid pre-existing citation include:
 * 1) Substantially the same claim, with a valid citation, appears elsewhere in the article.
 * 2) The article contains a valid citation that is not in the form of a footnote, like "Jones explains in chapter 6 of his autobiography.... (where the autobiography is in the reference list of the article).


 * Second, it is often convenient to make a change in a few edits rather than one edit. This would apply if short footnotes are being added to the body of the article, and a new source to the reference list. It would also apply if named references are being used and some adjustments are needed so that the named reference applies correctly to each spot where the named reference is used. If an editor is trying to do a good job by using these more sophisticated citation systems, and gets reverted in the middle of the process, the editor is justified in being angry at the reverter. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with those who say that the citation may be provided after the text is, so long as this is done in a reasonably prompt manner, i would say up to several hours. If the current policy and guideline pages don't provide for this, then they should be changed to clearly and explicitly do so. Addingf a CN tag promptly seems not unreasonable, it documents the request for a citation. Reverting, much less blocking, does not, and I think it is clear that the community consensus does not support such action, and so any policy page that says otherwise is in error. DES (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

We have this wonderful history feature which provides all prior versions of the article. There is absolutely no need to return challenged material before verifiability is established even for a little while. There is no need for a partially completed edit to sit in the public article. You can use your user space, you can use a text editor. The burden of verifiability was very intentionally placed where it is, and I think it is a good idea. How many times has someone said they were going to fix an article and did not? <b style="color:Chocolate">Chillum</b> 16:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's the practical side of this: Unless there is something else going on, no one is ever going to be blocked for either restoring unsourced material (even if they never provide a source) or for deleting that unsourced restoration just one or two times. Trying to parse out whether the sources have to be provided in the same edit or can be provided later is a colossal waste of time. Would anyone here want to go to ANI with the complaint that an editor restored unsourced information but X minutes/hours/days late provided a source for it but ought to be blocked anyway only because he/she didn't do it in the same edit? Yes, of course it ought to be in the same edit, but on a practical level — again without something else going on — it's irrelevant other than, perhaps, something to use to try to bluff someone (usually a newcomer) into capitulation. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC) PS: I wrote the foregoing before the subsection about the Arbcom Case, below, was added and got an edit conflict because of it. I strongly predict that what I've said here will be proven true in that case, as is already appearing to be the case. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I find it quite interesting that editors are expressing widely different and frequently contradictory opinions as to what the policy says in respect to this issue, yet it is so obvious to some that an RFC is unnecessary. So obvious to one that he was even willing to remove the RFC tag twice in order to make certain that no RFC was held.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

IMHO there are three steps:
 * 1) What to do to make material as challenge-proof as possible?
 * 2) Find reliable sources. If needed ask advice at the article's talk page and/or WP:RSN.
 * 3) Source the material in the article to the reliable sources, with an appropriate technique (which e.g. may be somewhat different for tables than for running text)
 * 4) Additional recommendations: the more easy to find the sources are, the more unquestionable their reliability is, and the more easy the material that is supported by the source can be found in the source (e.g. by providing page numbers), the less likely the material will be challenged.
 * 5) How to challenge material?
 * 6) For material that is not supported by a reliable source and at the same time is a WP:REDFLAG or potentially libellous, there's only one method: immediate removal (edit warring about this can however only be excused for countering obvious vandalism or when keeping potentially libellous material that is not verifiable to reliable sources out of BLPs).
 * 7) For other unsourced material (or material that is sourced, but not actually supported by a reliable source) it depends on context & content: techniques going from removal for quite unlikely or somehow contradictory material, over cn (or one of its more specific ore more general alternatives) when it seems unlikely without immediate threat to Wikipedia's integrity, to raising the issue on an appropriate talk page for less pronounced doubts (or in addition to the techniques used for more pronounced doubts).
 * 8) In any of these cases, looking for reliable sources and sourcing the content to such sources and/or update the content to what can be verified to reliable sources is appreciated (subject to consensus that the material isn't unduly elaborate etc.)
 * 9) What to do when material is challenged (by removal, cn-like notice, talk page discussions, etc.)?
 * 10) Step 2.3, often combined with talk page discussion to find consensus, is usually the optimal approach.
 * 11) Same restrictions for edit warring as mentioned in 2.1 above.
 * 12) Even if the material is no longer challenged, see whether you can make it more challenge-proof per the recommendations of step 1. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom Case
This posting at talk:Verifiability is clearly an attempt to gain support for the assertion he made at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. In my opinion, this is a clear case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING.

I will copy here the opinion of arbitrator Thryduulf on that page, which I fully agree with:


 * "@Kww: As noted by others, you must give people a reasonable time to add the citation. How long "reasonable" is will vary, in my personal view it will depend on things like how contentious the challenged statement is (more contentious = less time), how plausible it is (more plausible = longer time), whether it has been discussed on the talk page (previously rejected = shorter time, source just requires copying from the talk page = shorter time, agreed it's not contentious = longer time), who the editor restoring it is (users with a history of vandalism should be accorded a lesser time than someone with a reputation for good edits; a new user unfamiliar with adding references will take longer to add one than someone who does it every day), how many sources are being added (e.g. if someone is sourcing a list they should be given time to source all the entries, either in one edit or in several, rather than be required to restore each item individually), the nature of the source (e.g. it will probably take longer to add a reference to a book than to a website), and any statements given about time (e.g. if someone has indicated they'll source something in the next 5-10 minutes, they should in most cases be given at least that long) and possibly other factors too. In all cases policies regarding edit warring remain in effect, and unless the challenged statement is vandalism or potentially libellous then people should be given sufficient time, at minimum, to add the source in their next edit. [note this is personal view, not a statement on behalf of the Committee]"

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh. It's a fair question. It's not like KWW is keeping it a secret that his adminship hangs on the outcome of the arbcom case, and I think his interpretation is more right than wrong. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  17:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ehh. It's a fair question. And it's a fair answer which kww had been given prior to coming here. Which makes coming here WP:FORUMSHOP. Again sorry to hear kww's adminship being in the balance, but they didn't say "I got an answer to this question which I don't like, so I come here to get a different answer", which again for me (not in the least interested whether kww keeps the adminship or not) is a sure sign adminship is not a way to go for this editor. This is what is called boomerang, and they should've known better before taking other people's time with a question that already has been given a fair answer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not think it is forum shopping and it is a reasonable request by Kww to see if other editors agree with her/his interpretation. I do however agree with Francis Schonken that as no change in policy is proposed there is no need for this section to be an RfC.
 * I agree with Kww, TransporterMan, and Chillum.
 * TransporterMan you wrote "I would ordinarily argue that the 'should' makes that a best practice," the great "Men's rights movement" moving debate brought to the for that "should" has different meanings in different dialects of English in some it usually means "ought" in other it is closer to "must". In this case I think the sentence has to be read in the context of the previous sentence "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Ie in this case "should" is closer to "must" than "ought".
 * Jc3s5h I think you have a point but only for the lead section which is meant to be a summary of the rest of the body of the text. If a sentence in the lead is not a summary of a fact in the body of the text and an in-line citation is requested then it should be provided. In the rest of the text although you have a point in practical terms it is just easier to copy the citation to the sentence where it is requested then argue the toss of over whether the same fact is cited else where. As to the rest of your post Jc3s5h we have sandboxes and so if something had been removed as a challenge, then I don't think that the person who finds it "convenient to make a change in a few edits rather than one edit" is "justified in being angry at the reverter"--unless they have first explained what they are doing on the talk page, or added an appropriate template such as Under construction and even then they do the work within hours not days--because the reverter could equally argue that they are angry that BURDEN is not being followed.
 * DESiegel (DES) the boat has long since left harbour. The section "Responsibility for providing citations" (WP:PROVEIT) was introduced about a decade ago to held fix what was then a real problem with Wikipedia credibility, and was part of the drive for quality not quantity. At that time it was quite common for journalists to write article about how untrustworthy Wikiepdia was -- because it was easy to find Wikipedia articles full of unverifiable text that turned out to be a nonsense. BURDEN and CHALLENGE have been hugely beneficial to Wikipedia, because it has forced editors to prove that the content is backed up in reliable sources. As a side benefit it has also over time brought stability to a lot of articles that a decade ago were in a perpetual state of flux due to unsourced POV pushing.
 * A good example of how challenge and burden improved an article is synchronous motor (as it is now) and how it was before it was challenged in Dec 2012.  -- PBS (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I wholly agree that "should" in this case is a linguistic gloss, not policy-making. The policy is "must." I also fully agree that the policy at least implies that the provision of the source must be in the same edit, but I also feel that the spirit of collegiality and cooperation lying behind a wiki concept along with the absence of an explicit same-edit requirement requires us to allow some slack to allow at least some time to come along and add the source, unless the restoration is demonstrably tendentious. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC - Restoration of deleted unsourced material clarifications
I propose the following changes to the first two sentences of the third paragraph of the BURDEN section of the policy. Removed material is struck through and colored red new or replacement material is underlined and colored green. Proposed changes:


 * Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should must  not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source . Whether and how quickly this should happen  material should be initially removed for not having a reliable source  depends on the material and the overall state of the article.

Note that there are actually three separate proposals here, each of which is independent of the other two:
 * 1. The change from "should" to "must" in the first sentence.
 * 2. The addition of the clarifying footnote at the end of the first sentence.
 * 3. The clarification in the second sentence that it only applies to initial removals, not to restorations.

Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please indicate your support or rejection of each proposal separately. Anyone who chooses to express an opinion here would be well-advised to first familiarize themselves with the discussion taking place in the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability section, immediately above.

Proposal 1 — First sentence should/must
Supports:
 * 1) Support as proposer. Actual policy is clear and "should" is misleading. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it would appear that what you're saying is that you support this in concept, except for the two things you mention below. I have some trouble with both of them: First, an edit removing unsourced material is never vandalism: we don't look at editor's motives, we look at their edits, and unsourced material can always be removed simply because it is unsourced though finding a source for it is the better practice (as has been discussed ad infinitum on this talk page). Second, material which has been properly sourced elsewhere in the article — consensus or no — is such an easy fix that it's almost more objectionable to remove it than it is to just fix the citation. Frankly, the bigger problem is the situation where there are several sentences which are all supported by the same, single citation at the end and one of two things happens: The deleter doesn't realize that and doesn't realize that the citation "stretches back" to the earlier sentences or, perhaps more commonly, someone has come along and added some additional cited material in the middle of those sentences and not copied the citation to also appear at the end of the material just before the new material. The fact is that it's the obligation of the deleter of uncited material to verify that the material is, in fact, uncited, but at the same time it's also the obligation of the restorer to point out the fact that the material is, in fact, cited or to just copy over the citation when restoring it, not just to rv it back in. These are genuine concerns, but we're not publishing a set of statutes here and cannot cover all possibilities. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * An edit removing unsourced material is never vandalism? Got a source for that? (smile). Seriously, though, you seem to be implying that someone can come along and delete the entire lead of Engineering and a hundred other pages with unsourced claims in the lead, always noting "removing unsourced claims" in the edit summary, without being a vandal. And, according to some others on this page, I would have to find a source for claims like "The discipline of engineering is extremely broad" and "the term Engineering is derived from the Latin ingenium" before I could restore the material -- times a hundred pages. Somehow I suspect that if someone actually tried this they would be mass-reverted and blocked for vandalism. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are actually really bad examples. "Engineering is a broad discipline" is a subjective value judgement, and the Latin thing is exactly the kind of claim that requires a source. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  18:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Guy, I do have a source for that: The Blanking, illegitimate section of the Vandalism policy, which says, "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." (Okay, okay, it does say "usually not" not "never," but let's allow for a little hyperbole on my part...) Removal of unsourced information is also not generally listed in VANDTYPES. However, I've long contended here that the first practice you describe is sanctionable, not because of the removal of unsourced information, or the fact that it's vandalism, but because finding sources for unsourced information is the best practice and, while not following best practices now and then isn't objectionable, habitually and systematically doing so is a form of NOTHERE. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC) PS: That brings up another exception in which vandalism would be a reason for restoration of unsourced information (but which is another of those kinds of things which are simply too narrow and obvious to mention here). Let's say a vandal replaces an entire article with garbage or obscenity and that article had a mix of sourced and unsourced material in it. I don't have a problem, and I don't think anyone else does either, in an editor simply reverting the entire article back as it was, even if it was mostly unsourced, without finding sources for all the unsourced information unless it's a BLP and the unsourced information is contentious (but even then it might well be okay). If anyone feels so strongly about this that we need a footnote to discuss it we can craft one, but frankly I think that the right result here is so obvious that we don't need it. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's for specific removal. What happens when a page which contains some unsourced material but with legit material as well is replaced with "Wikipedia on Wheels!"? That would be plain vandalism that incidentally removes unsourced material. I think Guy is worrying about this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was writing the PS I just added above when we edit-conflicted. I just don't see it being a real issue, but we can work on a footnote clarification if you're really concerned. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * TransporterMan's statement that deletions of uncited material are never vandalism is just wrong-headed nonsense. I am permanently opposed to this proposal. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've acknowledged, above, that I was perhaps a bit too hyperbolic on that statement, and have offered a way to address the one form of vandalism which seems actually relevant (while also saying that I don't think that there's any real need to do it, though I'm open to it if others feel that it's needed). Since you're permanently opposed to this change, however, the logical conclusion is that you're not interested in adopting the change but with a footnote to address that situation. Ping me if I'm wrong. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to clarify my reasoning stated in my support. I say that the actual policy is clear and "should" is misleading. The policy is this, from the lede of the policy: "[A]ny material whose verifiability has been challenged ... must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." (Emphasis added.) It has long been established here on this talk page that removal of unsourced material because it is unsourced is a challenge. Even if this proposal fails, the !rule is already that restoration of material removed as unsourced must include a reliable source. This change is simply to reduce confusion. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Seems reasonable to me. DonIago (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support- Definitely mandatory. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  15:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support This is how I've always read the policy, and this phrasing would reduce what others seem to see as ambiguous.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support This is also how I've always read the policy Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Not seeing good reasons for readding unsourced content in general (save for vandalism reverts, that is, when a page which contains unsourced material gets this unsourced material reverted back in). I'd follow DES's caveat, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support With immediacy in fact - I disagree with DES and I see no reason to allow a wait of hours to provide a source for something. If it takes "hours" to find a source then the edit should be delayed by that much. The "there is no deadline" principle applies both ways. And to echo the !votes above, that's how I've always read the policy as well. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) support -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Support: It doesn't change the rule, it just normalizes one case of "should" with the two cases of "must". It is confusing for the policy to use "must" (including in the lead) with regard to this point, and then veer off to "should". It means that people are going to cite the version they like best when they editwar. And new or non-policy-focused editor will have a hard time remembering if this is a requirement or a recommendation. Consistency in the rules is important, even if we change the rule later.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Opposes:
 * 1) Oppose unless it is explicitly stated that a citation need not be provided in the same edit, but may be delayed for up to several hours. Otherwise this will be taken to imply the "same edit" standard, which is clearly against current community consensus. DES (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose; does not allow for the deletion having been vandalism, or a consensus being reached that the material is properly supported elsewhere in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose the "must", because that makes WP:BURDEN too useful for the griefers. It should not be possible for someone you've clashed with to go through everything you've written systematically challenging unsourced phrases or sentences.  I'd support an addition along these lines if there was some kind of exception preventing the use of WP:BURDEN in a vexatious or retaliatory way.— S Marshall  T/C 20:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per DES, Jc3, and S Marshall. Too much nit-picking instead of focusing on content creation. GregJackP   Boomer!   22:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, per WP:Preserve and WP:Blue. WP:Preserve is also policy, and too many editors ignore that policy or don't know about it. And while WP:Blue is a WP:Essay, it has a valid point. Flyer22 (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * PRESERVE says: "Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research." (Emphasis added.) Preserve does not affect the standards and procedures established by V. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is that WP:Verifiability does not solely mean that the content is sourced in the article. This is why its WP:Burden section states, "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." The WP:Original research policy is also clear that verifiability does not solely mean what is sourced in the article; too many editors, including a recent editor (N2e) in the section above, think that WP:Original research simply means "unsourced." An editor going around removing content in a Wikipedia article when that content should be in that article and is easily verifiable can be disruptive. Laziness is not an excuse to remove unsourced information that the editor who is removing the content can easily tag as unsourced or source it on their own. Do I like people putting the WP:Burden on me when it's instead on them? No, I've been clear about that. But I've also seen how damaging removing unsourced material can be. Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What Flyer said - the verifiability policy does not mean that the material is already verified, only that it is possible to verify. There's a content creator in the legal field who is great on IP law - a real high-level subject matter expert. He writes great articles, but he's not always real good on citing his sources, especially on background material. It's not a real problem, other legal editors usually have no problem in providing cites, but there are those who only see the letter of a rule and not the spirit of the rule. They normally do not see that the material is verifiable, or, as Flyer said, are too lazy to either tag it or source it on their own. GregJackP   Boomer!   05:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Very strong oppose for the reasons discussed in my section below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Very strong oppose: To quote Newyorkbrad, "However, a rigid policy that allows any editor to delete content on the ground that it is unsourced, without restrictions or a requirement that good faith, common sense, and proportionality be applied in this as in all other areas—and by prohibiting restoring such content would be used to dictate other editors' research priorities—could thus be counterproductive and a more nuanced approach should continue to be used". The proposal would give anyone the right to remove every single unsourced statement from Wikipedia (which would be a lot) in one fell swoop, regardless of its quality or accuracy, or is genuinely disputed, or whether it improves the encyclopedia, or is in any way harmful or misleading, or any other consideration. And nobody would be allowed to revert a single one of those removals without providing an inline source. We need the ability to deliberate, interpret and evaluate situations intelligently and in context, and replacing that approach with one of increasingly dictatorial rules that permit no consideration of context would be a very bad step. Mr Potto (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC) PS: What makes me sad is that this whole thing has escalated from such a trivial argument about a very minor piece of content Mr Potto (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC) PPS: I've changed these to numbered lists to make counting easier - hope that's OK. Mr Potto (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What you're objecting to is already the policy here and what happens on proposal #1 isn't going to affect that one way or the other. Please see my response to Brad, below, for more detail. All that is at stake here with #1 is whether we're going to clarify that unsourced material which has already been removed for being unsourced cannot be reintroduced without a citation. As I note above, that's also already the !rule here but the "should" in this sentence makes it sound as if it's not. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what you might think the policy already says, but I don't. I see a significant semantic difference between "should" and "must", and changing one to the other is more than just clarifying. Mr Potto (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Should" implies that it is only optional to add a source to content that has been challenged and restored, or that you can do it whenever you get around to it. Both suggestions are unacceptable. Challenged material doesn't come back without a citation, end of story. I've never heard of anyone going on a rampage like you describe, but if ever this fictional boogeyman becomes real then he can be handled at ANI. Hamstringing the verifiability policy by making the sourcing of contested material only a polite suggestion is the worst possible way to deal with that situation. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  14:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, nothing ever happened before the first time it happened. And if it should happen and policy supported it, how could ANI help? (I'm not just trying to be awkward or pedantic, and I do appreciate what's trying to be achieved here and I do support the idea of everything being sourced - I just worry that a hard-and-fast rule that any removal of unsourced material for whatever reason is absolutely forbidden from being reverted without a source could come back and bite us later.) Mr Potto (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As another thought, I don't see what's actually wrong with the policy as it is written and why it needs to be changed. We've had one bust-up over its use that I know of (in which two editors behaved badly, in my opinion - and bad cases don't make good law) which was easily resolved at ANI. Have there been any/many other problems that a change to the policy wording would have helped with? Mr Potto (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A bogeyman of pandemic proportions like Mr Potto outlines is not at all necessary for the problem he's concerned about to be serious; all it takes is one User:MegaDeletionist doing this across articles in a particular topic area, probably as part of a yet another wikiproject WP:OWN campaign, for this to be a serious issue, and that already happens frequently. In the last year alone I've quit Wikipedia for a month at a time, twice, to get away from article-after-article hounding by such people. It really doesn't matter if this or that WP:GANG of them is doing it to advance a political agenda (cf. evidence that paid agents of the government of Pakistan are warping the PoV on all Pakistan-related articles), or because of an academic-politics feud between two schools of thought within the same discipline, or (as in WP:ARBAA2) due to racist hatred between two groups, or even well-meaning but boneheaded misinterpretation of policy, and a desire to "save Wikipedia from those bent on destroying it", leading to wikiphilosophical factionalism. It's still destructive and disruptive. I !voted in support of "must" here. But as someone said elsewhere, this is a content policy, not a behavior policy (nor is it a WP:OFFICE legal commandment, I would add), so it's not  for "must" to be seen as inappropriate.  Overuse of "must" in this kind of policy could lead to a direct and immediate massive spate of deletionism, if it actually changed another rule in the policy from "should" to "must" (which this doesn't). If it did, it could be an "ah HA, now I can finally cleanse the wikiworld of all that offends my eye" call to arms. But we already use "must" a few times in here for this same rule. I submit that this could be one of the proximal causes of the sort of problem I outline.  But the wording in proposal #1 here won't affect that either way; it's just a conforming edit so that this wording agrees with the policy's lead. If we want to change "must" to "should" (or "must except with rare exception" or whatever, it would need to be done consistently.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that Mr Potto is correct to inquire about how common a problem is. One spectacular dispute isn't usually a good reason to change a major policy statement; it's usually just WP:CREEPy.  To answer his question, it comes up often enough that User:Blueboar's threat to finally write WP:Let the Wookiee win is familiar.  But it rarely results in spectacular disputes, and it doesn't usually result in difficult ones unless we have a WP:POINTy editor of the "MegaDeletionist" bent – and those usually result in a few threats and then the pointy editor getting blocked on WP:NOTHERE grounds.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - unnecessarily strong. Rlendog (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose "Must" is overly bureaucratic and leads to bad outcomes.  Even though the vandal "challenged" the statement in Finger that humans normally have five digits on each hand, we still don't need to provide an inline citation to "verify" what most three year olds can tell you.  Also, editors fairly often blank "unsourced" information in leads, despite the material being well-cited in the body of the article.  Finally, the statement refers to all unsourced material that is "removed".  That includes section-blanking by vandals, because an unsourced section blanked by a vandal is still unsourced material that has been removed.  The statement does not limit its force to removals that explicitly indicate that the material is being removed because of a lack of sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But why not normalize it to "must", which we're already using in the policy in a 2:1 ratio, then clarify the WP:COMMONSENSE exceptions you outline with a proposal following right on this one? That would seem a more useful outcome and process than for the policy to continue to directly contradict itself.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not afraid of the word must in a policy, or even a guideline, which will not surprise you if you remember that I'm the person who encouraged using those words clearly at Policies and guidelines. By "clearly", I mean "using the same definition that you will find in RFC 2119":  "must" is "an absolute requirement".  The sentence as written (i.e., using must) means that if a vandal blanks a page, then you are absolutely required, with zero exceptions for editorial judgment, to provide inline citations for any and all unsourced material before reverting the vandalism.  And if you don't actually mean to say "must", then you should say what you mean, which is "should", i.e., "there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances [such as reverting an obvious vandal or a violation of LEADCITE] to ignore a particular item [such as the general rule to assume that blanking unsourced material is a challenge and that challenges often – but not quite exactly always – need to be responded to by providing inline citations], but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course."  In other words, I oppose using the word must because we do not mean it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose this would give too much encouragement to those who simply remove content and don't even try to reference it.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per WP:NOTLAW and WP:CREEP. The arbcom case demonstrates that there are editors who are not reasonable about this and would interpret such a wording in a disruptive way. Andrew D. (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per this would be bad policy, NYBrad, and Andrew D. I see disruptive edits under current policy that this would make harder to address.--Elvey(t•c) 22:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutrals/abstains:

Proposal 2 — First sentence new footnote
Supports: Opposes:
 * 1) Support Content that was deleted under VERIFY shouldn't be restored unless there is actually a source at hand to be added with it. The editor doing the restoration should have done the work of seeing what reliable sources say and re-reading the content to see if it is actually supported by the sources or needs to be modified.  To me, just restoring unsourced content without bringing a source is a red flag of advocacy or ownership or other behaviors that we don't encourage. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC) (note - I would prefer if this were made more flexible per my note in the Discussion section below. I don't think something this rigid is likely to get consensus per the series of Opposes below Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC))
 * 2) Support Per Jytdog.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Per as well. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 16:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose as proposer. Currently implied by the existing policy, but to make it an express rule by the addition of this footnote seems unnecessarily rigid and opposed to wiki principles of assuming good faith, collaborative editing, and cooperation. TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Why should we stipulate that the source be included in the same edit? And are we going to accuse editors who belatedly add sourcing of disruptive editing, since doing so is not permitted under this change? If we were going to get pedantic, and I'm not saying that we should, I might stipulate that the restoration of material without a source being provided within 30 minutes may be considered a violation of this policy. DonIago (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak oppose- IMO it's almost always desirable that the person restoring challenged material cite it immediately (ie same edit). But I recognize that sometimes it's more convenient to do it in a sequence of edits. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  15:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Strongly oppose There is not curent consensu for this standard, and editing by adding a statement and then a source is often much easier, particularly on articles using list-defined references or other indirect citation techniques. This standard might be made to apply to truly contentious content, but not to any content that was simply removed as unsupported. DES (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Strongly oppose. Editing is already hard enough. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong oppose unless the material is actually and genuinely contentious, which needs another discussion, not hyperbolically and theoretically contentious. E.g. Soham Murders contains a maintenance tag requesting more citations but it also contains quotes without "inline citations" such as "a 15-year-old girl admitted that she had been having sex with Huntley. Police did not pursue the case against Huntley in accordance with the girl's wishes".  Now that's what I call contentious.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong oppose, absolutely not. Too much focused on style-points rather than the end result. Too hard if this involves a string cite. GregJackP   Boomer!   22:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - Unnecessary. There is rarely urgency to require the citation to be in the same edit.  A citation even a day later will almost always be perfectly fine (exceptions would generally be potentially harmful BLP material). Rlendog (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose: Micromanages and conflicts with WP:BOLD, WP:AGF. I don't grok why the proponent wrote and then opposed it, but whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per WP:NOTBURO. It's best practice, but if you need to save mid-way through an edit, then the world isn't actually going to come to an end.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)#
 * 11) Oppose Per WP:CREEP. And no footnotes, please — policies should be drafted in a simple, straightforward way; not complex legalese. Andrew D. (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutrals/abstains:

Proposal 3 — Second sentence clarify initial removals only
Supports:
 * 1) Support as proposer. Actual policy is clear, but the current language can be easily misunderstood. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support I guess it's a reasonable clarification, but I'm curious as to whether there've actually been any issues with the current wording. DonIago (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * DonIago see the discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. -- PBS (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support- Considering how many people seem to misunderstand this simple point, I think clarifying the first sentence is a good idea. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  15:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Again, this is how I've always read the sentence anyway.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) support -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support This as well. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Much clearer and doesn't actually change the meaning. There is a lot of confusion on this point (to answer DonIago), and the clarification should resolve much of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support As can be seen in the below in the section "History of WP:PROVEIT", this change will fix a confusion in the text introduced by TheRedPenOfDoom's edit of 30 January 2014. That TheRedPenOfDoom is in favour of this change is evidence that the way some are reading this sentence is an unforeseen consequence of the 2014 edit. -- PBS (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Opposes:
 * 1) Oppose - would prefer that this be linked in some way to a mandate that a cn tag always be preferable to removal, except in BLP cases. GregJackP   Boomer!   22:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The whole sentence is so wishy-washy that it's pointless noise.. Just get rid of the entire sentence. Andrew D. (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutrals/abstains:
 * 1) Hybrid: Yes, the original wording to be replaced is worthless. The proposed wording is fine as far as it goes, but GregJackP's oppose has a point worth adapting, as: When the claim in question is not controversial (e.g. controverted on the talk page, or flagged with an actual  tag like ) it is often [not "always"] better to tag it for sourcing and leave it in.  And yes, a higher standard applies to BLPs.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Changing to "support".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I could live with that suggestion. GregJackP   Boomer!   05:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you really feel that qualification to be necessary when the very next sentence in the current paragraph talks about that very issue, "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step."? As I recall — which I may not, admittedly, be remembering correctly — this was a compromise between leaving any mention of cn tagging out altogther and making it a requirement before deleting unsourced material. I have no particular objections to the form proposed by SMcC, above, other than it seems kind of redundant in light of the following sentence and probably needs to be coordinated with that sentence. But in that light, this really doesn't have anything to do with the purpose of this RFC, but is introducing a new issue involving additional parts of the paragraph and, it seems to me, ought to be — if anything at all, in light of the fact that there is already something there about it — a separate RFC on those two sentences (i.e. the one to be clarified here and the one just after it) started once the current RFC concludes (so as to avoid having two concurrent RFC's trying to modify the language of the same sentence). Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is absolutely necessary because there will be some idiot who will use the footnote as an excuse to gut articles, without requesting that an editor add cites. GregJackP   Boomer!   16:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address TM's point, though. How can it be "absolutely necessary" when it's covered by the next sentence in the same policy? I share your concern about what the problem is (see below), but he's right that it doesn't actually relate in any way to wording tweaks that are the subject of proposal. And this is about sub-proposal #3, the second sentence. The footnote is sub-proposal #2, which is clearly not going to gain consensus, so your "idiot who will use the footnote" rationale will not actually apply. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) Good point, TM; I'd forgotten the later context. The problem with the follow-on material is it is too wishy-washy and is basically just ignored with impunity. Deletionists (or, worse, POV-pushers trying to manipulate an article in a non-neutral direction) do not give a rat's ass what "some editors prefer", and they will not at all "consider" tagging. They have a to delete anything they feel is unsourced or improperly sourced (or even, in the second scenario, that they think they can get away with casting doubt on the sourcing of, or delete the "bad" sources for), see?.  But you're right that this is a separate issue to resolve, and how to determine when/what to tag vs. delete isn't trivial. I also don't want to come off as some rabid inclusionist trying to keep unsourced material.  I'm quite the opposite.  Where I'm coming from is: A) people deleting common knowledge and uncontroversial claims, reducing an easily sourceable article to a smoldering ruin of a stub, or deleting actual citations because they don't like the source; and B) sneaky WP:CIVILPOV-pushers skewing articles step by step until they bear little relation to reality other than the idiosyncratic one inside their own heads. The latter is by far the more severe and prominent problem. A third related issue is C) the "vengeance" editor; you cross them once, and they spend days, weeks, even longer undoing your work across a lot of articles, by raising bullshitty source veracity claims that probably no third party will bother to challenge, demanding sources for basic definitions and word usage, putting multiple cn tags in the same sentence, etc., etc., in a "I'm going to bury you" campaign of wreckage that has nothing to do with the actual content of the article. We need some kind of tighter rubric for when to delete and when to tag, and how to tag in a non-disruptive way, and for dealing with questionable-faith tagging and deletion. It needs to be in this policy, or the answer will always be "that's just in some guideline; WP:V is policy and it says I can delete any unsourced or improperly sourced material I want to". But, yeah, that's a separate proposal or RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
I don't have a dog in the hunt happening over at ARBCOM, but I'm seeing enough disagreement over how the !rules here are to be interpreted and/or applied, both there and above, that I think it appropriate for the community to have a chance at clarifying them for ongoing purposes. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Using "must" implies a behavioural rather than content policy, does it not? As a matter of implemntation clarity, how would a good faith editor coming afresh to an article be expected to know that the removed assertion was in fact previously removed? Are we to expect editors to search article history before boldly adding text, or are deleting editors now to leave hidden comments to the effect that statement "S" was removed pending a reliable source? LeadSongDog come howl!  16:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All behavioural policies involve some level of judgement as to the consequences, and some reasonable expectation that the editor was aware of the policy he was violating when he did so. An experienced editor reverting an edit with an edit summary saying "unsourced" would be expected to understand that, while an inexperienced editor or an editor including information that was challenged and removed at some hazy point in the past would not.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wouldn't ding an editor for re-adding unsourced material unless they were the editor who initially added it. DonIago (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Or could be shown to know it had been disputed. Otherwise, tag-teaming would be a problem.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Although it should be noted that we should support editors who have pledged to find sources and add them in due course. Particularly if they have a track record of exemplary sourcing of articles.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. If an editor wants to replace an originally-unsourced statement I'm happy to work with them (provided they're being civil about it) as long as it doesn't turn into a vaguely-worded "Well, I'll provide a source later..." At that point I default to "You're welcome to add the information when you have the source available." DonIago (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you would not advocate the continual removal of such unsourced statements if an editor has suggested that they will provide sources if given time to do so? And yes, not "unreasonable" time, like a week or whatever... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It could become very circumstance-dependent. "Hi, my bad on the unsourced statement, I'll provide a reference within the next two hours," is a far cry from, "Stop screwing with my edits you douchenozzle, I'll add a source eventually." I am, as one might reasonably expect I think, more inclined to give leeway to the former than the latter. Communication in such situations is vital, and all parties should try to bear in mind that (hopefully) everyone ultimately wants what's best for the article.
 * I can't believe I'm about to say this, but maybe we need a "citation pending" template for circumstances where editors are making an effort to provide sources but need more time, with caveats such as that it can't be used in a BLP situation and that it only applies for...I dunno...48 hours or such. DonIago (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea. If it actually wrapped the content, it could be made to hide the content by bot addition of a undefined parameter after the time ran out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's definitely interesting, but I don't know whether it's good. My questions would be a) whether it's possible to have it (with automation to automatically hide the material once the time-limit expires), and b) whether there would be a consensus here (and possibly on a larger scale) to allow such a thing. I would be firmly opposed to such a template without an automatic time-limit, as, AGF notwithstanding, I would have serious concerns about editors using this template to avoid providing a source and then for one reason or another not getting around to ever actually providing one. DonIago (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec ×5) I concur that WP:TAGTEAMing "would be" (frequently is) a problem (I got into this in detail in a later thread). The frequency with which Tweedle Dee reverts deletion of Tweedle Dum's unsourced or improperly sourced POV nonsense because they're both working the same agenda, must surely greatly exceed the frequency with which which Mr Destructive deletes uncontroversial material to make a point, and another good faith editor is certain that reverting the deletion to restore the unsourced material is the correct thing to do.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I could see an edit summary pointing at a valid source as a placeholder while formatting was going on.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)* On the footnote about adding it back with a ref. As stated it is a bit extreme and rigid. I would be happier with the footnote including something a bit more flexible, yet still clear about the obligation, like " And the edit restoring the material must also contain the citation or a citation must be included very shortly after the restoration ; restoring the material and later providing the without providing a citation is not allowed."  Please note that the clause after the semicolon takes the immediacy out, but leaves the statement of obligation on the restore-er very clear.  Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur. That would probably obviate quite a number of disputes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"Inline citation"
Just a quickie, while we debate the timing of the inclusion of sources, there needs to be a clear definition of inline citation, as currently we don't seem to have one: On Wikipedia, an inline citation refers to a citation in a page's text placed by any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it. The most common methods are numbered footnotes and parenthetical citations within the text, but other forms are also used on occasion. Inline citations are often placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph. Some editors/admins interpret that as "the citation must be placed directly after the element being cited" while others suggest "as long as it's obvious to the normally competent reader that this is cited by the nearby citation, it's fine". But the guidance is clear:  but other forms are also used on occasion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The most common case where I find that to be a problem is sourcing tables where someone provides multiple sources for a table and the sources overlap. Pedantic bastard that I am, even I don't have a problem with a table sourced to "Oscar source" and "Grammy source" in the head and a bunch of rows related to Grammies and another bunch of rows related to Oscars. I do have a problem with "Chicago Tribune as a source", "New York Times as a source", and a table full of entries that it's inobvious which row is represented by which source.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, your opinion notwithstanding, it is necessary for us to allow our readers some intelligence and if entries in a table are sourced from one place, a source at the top of the section is allowable per " but other forms are also used on occasion". The only reason this becomes a problem for you is when you declare an award nomination without a "direct inline citation" to be contentious, despite weighty evidence against it.  You exercise your right to remove said "contentious material" (which is, to most of us, in no way contentious at all) and then exercise your right to claim that editors are directly attempting to bring Wikipedia down via BLP violations.  Surely you understand that Wikipedia will never be brought down by a misplaced critics' award, more likely it'll be destroyed by someone claiming someone raped somebody.  Contentious is subjective, but I think you're way off on your interpretation, as do most of the community.  Plus there's no such word as "inobvious", not in real English. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If this were a paper, permanent presentation, a single cite at the top that could be verified and we go on would be OK. However, since Wikipedia is a dynamic and multi-edited, the single source on top no longer verifies the three extra items that were added by a newbie fan who doesnt know or doesnt care to follow policies. Now an editor or reader unless they have a didactic memory must go and re-verify each and every element of the table to find which are in fact supported by the source at the top, and which are not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because this is easily resolvable by recourse to edit history, it's not a serious problem. If a single paragraph cited to one source gets interpolated material added in later with no source, someone else can joggle the material or the citations around, and either source or fact-tag the unsourced addition without much trouble. I do this myself frequently on the articles I watchlist, if the unsourced additions seem uncontroversial and likely to be sourceable (I also often just source them, after adding and saving a fact tag; it's not pointy, but way to insert into the edit history an annotation that a particular editor added unsourced material).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is only "easily resolvable" by an experienced editor if not too many edits have occured between the time  improper edits were made by the time you choose to try to verify it. It is NOT easily resolvable if there have been dozens or hundreds of edits since the inappropriate material was snuck in nor is it easy for most readers and we certainly should not be expecting them to do work that is easily preventable by having specific in line citations rather than "top of the table". --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't want to stick my nose in here, but may I suggest that this isn't a productive line of conversation? DonIago (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be constructive if we could understand the purpose of the phrase "contentious". I.e. does it relate to obscure film critic awards or accusations of rape? Is it somewhere in the middle?  Is it absolutely everything that's unreferenced, so remove "contentious" altogether and just say "anything unreferenced should be removed"?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've followed some of the discussion about differing interpretations of "contentious". My view, for whatever it's worth, has been that when editors start arguing about it, it becomes contentious even if it was not previously so. WP:BRD may not be policy, but I think it's often best practice, and as I said above, in these types of situations especially communication becomes very important. I admit I tend towards a deletionist view on these sorts of matters, but I don't think anything unreferenced should be removed. I would prefer that to "you're welcome to add unsourced information as long as you eventually provide a source, if you think one is necessary", though, if it were to come to that. For a good time, check out Talk:Synchronous motor. Or, better, don't. DonIago (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an invitation to WP:GAMING, though, and gaming of this sort is already a noteworthy problem; has been for a long time. It's this game: User:POVmonster: "I'm deleting this controversial material"; [deletes obviously non-controversial material, to warp the article's neutrality or factuality]; User:FaithAllGood: "there's nothing contentious about this - we don't need to 'cite sources that the sky is blue'; if you can identify a specific problem with it, please do so on the talk page" [restores of the questionably deleted material]; POVmonster: "I'm hereby controverting it, sthus it is now 'controversial'. I win." [reverts to skewed version].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase SCOTUS, I know it when I see it. There's no need to come up with a strict technical definition of the term. Material may be even contentious due to context, so it's best handled on a case-by-case basis with some common sense, but to me "contentious" basically means "something someone objected to, that happens to be unsourced or poorly sourced". § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * An inline citation is one in the prose put there (in good faith, of course, not randomly) to cite something specific (at least at the section level, paragraph would be better, sentence or even term even better), versus tacked on at the end as a "general reference". We don't need to be any more specific than that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, thank you for clarifying that a citation placed within a section can be classed as an "inline" citation. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That said, TheRedPenOfDoom has a valid point, generally speaking. We should probably have an actual clarification, if not in this policy then in a relevant guideline, that a citation for a source or two at the top of a list/table works well only for lists/tables that are complete, or the future expansion of which will be done with the then-current versions of the same source[s] (e.g. lists of winners of an award, lists of species in a genus, lists of albums by a band, etc.). For lists/tables that are likely grow in other ways, it is better to source each entry individually. A bunch of cases in point where this conflict has arisen, in ways that strike me as inanely bureaucratic, can be seen (for now) at the top of WT:BIRDS. A number of Featured Lists of bird species are being delisted (and this seems to be the tail end of a long stream of these delistsings) primarily on the basis of "no inline citations" by which the delister actually means "no duplicate inline citations for each entry". Every entry in the list is sourced to the same one or two alphabetical bird catalogues, so sourcing each one would be a big pile of reader-annoying (and tedious to insert) redundant citations. The only actual sourcing issue is that a couple of them also cite another source or two for a handful of taxonomic changes that post-date the main sources, and those needs to be inline on the specific entries.  But they'll get delisted anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your question is better covered by reading the guidance in the sections WP:INLINECITE and WP:INTEGRITY. A citation placed is usually not adequate if it does not meet WP:INTEGRITY. For example at  20:27, 20 July 2015 the article Karl Mack von Leiberich did not have any inline citations. I added them. If I had only added one per section it would not have been adequate because although the section "French Revolutionary Wars" could be adequately covered with one citation (because it consist of only one paragraph), the section "War of the Third Coalition" needed more. -- PBS (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. The issue is that there are editors who think it's impermissible to do it even in the case where one citation is enough. They will demand a sentence-by-sentence or even sub-sentence level citation, just "because". I'm a big fan, actually, of such on-the-very-spot citations where they are helpful (e.g. the material is complex, is likely to attract new detail insertions, and/or includes any controversial, editwarred-about, or specificity-dependent technical terminology. I tend to use them even when it's not terribly important to do so, since I have no way to predict how the article will develop later. But it's just foolhardy to insist others do it when it's not needed [yet].  This could probably be balanced out by requiring that anyone who insist on citation specificity that particular, when INTEGRITY does not presently demand it, has to do it themselves.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I used to edit a lot of controversial pages, but I have never come across the behaviour you are describing. I have come across demands that some specific sentences in an article are separately footnoted, often in the lead and often because the POV of the sentence was disproved of by the person asking for the citation, but I have never come across demands for unreasonable levels of footnoting through the majority of the text in such articles. In your opinion which is the article where requests for citations is/was most pedantic and unreasonable. -- PBS (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Working on a proposal 4 (less "inline citation")
If the subtitle caught you attention, good, but let me make clear I 'love' inline citation. That said, I am reading couple things from the ivotes, and I think we could get consensus on a "middler" path: 1) keep requiremment for "inline citation" for all quotes; 2) make the requirement for challenged and likely to be challenged a "must" "citation" (linked) - that's the less part. Let's face it, inline citation has techincal and tedium difficulty for many would be editors, but let's still honor 'say where they got it' somewhere in the article even if it is a bare url at the end (or in the wrong place). As for unclear or vandalism removals then revert and discuss (vandals don't discuss and BRD kicks in otherwise - 'where's the source' is still the burden of somone who wants challenged article content in the article) - (on a tagential note, we really would solve much, and raise the quality of our talk pages, if we would get talk page participants to get to, as quickly as possible, 'what's the proposed content?' and 'what's the source?' - that way there is less waste of time and less other problems). Finally, I think it is important to remember, we are supporting people to study subjects themselves, not take Wikipedia's word for it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

History of WP:PROVEIT
Up until 22 October 2010‎ there was a section called "Burden of evidence".

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the no original research policy. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. 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. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.

During 22 October 2010 it split into two sections called "Anything challenged or likely to be challenged" and  "Burden of evidence". This division was a not considerd to be desirable the section was recombined Revision as of 14:00, 20 September 2012.

There were large chages after an RfC at 08:25, 20 October 2012 After which the section contained:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing reliable sources that directly support the material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate) and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. See Citing sources for details of how to do this.

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. 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 being uncited or insufficiently sourced, please indicate that you have a concern that the material itself is unverifiable. If you believe the material to be verifiable, then it is better to provide sourcing yourself, instead of removing the material. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.

The wording "without an inline citation to a reliable source" was added to the preceding sentence on 30 Jan. 2014 by TheRedPenOfDoom. Before that the two sentences were:

It is clear from this that the second sentence was written to complement the first half of the current sentence. TheRedPenOfDoom when you made that edit, was it your intention was that in future the second sentence should apply to both phrases or that it was to remain a comment to cover only the first half? I ask because there is nothing in the talk page archives to indicate that was your intention that the inserted phrase was to be interpreted to mean that, contrary to previous understanding, that a gap (other than as "a series of consecutive edit" per the definition of WP:3RR) between restoration of text and the addition of inline citations was to be acceptable. -- PBS (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have introduced a this history section to this debate, to help clarify that why those who have known about WP:PROVEIT for several years, interpret the sentence "Whether and how quickly..." differently from some of those who are only familiar with the wording since TheRedPenOfDoom made an edit to the preceding sentence on 30 Jan. 2014. I think that the history shows that those--such as Guy Macon here at 23:49/50, 15 July 2015-- who are interpreting "Whether and how quickly..." to mean it allows for time to lapse between restoring text and adding sources after a restoration, are not familiar with the history of the development of the sentences and the conversations on the talk page about the sentences, and are consequently through no fault of their own are drawing inferences from the text that the authors of the text are not implying. -- PBS (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My addition to the body was to specify in the section that is linked to by WP:BURDEN the requirements that have long been outlined in the lead. " 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."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Closure
It appears to me that the handwriting is pretty clear on the wall that participation here has faded away and that the results are pretty clear:
 * Proposal 1 - Failed due to no consensus.
 * Proposal 2 - Failed due to consensus for "oppose."
 * Proposal 3 - Adopted due to consensus for "support."

I'm hereby proposing an early closure with that result. Any opposition? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability, sourcing, proportionality, and common sense
(Note: This is adapted from some comments I recently made on the workshop page of an arbitration case, but is of much broader applicability and relevant to the discussion above so I am cross-posting it here.)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia created for the use of its readers, as well as a collaborative project among its editors. Wikipedia is relied upon by millions of members of the general public to provide them with information across all fields of human knowledge. The value of Wikipedia to its readers derives in large measure from the accuracy and reliability of its content. All editors have a responsibility to ensure that content they add is accurate, and to question, modify, or remove content that is inaccurate or misleading.

It would be unreasonable to expect Wikipedia (or any reference source) to be infallible. Nonetheless, the usefulness and reputation of our encyclopedia in the eyes of our readers are undermined when articles are shown to contain false information. Comment by Arbitrators:Comment by parties:Comment by others: Proposed. Wikipedia can accumulate inaccurate content owing to a number of different causes, spanning the gamut from good-faith errors to outright hoaxes. (For further thoughts on this subject, if interested, please see the second half of my book review my book review here.) For what it is worth, in my capacity as a Wikipedia reader, I have found Wikipedia content to be accurate far more often than not&mdash;but there are times I have personally been affected by inaccuracies, such as the time I was embarrassed at a professional conference by the error I reported here, or the time I spent an hour trying to track down an apparently nonexistent book as I discussed here.

In principle, all content on Wikipedia beyond the level of common knowledge and self-evident statements should ideally be supported with citations to reliable sources. Providing sources for factual assertions serves several purposes, including (1) ensuring that editors have verified the accuracy of their contributions, (2) allowing other editors or readers to detect inaccurate or questionable assertions, and (3) leading readers to further information on topics of interest to them.

Policy already permits editors to remove unsourced information from articles, to add "citation needed" tags where sourcing is missing or inadequate, or to raise concerns about sourcing on the talkpages of articles. Which of these alternatives, if any, should be utilized in a given instance is a matter of sound editorial judgment that probably can never be encapsulated in a bright-line policy or rule. Also a matter for editorial judgment is the optimal "granularity" of sourcing, e.g., whether a source footnote should appear after every assertion or every sentence in the article, or whether sources should be collected at somewhat less frequent intervals.

However, in practice, it is impracticable for each and every factual assertion across the five million articles of the English Wikipedia to be accompanied by a citation to a specific source. In the short term, achieving such a goal would be impossible because many articles, of otherwise satisfactory quality, were drafted when policy and practice placed less emphasis on sourcing than they do today. Even in the longer term, it is not clear that every assertion or sentence in every article would optimally be accompanied by a citation footnote.

In theory, a sizable portion of Wikipedia's current content could be challenged as "unsourced" or "insufficiently sourced" and tagged or removed. That is true even as to numerous factual assertions whose truth no one questions, which could be (and eventually should be) sourced, and which in fact are correct (and in many cases obviously so). Taking this approach across the encyclopedia could result in removing large amounts of valuable content without an offsetting benefit in increased accuracy. It could also, if done in bad faith, be subject to gaming.

It is necessary to prioritize from among all of Wikipedia's currently unsourced or insufficiently sourced content, determining which content should be removed outright, which should be tagged for sourcing improvement (followed by actual improvement of the sourcing, as opposed to an indefinitely languishing tag), and which should be left alone.

The community has developed some priorities in this area. One priority is enforcement of the policy on biographies of living persons, which emphasizes the importance of appropriate sourcing in biographical articles because of the effect false or otherwise inappropriate article content could have on the article subjects. It also is generally agreed, as a matter of common sense, that removing or questioning content whose accuracy is actually doubtful or subject to dispute, is more useful that removing or questioning content as to whose accuracy there is no real doubt. However, a rigid policy that allows any editor to delete content on the ground that it is unsourced, without restrictions or a requirement that good faith, common sense, and proportionality be applied in this as in all other areas&mdash;and by prohibiting restoring such content would be used to dictate other editors' research priorities&mdash;could thus be counterproductive and a more nuanced approach should continue to be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "dictating" of others research priorities other than the editor themself. If they choose to prioritize finding a source to restore unsourced content that has been removed that is their choice. Or they could choose to work on something else and leave the unsourced content out of the article. That is also their choice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * NYB, thank you for that thoughtful essay. However, the rigid policy to which you object has already been established here and has been successfully defended against change again and again, over many repeated bloody battles, here on this talk page. I'm one of the defenders — it's the primary reason I watchlist and monitor this page — but, as strange as it may seem for someone who is such a stalwart defender of that policy, I only occasionally delete unsourced information and, indeed, am very tolerant of otherwise-good-seeming articles which sometimes have vast stretches of unsourced material (and that's particularly true for non-BLP popular culture articles). Why? Because I think that a rule which doesn't allow such removals sets up a situation where information which really does need to be removed cannot be removed without risking being sanctioned. Such a rule would chill the process of verification which is the source of reliability for the encyclopedia. I would suggest that the problems which you describe can be handled — perhaps not simply or easily, but handled — through the conduct processes here at WP whereas an opposite rule, in effect, provides a practical presumption that uncited information can stay until it is absolutely and utterly proven to be unverifiable or bogus. Since we don't have an editorial board to make decisions about content (which is not a complaint, but simply an observation), verifiability though citations is our only bulwark supporting reliability and, equally important, the only way end users can be sure that what they're reading is reliable. Having said that, there are a couple of areas which are problematic. First, editors who habitually or systematically remove unsourced information over a range of articles but do nothing to seek sources for the information they remove or, generally, to improve articles. It's my feeling that such editors can be sanctioned for habitually or systematically not following best practices, since clearly the best practice — established by this policy — is ordinarily to seek sources, not merely delete, and an editor who systematically or habitually fails to follow best practices is NOTHERE. Second, and one which is harder to resolve, is the editor who removes vast swaths of unsourced information from a single article simply because it is unsourced. That often happens without controversy, I would note, following a failed, but contested, AFD bid. It happens more controversially when it's just done off the cuff. I have (I think; it's been awhile) proposed changes to V to deal with both of those changes, but the proposals got no traction. I suspect that the feeling was that they were niche problems and adding more to V to deal with them would be rule creep. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC) PS: And let me also note that the edit war/3RR policy puts a cap on ordinary controversies arising out of this policy. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty much as TransporterMan says. I don't know where Arbcom was while this policy was evolving, but the mandate for immediate inline sourcing has been there for years. If people want to change it, I can understand that, but that doesn't impact what it is today.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Other than the timing of edits, the definition of "contentious", the definition of "inline citation" and making calamitous judgement errors accusing editors of deliberately attempting to destroy Wikipedia, you're spot on. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Transporterman and Kww. Obviously it's impossible to patrol every unsourced statement on Wikipedia. But the fact that anyone can challenge any unsourced claim at any time tends to keep writers on their toes, and keeps the standard of verifiability higher. I oppose any attempt to restrict challenges to times and subjects that writers find personally convenient. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  20:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Or to provide a "senior content creator license" that allows some editors to violate WP:BURDEN while denying the privilege to others.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's called "good faith". After all, why not block an editor of ten years standing who spends his entire Wikipedia career asking for sources?  And why not compare his actions to those of an IP who turns up to actually harm Wikipedia?  And why not ignore the various articles that are full of genuine contentious BLP violations, including rape accusations, and focus on allegedly misplaced film award items.  That's the crux.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec) We already have too much of a "senior content creator" problem, or WP:OWN and WP:VESTED would not have been written. But it doesn't have anything to do with whether someone is inserting citations fast enough during their marathon sourcing spree; that's close to utterly irrelevant to the issue. It's really about point-of-view control over articles and entire topic areas (especially through WP:CIVILPOV but it's often not too civil), and that's coming almost entirely out of wikiprojects that increasingly flagrantly violate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy. I say "almost" because a review of WP:RFARB and WP:AE archives (when they're not improperly meddling in internal governance matters and wrecking what little separation of powers WP has) shows plenty of it going on with other forms of WP:FACTION, and deeply involving WP:V/WP:RS matters in virtually every case; there was a Signpost article back in March, I think, showing we have external evidence that the government of Pakistan has pro editors constantly manipulating all the articles about that country.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To address a point by TranporterMan: 'editors can be sanctioned for habitually or systematically not following best practices, since clearly the best practice — established by this policy — is ordinarily to seek sources, not merely delete'. Nice in theory, but I see no evidence of this in practice. "Can be" vs. "will be" sanctioned is a very wide gap. What really seems to happen is they edit like mad "productively" on topics of narrow, obscure interest, but when crossed will revert-war, sometimes in an email-coordinated tagteam to skirt 3RR, against their "enemies" making good-faith edits at a wikiproject-OWNed topic area, and crossing over into others that don't agree with "their" articles. Any action sought against them goes nowhere because they're pursuing deletion of "unsourced" material (often material that is sourced but about which they make bogus source reliability complaints, and which is competing with material they festoon with citations that do not actually say what they claim – anything they can think of to WP:FILIBUSTER changes they don't like). It's their "right" under policy to delete the "unsourced" material, see? Plus, their edit histories indicate what productive editors they are, and they're "prominent leaders" of a wikiproject, have some FAs, and spend a lot of time at ANI "helping", so nothing wrong could  be going on. A major enabler of this WP:GAMING system is the scattered nature of these policies. If someone refuses to balance WP:V with WP:COMMONSENSE, you basically have to take them to ANI (where it's unlikely anyone will side with you - "We're  to delete unsourced material! Are you nuts?"); all because the policy doesn't just plainly state "This doesn't mean you can delete everything you see that's unsourced or imperfectly sourced, and focus on deleting content (generally, in any particular topic, or of any particular editors' contributions). See WP:COMMONSENSE." We've really got to get over this "tradition" that we never need mention a policy point again when it's already been mentioned somewhere on one of the 100 pages few really seem to read much less understand but will lecture you about. I've started making edits of this sort, a little here and a little there (e.g. adding "If a style or similar debate becomes intractable, see if a rewrite can make the issue moot" to MOS's lead), but we need a lot more of it. Every policy and guideline should probably mention WP:COMMONSENSE prominently until it become re-ingrained as meaningful on WP.  PS: Some of us are very, very averse to ANI, AE, and other noticeboards due to a history of being patently abused at them by involved admins, with no recourse (that's cost us a lot of good editors), or simply an allergy to psychodrama; I like my bloodpressure below life-threatening levels. "See a problem? Take it to ANI!" is not a solution for everyone, especially since many of "inviolable right-to-delete" types I'm talking about hold grudges indefinitely, and will emerge from the process unscathed anyway.  The editing pool is shrinking enough that it becomes harder and harder to avoid friction with some of these people, so using ANI as a go-to place will make you so many haters you may as well retire now. There's just no up side.  These are not trivial problems.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I noted in my long posting above, I think we ought to have a footnote or something here to address serial-article and single-article mass deletions of unsourced information and I've tried (I think, it's been awhile; it might have just been an "Anyone interested?" inquiry during another discussion) to get one in, with no success. I'd be willing to try again, but I'd strongly prefer to get through the current RFP first. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have often been tempted to write an essay called "WP:Let the wookie win" - about how to react when someone challenges unsourced information in an article that you are working on. In essence, the point of my essay be to remind people that when some bit of information is challenged and removed... you have two choices as to how to react: a) spend a few minutes to locate a source, format a citation, and return the information to the article with that citation (thus ending the challenge)... or b) spend hours and hours debating whether a source is really needed, who is responsible for finding it, and how long they have to do this.  My essay would strongly recommend the first option... because that option takes far less time and effort, and costs far less in terms of angst and frustration. In other words... don't try to fight a challenge - doing so will just end up with everyone getting more upset.  Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooh, such an essay would be of considerable value (catchy evocative title that gets the point across instantly, too), though I'm not sure it would address the behaviors I outlined above. And there are others. There's a great deal of WP:GAMING available in the gap between the instruction to not plagiarize, but rewrite accurately in your own words, and the rule that every claim must be sourced. It's gameable because every clause of every statement can be interpreted as a separate "claim"; even the use of this adjective or verb vs. that one can be challenged as a "claim". The "mega-wookies" do this constantly, because it's essentially impossible to source one's own anti-copyvio rewording of what the source says, ANI is unlikely to tell them they are acting in bad faith for raising interpretational "concerns" about any particular wording unless they've been at ANI for such filibustering a dozen times in the last year, and letting them win emboldens them, validating that they are on the one true path to winning the Wikipedia hi score. Just documenting at such a catchy essay (under ==Don't be a wookie== ?) why the gaming as I outlined here and in the post above is disruptive, could go a long way to curtailing it, since it gives other editors a shortcut to use (WP:WOOKIE is fortuitously available).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that Blueboar's essay will completely ignore GAMING and say this instead: Arguing about whether that sentence needs a source will waste days, if not weeks.  Citing a source will probably take mere minutes.  So just cite it, roll your eyes in private, and move on.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Related to the this section was a simultaneous Arbitration Committee (Arbcom) case. The opinions expressed by the committee on this issued can be found in the section Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Proposed decision. The proposal: "Restoring unsourced material that is uncontroversial and non-negative to a BLP article in one edit is not a violation of BLP as long as subsequent edits provide adequate sourcing." was rejected by seven to two with three abstentions. However the nuances of the arguments presented (which come down to reasonableness and good faith) need to be read to understand the reasons for the rejection, and that the committee were not as divided on the issue as may appear to be the case from simple vote counting. -- PBS (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Section for Nonspecific sources?
Is there, or can/should there be, a section or line that discusses Nonspecific citations? For example, I have come across statements that are cited with just  or. In actuality these statements should be cited to an actual article, not just the homepage of the news agency. Would be great to have a WP:Nonspecific link... -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that there is a piece of previous consensus is this regard at WP:DEEPLINK. I do not disagree that it should be mentioned in WP:V, but people tend to habitually oppose every improvement to this page, so you may find it easier to just point to WP:DEEPLINK.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a template that can be used to indicate the problem: Bad linked references. As an in-line template I suppose Full citation needed can be used, containing a link to WP:CITEHOW (where there's a subsection on webpages used as citation). Nonspecific exists, but is for vaguely formulated article content not even having a citation.
 * A similar issue (regarding citations to the homepage of Google Books) came up here: Bot requests --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC closure challenge: Template talk:Cite doi
Please take part in the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

DVD & Blu-ray technology
All DVD & Blu-ray technology is unverifiable because the specifications are proprietary, requiring a payment and completion of a non-disclosure contact, therefore, all DVD & Blu-ray subjects in Wikipedia should be removed. --MarkFilipak (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pardon, but actually, "freely accessible without effort" is not a criterium in verifiability. Sources you need to pay for are still valid sources for the purposes of this policy (-->WP:SOURCEACCESS).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * is right about sources requiring payment being citable in Wikipedia, but sources that require signing a non-disclosure agreement to see are not published, and so cannot be used to support claims in an article. But I suspect enough published sources can be found to write articles about DVD and Blu-ray technology. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The technical sections of DVD & Blu-ray subjects are full of bogus information, "facts" of the most grossly speculative sort. What is written cannot be challanged by informed people without either breaking copyright law or causing a war in the subject entry pages or both. I'm an engineer and I can assure you that the information there is of the poorest quality. Most of the errors are the result of notions that have a certain internal consistency and have therefore achieved a sort of community conscensus, but that are nonetheless wrong; not simply wrong in fact, but wrong in fundamental ways. Sources requiring non-disclosure are and should be ineligible, but that leaves only information that has been leaked to other "sources" that can be cited. Such clandestine information, while accurate, has no currency against the notions that are flawed and therefore cannot stand up to them, especially when such notions are based on popular misconceptions that are internally consistent and easier to understand than are the actual facts. Visitors reading technical articles about DVDs & Blu-rays have no way to differentiate between the accurate and the bogus because both are unsupported. The Wikipedia model of universal editing simply does not work in the case of proprietary knowledge subject to non-disclosure. Such articles should be removed altogether or they should be operated as a user forum within the wiki with one or more moderators who are recognized subject-authorities. The current situation is intollerable and getting worse. --MarkFilipak (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If content in a Wikipedia article can be verified only through sources access to which is subject to a nondisclosure agreement, doesn't it follow that its inclusion here is a violation of the nondisclosure agreement? If so, is that a legal concern for Wikipedia? —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia is not subject to any non-disclosure agreements that other companies may have made up between themselves.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The situation you describe sounds highly implausible. Wikipedia articles should not be based on primary sources such as the proprietary DVD and Blu-ray specifications. A simple Google search reveals that Encyclopedia Britannica (unsurprisingly) has articles on both DVD and Blu-ray, and undoubtedly there are plenty of reliable technical sources as well. This concludes the discussion [about DVD and Blu-ray] here - the discussion of which of the existing non-primary sources should be used belongs on the talk pages of those articles.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * MarkFilipak has a (general) point imho, related to policy on the matter: if we're too easy on "connecting dots" in fields of knowledge where in principle there is no legitimate access, that might be something we want to write about in guidance: if not in policy, then possibly in WP:RS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant to say the discussion around DVD and Blu-ray sourcing specifically should not evolve here. I've amended the comment accordingly.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sourcing for article content can be challenged at WP:RSN too, just saying, if can't get it worked out at the article talk pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously. One may also ask one's mom or one's dog for advice. A comprehensive list is not necessary.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Anders Feder, the situation is not implausible, it's real and, I believe, serious. I would bet that the Encyclopedia Britannica articles are general in nature, not citations of specific format modes and programming and the like (specifics that are covered by non-disclosure). There are reliable sources for some of these, but those sources can't identify themselves due to legal consequences AND, due to the structure of Wikipedia, they cannot be attributed any more credibility than that given to notional sources that I know to be bogus. If Wikipedia is to be a real encyclopedia and not the encyclopedic equivalent of Popular Science, then a method of factual verification needs to be developed. A consensus of notions will not do when the authoritative facts are hidden by non-disclosure. --MarkFilipak (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but you seem to misunderstand the aim of Wikipedia, which is roughly as general as Encyclopedia Britannica. In fact, one project standard suggests that if "you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." If we can provide better information, that is great, but not required. We are not an instruction manual or a textbook.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Who are you? --MarkFilipak (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you ask?--Anders Feder (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Folks please take a step for a moment. Mark you have had an account since 2008 but you have made only 150 edits; you are still a newbie here and that is clear from what you are writing above.  I will write more to you on your Talk page, as what I have to say isn't appropriate for this Talk page.  This Talk page is for discussion of the Verifiability policy, and not for questions like the ones you are asking (which are not the right questions). Please do see your Talk page. If other folks want to join there, great. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a citation... to delete or not to delete?
I've been told that one should not remove Wikipedia citations, but instead add. Documentation of Better source specifically links to the WP:NOTRS section, which WP:CIRCULAR is apart of. Only when a valid reference has been added, can the Wikipedia citation be removed. This applies to bots and people removing the Wikipedia citations. Bgwhite (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For anyone interested in what Bgwhite means when they say "I've been told", they're referring to a small discussion currently taking place about how a bot (not mine) should handle citation templates that use links to Wikipedia in the 'url' parameter. Background on how the bot came to be marking circular links with Better source can be found further up that same talk page. Please read my response that apparently prompted this section here; I very clearly state "Anyone seeing these references pointed out by the bot's edit (it's not like the bot is inserting them) is welcome to remove them if they think that is the best course of action" (emphasis added), so I honestly have no idea where Bgwhite gets "Only when a valid reference has been added, can the Wikipedia citation be removed. This applies to bots and people removing the Wikipedia citations", which even charitably seems a willful misinterpretation of my opinion on the matter.


 * Bgwhite has been "told" nothing, I'm just a nobody who likes expanding articles no-one gives a crap about, and I only offered an opinion in what semed a pretty mundane discussion. Bgwhite has decided to start this conversation here without informing folks (such as myself, and the bot's owner, Basilicofresco) that would likely be interested. Antepenultimate (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * is not the only person I've discussed this with, sorry, but this isn't about you and what you said. The bot owner hasn't responded to my email, discussion and is rarely on-line. They don't have the only bot that can do this.  This is the edit Antepenultimate complained about that the template would be applied to instead of removing the Wikipedia reference.  .  I also received complaints on removing the Wikipedia ref in this manual edit.  This is an example were the template was applied.  Bgwhite (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course they should be deleted, and I'd be stunned to see anyone argue otherwise. But that is a separate question from whether bots should be doing the deleting. The best course of action may be to simply remove the citation, or it may be to turn it into a normal WikiLink. There could also be an actual reference in the article history or somewhere else on the page that a human editor could find. Thus I think having the bot simply flag these citations makes sense. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The entire saga that I've been aware of has been completely in the context of bot actions. I don't know where Bgwhite gets the idea that anyone thinks circular refs can't be removed without replacement by actual editors, a link to a discussion alleging that would be helpful. For manual, non-bot edits of these sorts, presumably the bad ref would at least need to be replaced with a, or the "cited" passage should be removed, assuming it isn't WP:BLUE. Or, the editor could do a bit of legwork and dig the proper source out of the wikilinked article. Those decisions couldn't be made by a bot, but can be easily accomplished by in-the-flesh editors, which is why I also support this sort of bot-flagging of poor refs. Antepenultimate (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I support having a bot that tags citations to Wikipedia (as opposed to simply removing them)... As is highlighted at WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, while removal of problematic citations is allowed, it should be a last resort. When Article A contains a citation to Article B, simply removing the citation only fixes part of the problem (it resolves the issue of having a problematic citation, but then leaves the information unsourced).  Tagging, on the other hand draws attention to the issue and allows the entire problem to be fixed.  Editors can go look for a reliable source to support the statement (which may well be cited at Article B... a citation that can be cut and pasted into Article A to replace the flawed citation to Article B). Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! Let's face it, we don't have many articles with editors regularly checking their histories and reviewing edits.  Thus, while in a perfect world it would be the best to simply delete such circular references (which a perfect world would never see anyway), in the real world it should be much better to tag circular references simply because that approach increases chances for someone spotting the issues and fixing them.  All that applies to a bot doing that work, of course, while an editor that finds a circular reference should do their best to replace it with a proper one, and delete the circular reference only as a last resort. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 17:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with Blueboar. I have seen where editors seemed to have thought it was good enough to merely point (with a wikilink) to where a citation can be found (in another article). Retaining such links (suitably tagged) gives a subsequent editor a heads-up on where a source might be found. Hopefully the tag will suggest following up on that rather than simply deleting the link. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)
 * I'm the bot operator. Placing a Better source tag seems the best solution to me because draws attention to the issue (my original intent), but at the same time preserves all the informations useful to fix it. For additional details see User talk:Basilicofresco. -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 21:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar the thing here is that we do not actually remove references because these were not references at first place. Wikilinks, independently of how they are written are not references and they should not be presented as references. In fact, we should search for "references" that are sole wikilinks and replace them by proper references or remove them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the point of my comment. I agree that a wikilink is not a citation, and is not enough to satisfy WP:Verifiability... but there is often a citation that will satisfy WP:V at the linked article... a citation that should be copied and pasted into the problematic article. Blueboar (talk) 12:05, 29 September 25 (UTC)

RfC: Are "in popular culture" entries "self-sourcing" or do they require a reference under Verifiability and Identifying reliable sources?
Question: Are "in popular culture" entries self-sourcing, or do they require a reference under Verifiability and Identifying reliable sources?


 * Reference is required. This RfC stems from a difference of opinion between Beyond My Ken and me over the inclusion of particular non-referenced entries in an "in popular culture" section, but has a broader bearing on WP:V and other policies. BMK believes that such entries should be included; I believe that some reference is required. "In popular culture" content (an essay), says:
 * Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference. Furthermore, when the primary source in question only presents the reference, interpretation of this may constitute original research where the reference itself is ambiguous. If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment.
 * This seems to be completely consistent with the principles of Verifiability and Identifying reliable sources, which emphasize the need for verification, a strong preference for secondary rather than primary sources in most circumstances (especially when the primary source is being used outside of an article about itself), and the WP:BURDEN principle, that the editor restoring challenged unsourced content has the burden of providing references. Moreover, "self-sourcing" in "pop culture" entries would also seem to directly lead (1) to original research and synthesis, since the editor could add content to an "in pop culture" section in the absence of any genuine source that actually draws a connection with the new content to the article topic; and (2) to an increase in trivia sections, which we have long disapproved of (and leads to ridiculous outcomes, as this xkcd comic spoofs). In essence, we should not have a more lenient rule for "in pop culture" sections than for other types of content. Neutralitytalk 23:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Reference required save for obvious cases where mentioned by name by the referencing work. I'm also of the opinion that even if there is a source, it needs to be a secondary source to avoid making these reference sections sourced to primary/recapping materials. Avoid all interpretation and possible favoritism here. --M ASEM (t) 00:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * References are required per above. Any additions to popular culture sections need solid references which not only support the added content but also provide some rationale explaining why the linked article is significant to the subject of the host article. Vsmith (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as a popcult item in an article is totally descriptive, without any analysis or interpretation, it is sourced by the item itself, in precisely the same way that every plot section in every film article and many book articles are self-sourcing - that is, based on the editor's experience of seeing the film or reading the book.There is no difference between these scenarios: (1) Reading a book on a particular subject, written by an expert, then taking information from this reliable source and inserting it an article on that subject, rewording it so as to not violate copyright. The information has been perceived by me by reading the book, synopsized by me, rephrased by me, and inserted by me, with a reference. Anyone who wants to verify the information goes to the source, reads what's there, and checks it against what I have written.  (2) Compare this to watching a film, taking something that happened in the film and inserting it into the article on that film, describing it as accurately as I can. The information, therefore, has been perceived by me, described by me, and inserted by me, with a reference to the film it came from. Anyone who wants to verify the information goes to the source, views what's in the film, and checks it against what I have written, thus satisfying WP:V. There is no more reliable source for the contents of a media artifact than the media artifact itself.Now, this is only the case for straight-forward description.  If I want to analyze the media item, or interpret its meaning, or do anything other than simply describing its contents, that would require a source, as it would otherwise be WP:original research. BMK (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In my early life here on the wiki, I spent a great deal of time working with IPC sections and content. There are actually two extremely similar, but easily confused questions in this matter. One is if there needs to be a source demonstrating that a particular reference is being made. The other is if a particular reference is indeed notable. In the case of the first question, many references are self evident. So on this criteria they shouldn't necessarily need a reference, but it would be up to the individual article contributors to make that decision. Focusing on the second question, WP:V and WP:RS mandate that all content in the wiki should have a reference, at the very least have the capacity to be sourced. So on this criteria, most items fail. With that in mind, often we find much content perfectly acceptable without a source, so long as we recognize that it has the capacity to be sourced. Using this rule of thumb, I feel most IPC content disputed can be resolved by the individual article contributors. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 00:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Popcult lists tend to become a coatrack for trivia that promotes subjects which have absolutely no relevance to the article. This gives undue weight, and is unencyclopedic. I think there needs to be sourcing which not only supplies the precision needed to verify the factual accuracy, but sourcing which establishes the notability of the connection (and distinguishes it from original research/synthesis), much like all the other cases where we prefer tertiary rather than primary sources. In the asker's original example, about 3% of the building's article is instead describing a single tenuously-related film; while this connection might be published elsewhere in articles regarding the film (say, a film-trivia column), it seems unlikely that other (encyclopedic) sources would digress on such a tangent within articles where the building itself is supposed to be the primary topic. Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Reference is required. I also agree with Masem that the references should be secondary sources. - Location (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Third-party reference is required before even considering to include such things. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reference is required to indicate the significance of the entry. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reference is required that indicates significance. The analogy I've become fond of lately is that the source shouldn't just establish that the tree fell in the woods, but also that it made a sound when it fell. DonIago (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Broadly, yes, reference is required, but like Nick above, I think there are two issues at work here:
 * Firstly, does WP:V apply? Yes, all material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. Is an in-line reference required? Yes, if the material is challenged or likely to be challenged - this applies to "pop culture" as much as anything else.
 * Secondly, "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion": we must "strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject" - this is the "significance" point raised by Nikkimaria and others, which also applies to items of pop culture.
 * This logic applied to a couple of examples from the article that Neutrality and BMK have been discussing:
 * "The building is the model for "Gotham City Hall" in the 1995 film Batman Forever." - I don't know if the directors of Batman Forever used the Manhattan Municipal Building as the model for Gotham City Hall or not. I can't imagine the fact being mentioned explicitly in the main film by an actor, although perhaps a director's voice over on a special feature might say such a thing. WP:V applies, and a editor can quite properly request that a reliable source for this fact is given. Even if verified, is it an important, significant fact about the Municipal Building? Again, I don't know, but I'd be looking at reliable, secondary sources to see how prominent this sort of information is when the Municipal Building is discussed in the broader literature.
 * "The building appeared in the 1990s sitcom Seinfeld as the workplace of Elaine Benes." - Again, personally I've no idea if Elaine worked at the Municipal Building or not. An editor might reasonably ask for a citation here. It might be 100% clear from the sitcom as a primary source - e.g. episode 14, Elaine might say to Jerry, "I'm off to work at the Manhattan Municipal Building", or it might just be "fairly clear" - e.g. in episode 14, Elaine might walk into a building that we'd all instantly recognise as the Municipal, or it might be ambiguous - e.g. in episode 14, we see just a part of a building that might, or might not, be the Municipal. I'd probably be happy with the show as a primary source being cited (with episode number etc.) for the first two, less so for the third. Again, though, even if verified, is it an important, significant fact about the Municipal Building? Again, I don't personally know, but I'd be looking at reliable, secondary sources to see how prominent this sort of information is when the Municipal Building is discussed in the broader literature. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reference required - per Masem, Nikki, Hchc2009, etc. And they should be secondary sources in order to show how the information sheds light on the article topic, otherwise it is just trivia. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * in most cases, it is not a matter of WP:V but a matter of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE and yes, sources are required  to address those concerns. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are not, and should not be, different standards for popular culture articles than "regular" articles; references are thus required in popular culture articles whenever they would be required in regular articles. To say here when they are and are not required would require restating V and other policies and guidelines. What is different about popular culture articles is that a great deal of the material which makes up those articles is, and can properly be, derived from the article subject itself as a primary source; what is often forgotten by the editors writing those articles is the strict limitations that PRIMARY puts on the use of primary sources, especially these two: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize 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 in original.) (I, personally, do not find plot or other content summary sections to be in violation of the latter requirement unless the article only or mostly consists of the summary section.) Also, editors who do, properly, use primary sources are sometimes not very good about including inline citations to where the material comes from. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Needs a source if challenged or likely to be challenged, otherwise does not need a source. In other words, exactly as per policy.  It is probably unwise to use this RfC as a pretext to start a large-scale campaign of removing material from popular culture articles.— S Marshall  T/C 16:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We seem to be mixing issues here... for VERIFIABILITY purposes "in pop-culture" items usually are self-sourcing. Which means that if challenged, we can cite the source itself as a primary source.  However, that does not address the twin issues of RELEVANCE and IMPORTANCE (or, Note-worthiness... as opposed to NOTABILITY). Simply being verifiable is often not enough for inclusion.  Some pop culture references are too trivial, even for "in pop-culture" sections.  This is one reason why this policy says "Venerability does not guarantee inclusion."  External references are what demonstrates note-worthiness.
 * In other words... the fact that: "Foo is mentioned in episode 53 of the Simpsons" may be verifiable (it is a factoid that can be supported by citing that episode)... HOWEVER, being verifiable does not mean that we must mention that fact (or factoid) in our article on Foo (much less our article on the Simpsons)... It may well be too trivial even for a trivia section. Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No disagreement from me, at least, on that. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree a bit here (not so much to the end point that we're agreeing on). There is "this happened in this work" that WP:V can be met by simply the existence of the work, but to day "This reference to another work happened in this work" (the more common way pop-culture references come up) starts to engage in OR if the other work is not named directly, even if a person aware of both works thinks it is obvious. We have to consider if the average reader only seeing the main work (the one we know meets WP:V) would immediately make the connection if they haven't seen or read the referenced work, and in most cases, they won't. And because "obviousness" is one of those slippery slope words, it's best to enforce this using OR policy and requiring secondary sources so that we aren't making "obvious" conclusions that really aren't that obvious and keep these types of sections in check. --M ASEM  (t) 21:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Blueboar and SMarhall raise a WP:ONUS issue, which is different from WP:Burden. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Reference required, and it should be a WP:SECONDARY reference, not primary. The mere fact of the pop culture intersection does not necessarily show that the bit is important to the topic. Secondary sources are needed to demonstrate importance. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Question: What, if anything would this RfC do to/for an article like Abraham Lincoln cultural depictions? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My two cents on that would be that if sources couldn't or wouldn't be provided for many of the items on the list than they would likely be eligible for removal. That said, there is also WP:LSC; perhaps in that case it would be worth discussing what exactly must occur for an item to merit inclusion. DonIago (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Secondary sources should be required in almost all cases in order to show significance. Popular culture references without secondary sources should be removed.  But I would add something else to this:  I feel that dedicated popular culture sections should be generally discouraged in almost all cases, much the same way we generally discourage criticism sections (and for the same reason.)  Legitimately significant information about the article subject's place and portrayals in popular culture should be easy to integrate into the rest of the text.  If it can't be integrated, it probably doesn't belong.  Devoting a section to popular culture just encourages people to use it as a dumping ground for stuff like every time the article's subject was used in a 10-second cutaway gag in Family Guy or the like. (Not to pick on Family Guy, but its frequent usage of quick cutaway gags for pop-culture references has resulted in a huge number of references to it in Popular Culture sections which are, almost without exception, incredibly trivial.) Currently, the essay on pop-culture sections doesn't even state mention integration that I can see; I feel it should unequivocally state that integrating references into the rest of the article is generally preferable to dedicating a section to them. --Aquillion (talk)
 * no change needed. basically, I feel the procedures for these articles should be kept exactly the way they are right now. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * An example of one way to deal with the issue: Our article on the Eye of Providence (sometimes called the "all seeing eye of God") at one time contained a long list of every TV show, film, book, website, video game, etc that contained a depiction of the the topic symbol ... we resolved this issue by combining them all into an umbrella statement (simply stating "Numerous video games, TV shows, films, books and websites contain depictions of the eye.")
 * Now, when someone adds their favorite trival occurance, we remove it with the comment... "covered under 'numerous video games, TV shows, etc" in previous bullet point...".
 * Note that we don't bother to cite a source to support this umbrella statement (because so many sources exist that the umbrella statement has never been challenged). Blueboar (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Why are we even here? Reference required; Facebook and (now defunct) Geocities are thataway --->. Moreover, "In popular Culture" is not admissible unless the popular culture phenomenon itself is a verifiable phenomenon. Just becuase person A mentioned novel B in television show C does 'not mean the mention goes in the article about Novel B. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent dispute: Questionable sources section
changed the text: "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. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below . They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." to "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. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for statements about themselves, for example in an article about such a source; see below. They are not suitable sources for anything else."

reverted to the text as edited by, and there has been some subsequent back and forth.

Can we please come to agreement here rather than in edit summaries while the policy page goes back and forth? DES (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * views on the substantive issue:
 * This does at least slightly change the meaning. I, for one, prefer "especially in articles about themselves" to "for example in an article about such a source" as this is the main place where use of such sources is proper. As to whether it can be said that such sources are not suitable for "anything else" or only not for "contentious claims about others", I would like to know what sort of non-contentious statements about something other than themselves and their views such sources might properly be cited for? DES (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, DESiegel (DES), I was just about to state the following, before you beat me to posting: As seen here, here and here, EEng and Bbb23 are in disagreement about content that EEng recently added. I agree with Bbb23 that EEng did change the meaning. The text "They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." is obviously different than the text "They are unsuitable as sources for anything else." And neither text is consistent with the WP:SELFPUBLISH section, since questionable sources may be used in cases where the topic is not specifically about the source. For example, they may be used for exclusive interviews (for instance, a site that interviewed a celebrity). If we classify that as "about self" because the interview is coming specifically from that source, then disregard my "they may be used for exclusive interviews" statement. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm glad my bold edit has stimulated discussion, since there's clearly a gap between should only be used as sources of material on themselves and not suitable sources for contentious claims about others, as DES has observed; I leave it to wiser heads than mine to find the ultimate resolution on that. The heavy hand on the revert button was unwarranted, I have to say. EEng (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, per what I stated above, the "should only be used as sources of material on themselves" part should be changed to include "usually" so that it reads as "should usually only be used as sources of material on themselves." Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't believe you had the temerity to go back in yet another time and change the language. You boldly change a policy. You incorrectly call the changes copy edits. You are reverted. That's when you stop and go to the Talk page. That would be true even in an ordinary article but even more true with respect to policy, and, forgive me, even more true when an administrator reverts you. I have trouble discussing the merits of the changes when an editor is this disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Disruptive"? Oh, please. Get your finger off the revert button and make an effort to evaluate a good-faith edit on its merits, even if you have to take time from your busy, busy admin's day to do so. And if you don't have the time to do that, leave the review to others who do. Like it says at the top of this very page, "Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic."


 * As should have been instantly obvious on seeing my edits (sorry if my second ES was inaccurate -- my fault there) there's a built-in contradiction between those two adjacent provisions, and I was making a stab at resolving it. And what happened to that wise old rule that the default revert summary should only be used for vandalism? EEng (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't think anyone used the word "dagnabbit". :-) I didn't undo your changes because of vandalism. Although it uses the word "reverted", it included an edit summary, unlike a vandalism revert. It's just the way I undo two or more consecutive edits instead of a single edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I was so pissed off by your "forgive me" comment that my brain went haywire on the ES issue. But I still mean it about the rest -- slow down, please. Dagnabbit. EEng (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * EEng, I somewhat disagree with Bbb23 on the "even more true when an administrator reverts you" part, at least as far as articles go. That is, unless it's a policy matter (for example, a WP:BLP issue). Our administrators have also been wrong at times when it comes to how they interpret policy. But I do agree with him on how you went about this. You clearly weren't being intentionally disruptive; in my opinion, you were acting in good faith. But, as noted, this a policy page; it's not a good idea to edit war over long-standing material at a policy page. It's usually not good to edit war at all. And I state "usually" because I've seen necessary edit wars, such as tag team cases that were needed (I don't mean the problematic tag teams that the disputed WP:Tag team essay currently focuses on). And I state "usually" because the WP:Edit war policy has exemptions; your reverts on this case clearly don't fall under one of those exemptions. That stated, your edits on this matter have, as you've noted, highlighted a contradiction that should be remedied. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't an edit war. And if we peons are supposed to show special deference to admins' edits, then admins need to start putting "Better watch it, I'm an admin" in their signatures, and Wikimedia needs to put their edit summaries in red or something. I'm certainly not going to go around checking user rights every time someone reverts a change (with several separable bits) with a superficial dismissive edit summary. EEng (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We disagree on the edit war aspect then. Flyer22 (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a policy page, not an article. Even so, an admin should not carry any greater weight than any experienced, respected editor. But as per WP:BRD, when one has been reverted after a bold edit, one stops to discuss, rather than re-reverting. Granted that BRD is an essay and not a guideline or policy, it is a widely-applied essay. On a policy page in particular, I think one should be especially careful not to edit war, nor to do anything remotely like edit warring. Indeed I for one don't favor bold edits to policy pages, but rather making and refining proposals and obtaining consensus on the relevant talk page before changing the policy page. I think a number of other editors hold this view. But now that the edit has been made, and reverted, and re-reverted and disputed, can we actually discuss the substance of the suggested change, rather than who did or said what in making or reverting it, please? DES (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just going to say the same thing. EEng (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Now then... Given that, in all the confusion, this edit has survived for 12 hours, can we now agree to add on Flyer's suggestion, so that are now at --
 * 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. Questionable sources should usually be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

--? EEng (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't include the "Exclusive interview" exception urged above. Should it? If a subject chooses to give an interview to a questionable source, and there is no serious suggestion that the interview was simply invented by the source, then it is the subject's words, wherever they are published. I haven't seen this exception on any of the relevant policy or guideline pages, but perhaps it makes sense. DES (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, but are we OK on the "usually" language so far? As to interviews...
 * But are they the subject's words? Interviews are always edited to at least some extent (removing "er... um... wait, let me back up... um", selecting/omitting Q/A pairs, etc.) and I'm not sure that the same qualities that make us doubt a source's judgment for straight facts shouldn't also make us doubt their reliability in presenting the interviewee's responses in an undistorted light. Certainly the National Enquirer routinely says, "In an exclusive interview, Celebrity X said '[totally made up bullshit]'. When asked [outrageous question], he added, '[absurd alleged answer]'.". I wonder if the "usually" language isn't enough to allow the possibility of interviews, without inadvertently making a blanket exception for them. EEng (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * For what I mean by exclusive interviews from questionable sources, see this discussion (that's a WP:Permalink) from the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. It addresses reliability, trustworthiness, reputation, and so on. I wasn't suggesting that we mention anything in the policy about exclusive interviews; I was simply giving an example of where a questionable source may used for something that is not specifically about itself. I agree that the "usually" wording is enough. Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * EEng, I suggest you go ahead and make the "usually" change. Either that, or I will. There is no valid excuse for having the aforementioned inconsistency on the policy page. Flyer22 (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I changed the heading of this section by adding ": Questionable sources" on to it, so that is clearer what this discussion is about and will be easier to locate once archived. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Continuing
Done. But there's something else. How about changing
 * They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

to read
 * They are normally unsuitable as sources for other kinds of material, and should never be used to support contentious statements about others.

This emphasizes the general unsuitability (while still leaving the smallest bit of wiggle room, per "usually") while drawing a bright line at contentious statements about others (though I've never really understood what contentious really means, but that's another story...).

Thoughts? EEng (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The "never be used to support contentious statements about others" suggestion can conflict with the aforementioned exclusive interviews aspect. It might even conflict with an expert weighing in on something that others might view as a contentious statement about someone. As for what is contentious, the fact that there are different interpretations is seen at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 36, Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 39 and Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 63. All are recent discussions. The final two are very big discussions, especially the last one. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So we accept a questionable source's report of what a "reliable source" (i.e. expert being quoted, or person speaking about himself in an interview) says? I guess that's the question. EEng (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * COMMENT - An interview with an expert can certainly qualify as a non-RS "questionable" source... when there is reason to doubt whether the source is accurately reporting what the expert actually said. For example: A questionable source might cherry pick statements by the expert - omitting qualifying statements - so it appears as if the expert supports a particular POV... one that that the expert may not actually support. In this case it isn't the expert who is questionable, it's the publication.  Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear why you're repeating what I already said above: "Interviews are always edited to at least some extent (removing "er... um... wait, let me back up... um", selecting/omitting Q/A pairs, etc.) and I'm not sure that the same qualities that make us doubt a source's judgment for straight facts shouldn't also make us doubt their reliability in presenting the interviewee's responses in an undistorted light." You've reverted the addition of usually, thus restoring the logical inconsistency discussed above. What do you propose? EEng (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any logical inconsistency... and I have a problem with adding the "usually" qualifier. I don't think we should allow an interview published by a questionable (ie unreliable) source... even when the person being interviewed is an expert... because it is highly likely that a questionable source will edit the interview, and cherry pick the expert's statements in an effort to make it sound as if the expert agrees with the source's POV. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, there is indeed a contradiction. There is this sentence: "Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below."


 * As noted above, that sentence is at odds with the WP:SELFPUBLISH subsection. Self-published sources are clearly questionable sources (often enough anyway). The WP:SELFPUBLISH section does not state or indicate that "questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves." In fact, it clearly allows leeway, as opposed to the "should only" wording you reverted to. And as I pointed out above with a link to a WP:Reliable sources noticeboard discussion, exclusive interviews by questionable sources are sometimes allowed. Since they are sometimes allowed, it is not true that "questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves," unless we are stating that the exclusive interviews classify as "about self" because the interview is coming specifically from that source. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * EEng, going back to my statement that your "never be used to support contentious statements about others" suggestion "might even conflict with an expert weighing in on something that others might view as a contentious statement about someone," well, the WP:SELFPUBLISH section does state "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." So your suggestion is close to what is already stated on the policy page, though the "What is contentious?" debate still exists. Flyer22 talk) 20:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Flyer... can you give us some specific examples of exclusive interviews by questionable sources that were allowed?
 * I have to wonder if perhaps you are assuming that all Self-published sources are automatically questionable?... or that all questionable source are self-published? Neither is accurate.  While most self-published sources can be considered questionable, not all are.  Also, questionable-ness often depends on context (for example, an expert's self-published blog is not "questionable" when he/she is writing on the topic of his/her expertise... even though it might be questionable when discussing other things.)  Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I reiterate that I pointed to two recent examples above; these examples are now seen at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive208 and Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 198. In what way would you not consider the Daily Mail a questionable source, given its reputation and that so many experienced Wikipedians reject it as a source because of that reputation? The other example is comicbookmovie.com; it's what editors call a self-published source, and yet editors were clear, in that noticeboard discussion, that it may be used for exclusive interviews. Like I also noted above, that discussion addresses reliability, trustworthiness, reputation, and so on. Comicbookmovie.com's reputation is good, but it is no doubt considered a questionable source by experienced Wikipedians simply due to the fact that they'd place it in the self-published category. From my experience editing Wikipedia since 2007, experienced Wikipedians always consider a self-published source a questionable source. And why wouldn't they when the definition for questionable sources at the policy page states that "[q]uestionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest."? Comicbookmovie.com has no demonstrable editorial oversight, despite its good reputation. So as for you wondering "if perhaps [I am] assuming that all Self-published sources are automatically questionable?", I already stated above in response to you, "Self-published sources are clearly questionable sources (often enough anyway)." Notice my qualification of "often enough anyway." I am well aware that not all questionable sources are self-published. I am not a WP:Newbie, or someone who otherwise lacks experience with the topic of sourcing reliably. The Daily Mail, for example, is not self-published; that, however, doesn't make it any less of a questionable source. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: SELFPUB always being QUESTIONABLE... Not quite... for example, we have the "expert exemption" to WP:SELFPUB... an expert's self-published blog would not be considered questionable when the expert is writing on a subject within his/her field of expertise. It would be unreliable, and might be questionable when he/she is writing on other subjects.
 * As for the Daily Mail... I don't think the Daily Mail (or any other major news outlet) qualifies as a QUESTIONABLE source... at least not in it's entirety. Yes... I would label it's celebrity gossip stories with the word "questionable"... and sure, there are lots of news outlets that are more reliable (and thus would be given a lot more weight if what they say conflicts with what the DM says) ... but... The DM (and every major news outlet) falls on the "reliable" side of the line for most of its content.  There is a fair amount of legitimate  journalism within its pages.
 * As for Comicbookmovie.com, I gather it is user generated. That would define it as being an unreliable source... but it would not necessarily make it a QUESTIONABLE source. Questionable sources are a sub-set of unreliable sources... and there are plenty of unreliable sources that do not qualify as "questionable".  Based on its reputation, I would place it in that category (i would do the same for IMDB). Blueboar (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, I was not stating that self-published sources are certainly always questionable; that is why I included the qualifier of "often enough anyway," no matter that it is in parentheses. I did, however, state that "experienced Wikipedians always consider a self-published source a questionable source." I've seen it for years, and I still see it. To my knowledge, you are the first experienced Wikipedian I've come across to not consider a self-published source a questionable source (I mean, you're the first I've seen to clearly relay that). So your view of distinguishing the two is not what I would call a widely held view at this site. And your view on the Daily Mail is certainly debatable, as indicated by the aforementioned discussion regarding it, where "questionable" is indeed a factor in that discussion. The Daily Mail being so shunned by experienced Wikipedians, as seen in this search of archives at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and in this search of archives at the WP:BLP noticeboard, is why I avoid using that source at this site. Then again, because of the aforementioned interpretations of what is "contentious" (and debates I've seen at the WP:Edit warring talk page about what is or is not a WP:3RR violation, and other interpretations of Wikipedia policies or guidelines), such different views are not surprising to me. I see a contradiction without "usually" being where EEng placed it; EEng obviously sees the contradiction. You don't. I see no where left to go in this discussion, so I'm done discussing it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am hardly the only editor to think that major news outlets are generally reliable. We have discussed the reliability of news orgs many many times on RSN... and specifically discussed the Daily Mail multiple times...  Just to give a few examples, read: here, and here and here. You will see that our experienced editors take a more nuanced approach to the issue of reliability than you are presenting.
 * As for the issue of applying the term "questionable" to news orgs: I was one of the editors who helped draft the SELFPUB section... and what I can tell you is that major news outlets (even the tabloids) were not what we had in mind when we used that term. We were thinking more along the lines of fringe authors and hate group websites. Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't state that you are "the only editor to think that major news outlets are generally reliable." I stated "your view on the Daily Mail is certainly debatable," and pointed to searches of archives showing it. I am out there editing and WP:Patrolling Wikipedia articles daily, in addition to seeing this site's various talk page and noticeboard discussions, and so I know that your argument that "our experienced editors take a more nuanced approach to the issue of reliability than [I am] presenting" is generally not true when it comes to the Daily Mail. Many times a year I see editors yanking the Daily Mail out of articles simply because it's the Daily Mail. Our experienced editors taking "a more nuanced approach viewpoint" when it comes to the Daily Mail is the minority viewpoint, as the vast majority of the aforementioned archives I pointed to above, including Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 106, show. Our experienced editors generally consider the Daily Mail a terrible source, not just for WP:BLPs but for almost anything; in some cases, they consider it a terrible source for everything. And some of them have tried to get the site banned or blacklisted (not the spam type of blacklisted noted at WP:Blacklisted); the aforementioned archives, including the "Time to axe the Daily Mail" discussion, show that. They call the source unreliable, questionable, rubbish, "the Daily Fail," etc. Pointing to a few discussions of "a more nuanced approach" doesn't change that. The main reason our experienced editors call the Daily Mail unreliable, questionable, rubbish, "the Daily Fail," etc. is because of its reputation for fact-checking and tendency to fabricate entire stories. And what does our definition at this policy page for questionable sources state? I repeat: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." The Daily Mail's trustworthiness is shot to hell. So our experienced editors are not wrong to call the Daily Mail a questionable source, even if it's being used to source a video game or an inclusive interview.


 * Whatever you or the others intended for the WP:SELFPUBLISH section as far it's message goes does not stop different interpretations of the section and sections under it; this is why I noted above that it's common for editors to interpret our policies and guidelines in different ways. When they do, it is also common to tweak those policies and guidelines so that there is less room for interpretation. I understand that you think adding "usually" will increase interpretation of the policy, and not in a good way. And so we are at an impasse. I already stated that I don't see this discussion going anywhere, and sure enough it isn't; right now it is a debate about the reliability of the Daily Mail. As I've stated, I disagree with you about the "usually" addition. And since it's just you and me debating the matter, and this discussion is essentially stagnant, I see no need to continue this discussion with you. Flyer22 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's a shame discussion has broken down, though without more participation (than the three of us) it's obviously not going to end with a change to the text, which as it stands –
 * Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

– certainly contains a logical puzzle, since it says "Q is used only for T; Q is not used for C", where T and C are not complements of each other, leading to uncertainty about whatever's outside both of them. If this were part of MOS we could always take refuge in MOS' standard "occasional exceptions apply" disclaimer, but this is a policy page, with no such disclaimer. I might point out that questionable isn't the same as completely unusable, and room for rare exceptions should probably be provided. EEng (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability and Wikidata
The text of this policy does not mention Wikidata at all, so my question is this. Assuming: ...is it necessary (or even desirable?) to provide a reference for that statement in the article itself? In other words: does WP:V extend to Wikidata in a sense that Wikidata references count towards verifiability? GregorB (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) A piece of information exists in Wikidata, and...
 * 2) ...is appropriately referenced in Wikidata, and...
 * 3) ...is retrieved from Wikidata into a Wikipedia article using e.g. the <tt>#property</tt> parser function...


 * I would say that it should be treated as information obtained from any other Wikipedia Foundation site; there must be a reference in the article. This is particularly true since Wikidata often obtains its information from Wikipedia, and I strongly suspect the reference was imported from Wikipedia too without being read, in many cases.


 * I would go further; it is wrong to import a piece of data from Wikidata, which has a reference in that database, unless the person importing the data reads the reference and confirms it truly exists and supports the claim.


 * An additional point: Wikidata currently is broken with respect to dates before AD 1, and insists that all dates are in the time zone 0 (no offset from Universal Time, such as Britain in winter). Thus all birth dates and death dates for events not located close to 0° longitude are wrong. I would say no dates should be imported from Wikidata until these flaws are fixed. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Jc3s5h here (except I have no knowledge on whether or not dates before year 1 are handled correctly nor about time zone offsets). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * When I wrote "appropriately referenced", I meant "referenced in a way compatible with WP:V", i.e. using reliable, non-circular sources.
 * In order for Wikidata to be truly useful for Wikipedia, properties must be used en masse, chiefly in an automated fashion, which would obviously preclude manual checking of each claim.
 * Suppose dates get fixed one day on Wikidata, and suppose e.g. Infobox person is enhanced so as to fetch the date of birth/death from Wikidata, using properties P569/P570. Take Michael Jackson for example: currently, 175 Wikipedia editions have his bio, each giving his DOB and (ideally) providing a ref. (I'm assuming here for the sake of the argument that all these articles have infoboxes, which of course is not true.) Also, when he died, 175 wikis had to provide the date of his death, again providing a ref. This is highly wasteful and redundant, which is one of the main reasons we have Wikidata in the first place. However, a strict interpretation of WP:V (sourcing within the article only) would completely preclude this scenario of Wikidata integration - unless, perhaps, referencing is completely decoupled from data (i.e. "fetch DOB/DOD from Wikidata, but reference them locally"), which would probably be even worse than what we have now. What is the way to go regarding Wikidata then and can WP:V be made compatible with it? GregorB (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk about scholarly citations on Wikipedia
The WMF analytics team is presenting a pair of talks on the subject of m:Wikipedia as the front matter to all research this Friday December 4, 2015 (two days from now) at 12:00 noon PST. They will talk about unique identifiers and scholarly citations in Wikipedia. One of the speakers is from CrossRef, and his subject is primarily about how Wikipedia citations bring non-scientists into contact with the scientific literature. The talk will be broadcast on YouTube, so that anyone can watch it. There is more information on Meta. Please join if you're interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

'Verifiability' is poorly defined
The lead says: verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. What does verifiability mean here in a practical sense? That
 * 1) a link to a reliable source is provided in the article, or merely that
 * 2) such a source must exist somewhere, or
 * 3) something else.

Now,
 * If the first option is correct, which I think it is, the quoted statement contradicts what follows. Combining the statement with All material in Wikipedia mainspace, [...], must be verifiable. would then give All material in Wikipedia mainspace, [...], must link to a reliable source. But then it says: 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. Now it suddenly says that only a subset of all content needs a source (mathematically that is not a contradiction, but in normal language it is). Also: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed implies that not all material needs a source.
 * If the second option is correct, we wouldn't even need to include the existing source to the article, unless other guidelines require that, such as BLP. I think that is not the correct interpretation of verifiability.

I tried to work my way through the archives where related issues have been discussed many times, but I can't find a clear answer to my question. It would be really helpful to editors if we can improve the definition of the title word of this guideline as it is one of the core content policies, and if needed we need to solve the contradiction. Gap9551 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * All material must be verifiable, but only certain material requires an inline citation (which need not be a hyperlink; it could be a citation to a paper book or the like). Some material is so uncontentious and well known that the reader who hasn't already verified the claim just through the process of living can easily verify the claim by looking it up in innumerable readily available sources. For example, I don't need a book to tell me Paris is the capital of France, I've been there. If I don't happen to know who the senators are from Idaho, it will be very easy for me to find a reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It means all three of the following:-
 * 1) All material in the encyclopaedia must be verifiable, in that a reliable source for it must exist somewhere; and
 * 2) All material in the encyclopaedia which has been challenged must be verified, in that a reliable source for it must be provided by means of an inline citation, or else the material can be removed; and
 * 3) All material in the encyclopaedia which is likely to be challenged must be verified, in that a reliable source for it must be provided by means of an inline citation, or else the material can be removed.
 * Hope this helps— S Marshall T/C
 * Thanks both, that does help. So my second option is correct after all, not the first (in the general sense, only in specific cases), which wasn't obvious from the current definition verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Unless I'm the only person who finds the current phrasing of the lead unclear, would it worth explicitly stating a version of your clarifications in the project page, in particular that non-contentious material need not necessarily have a source listed in the article provided it exists somewhere (but that it may still be good practise to add one)? Gap9551 (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
I question the first sentence, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." It is cited to various statements that exceptional evidence or proof is required. To me that means we need a good reliable source from a recent, relevant high-quality secondary publication that explains where it obtained its information. That allows us to investigate whether the source has accurately reported the information and we can always challenge it with other sources that contradict it.

The problem with the current wording is that it is an invitation to source bomb, to provide numerous sources, none of which are conclusive, and require anyone challenging it to read through each of them. In fact when a news source reports news inaccurately, it is often picked up on wire services and reported in hundreds of other publications.

I suggest instead that it read "Any exceptional claim requires a high quality source."

TFD (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you give an actual example of your hypothesized scenario actually happening? EEng (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The current wording is fine. Any single source can be in error, regardless of its quality. Therefore, if a single source were to report, for example, that a cold fusion experiment demonstrated that a magic box could produce 1 MW net power output for 24 hours the article would be cautious about how that result was reported, even if the source would normally be regarded as high quality. If it was a recent report, the concern would be that a mistake might have been made (if not fraud—a lot of money is made when magic devices get good reports), and we should wait for confirmation by other sources before reporting it as a known fact. If it was an old report, the concern would be that there should have been other experiments to replicate the result, and the fact they cannot be found suggests the single finding was not significant. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur with Johnuniq that the current wording is best, for the reasons he stated. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too, especially since the problem the proposed change claims to solve appears to by hypothetical. EEng (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to mention if someone is determined enough they will invent some loophole in whatever rule we come up with. I think this should only be changed if the rule is being exploited on a consistent basis or there is genuine confusion about it.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears that TFD does not appreciate the problem with exceptional claims, nor the proper application of WP:WEIGHT. A claim is exceptional when it is contrary to the majority viewpoint, and if there is only "a" source in support then (to quote Jimbo) "it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article."


 * TFD may also be unaware that high-quality sources (i.e., journals) often publish work that makes exceptional claims. Publication in itself does not make a claim credible or grant approval, it only exposes the claim for consideration. "In fact", the wire services, and the popular media generally, are more likely to light-up on a report that "Einstein got it wrong" then on all those boring, hard-to-understand reports that Einstein still has it right. Determination of scientific consensus can be challenging because there is rarely any headline when that consensus comes together, and because WP editors are often unfamiliar with what secondary sources are truly reliable. I believe this is also true in other fields. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

stronger wording?
I've been editing WP since 2006, and I refer to WP:V a lot. I really like this sentence about WP:


 * Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.

Plenty of editors think that they can just edit WP in ways that make sense to them. That's what I thought when I started years ago. I have edited a lot of controversial pages, such as Jesus, Historical Jesus, Purgatory, and Evolutionary Psychology. Getting editors to be true to published sources is often a challenge. Based on my experiences, I have a simple suggestion to make this line stronger. Change it to:


 * Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the opinions or experiences of its editors.

Here's my reasoning.
 * 1) Editors freely share their opinions but not their beliefs. Someone who believes in creationism might oppose a reference to evolution, but they will do so by stating an opinion rather than by referencing their own beliefs. They'll say, "This reference to evolution is outside the scope of this article," rather than "I'm a creationist and want to remove this reference to evolution."
 * 2) The term "opinions" is broader. Sometimes editors have opinions that are not connected to anything that would normally be called a "belief." For example, I often hear that a page should describe all sides of an issue without favoring one side over another. That's an opinion but I wouldn't call it a belief.
 * 3) Editors are not supposed to speculate about the personal beliefs of other editors. If I say, "WP isn't based on your beliefs," that requires me to infer what their beliefs are and how they affect their editing. But if I say, "WP isn't based on your opinions," that's legitimate because their opinions are right there on the Talk page.

WP:V is a touchstone for good WP editing, and I think this change will make this important sentence even stronger than it already is. Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Week Opposed - I think you are overthinking it... opinions are beliefs... no one would state an opinion that they don't believe. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Even though I do sometimes state opinions that I do not entirely believe in (there are some subtle differences), yet I find JT's argument in favor underwhelming, and even too much of a stretch. Overthought, indeed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

In popular culture and secondary sources, redux
Given that the RfC on the necessity of secondary sources for In popular culture-style items occurred here (see the most recent archive), I am asking here for additional editors to weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Little Boxes. Thank you for your input. DonIago (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Require explicit declaration of self-published sources in articles.
As we know, "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"

I personally, think that self-published sources must explicitly declare themselves as such in some way, shape, or form within articles, to inform readers that the source may not be vetted by third-parties. Presumably, on citation templates, compliance would be maintained by listing  in the template. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Requiring" it isn't going to work, because editors get to choose their own citation styles, and this isn't included in some (e.g., Chicago, MLA, etc.). But you could propose "encouraging" it at WT:CITE and in the docs for citation templates.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Private correspondence with BLP subject that is made public usable as source?
I've been having a disagreement over original research regarding an editor's insistence that her personal correspondence (e-mail, instagram, texting) with a subject of BLP is a reliable source. The editor has then posted screen captures of the correspondence to a picture site and referred to that as the source. Is this acceptable for verifying information? <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * heck no. WP:SPS above all. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What Jytdog said, but also, "Yes, absolutely"... if the claim you're trying to source is something like "This linked screen capture contains this information". I'm not sure why anyone would want to put that kind of information in an encyclopedia article, but those sources would properly verify that kind of information.  Reliability always depends upon the content to be supported, not just the nature of the source.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

equating patents to personal blogs is a quite poorly thought-out bit of conflation
Patents are very good sources for certain burdens of proof, and absolutely not for others.

Much greater discernment is required on part of Wikipedia's project pages on this source of reference, if there is to be accuracy on this subject. For example, there is a fundamental difference between a published application and an issued patent. By definition, issued patents are the most reliable secondary source (yes, secondary) of information concerning what are valid claims of novelty (by definition, a legal determination).

As an additional example, it makes little sense, particularly in light of the great number of "infommercials" disguised as articles on Wikipedia, that, when there is a question of novelty, or of the commercial history of a technology, that readers cannot be referred to the legal recordation of prior art searches that are professionally conducted by trained government employees on precisely the claimed point of novelty. That's part of what is called a "patent." It has its place. Wikibearwithme (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand who writes the patent specification. The patent office can't change so much as the punctuation in the specification.  The prior art search isn't part of either the patent specification or claims.  (Also, inventors and patent agents are supposed to do their own prior art searches, not just the patent office.)  And if your claim is that the independent (NB, not "secondary"; WP:Secondary does not mean independent) patent examiners are ruling on novelty and therefore a reliable source for saying that something is new, then I have some sympathy, but I remind you about the patent issued to a boy in 2000 for swinging sideways on a swing – something that had, in fact, been published before (for example, by school handbooks prohibiting the practice) decades before.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think Wikibearwithme's point is about claims in an issued patent, which are indeed the product of a negotiation between an examiner and the applicant. However even an issued claim can be challenged any number of ways, and many an issued claim has thrown out in court or an administrative proceeding.  In my view, the point of mentioning patents and patent applications in this policy  document is to ensure they are rarely used (and if used, lightly) because as WAID notes the specification is self-generated and on top of that, is a legal document intended to argue a point on behalf of the inventors - not  indepedent at all.  And interpreting claims is not something that editors in WP should be doing.  If some secondary, independent, authoritative source says something about a patent or application, that would be the thing to use.  Not the patent or application itself. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Replacing "unencyclopedic" with a better-defined example in a footnote
One of the footnotes on the policy page reads:


 * 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 problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back. - Verifiability

A better-defined example than "unencyclopedic content" should be used. I've several times encountered "unencyclopedia" used in content discussions and disputes, and it is almost always in the context of trying to back up a (imo) broad, "I don't like it" type of argument.

I looked for another Wikipedia PAG reference to unencyclopedic and all I could find is an essay, which says, under WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, Saying something is "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" are empty arguments. Unencyclopedic means "not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted".

Maybe something like "overly promotional wording" - WP:SOAP seems popular in certain types of discussion? --Tsavage (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It refers to WP:NOT, and I've linked it to clarify. You yourself have referred to WP:ISNOT when you wrote, "if the item is not obviously trivial or otherwise unencyclopedic (as covered under other PAGs, like WP:ISNOT", so I'm unclear why the confusion. --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Policy wording should be clear and straightforward. While linking "unencyclopedic" to WP:NOT may make sense in the context of the footnote, in practice (as noted in WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC), the term "unencyclopedic" is often used as a broad, throwaway challenge, whereas ensuring verifiability requires clearly identifying the issues.


 * "Unencyclopedic" does not appear in the What Wikipedia is not policy page, so we shouldn't introduce it here. If we can avoid encouraging misuse, even with regard to a minor mention in a footnote, we should.


 * A more clear wording, in line with the example that precedes it, would be: (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, content not suitable for Wikipedia, etc.).


 * I will wait for more input. --Tsavage (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:NOT is a very important content policy and, to me, does a decent job of the way in which the community considers Wikipedia to be an encyclopedic. That policy starts "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not." What is "unencyclopedic" for the purposes of Wikipedia is what falls in the broad content parts of that policy (I say "content parts" only because it includes matters of community as well). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 02:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm not expressing an issue with WP:NOT, I am referring to using the term "unencyclopedic" in the WP:V policy wording, for reasons explained above. The less hot-button shorthand terms to throw into disputes, the better. --Tsavage (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia is not (as an online encyclopedia) is, in other words, what is unencylopedic.--Dwy (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Start here! "Unencyclopedic" reworded as "content not appropriate for Wikipedia"
Amendment to the original post: I am proposing a change in the footnote, Verifiability:


 * From: "unencyclopedic content"


 * To: "content not suitable for Wikipedia" OR "content not appropriate for Wikipedia"

"Unencyclopedic" does not appear on the What Wikipedia is not policy page, it is less self-explanatory (think new editor) than the proposed alternative, and it is misused in disputes as a non-specific argument (e.g. "oppose as unencyclopedic" - which of the 17 NOT's is it?). Policy wording should be clear and straightforward. See also: WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. --Tsavage (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to retain "unencyclopedic". It's a subset of what's not suitable for Wikipedia. There is encyclopedic content that is not suitable for Wikipedia, too. It's not an ideal word, but I'm not sure of a better way. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 04:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also inclined to retain "unencyclopedic". First, the proposed wording doesn't solve the problem:  "This detailed list of all baseball player stats from all teams and all seasons is unencyclopedic" will simply be replaced by "This detailed list of all baseball player stats from all teams and all seaons is not appropriate for Wikipedia".  It will be used in exactly the same "I don't like it" way, but it's worse, because you won't get any further than an argument that says "I say this isn't suitable!" and you say "I say that it is so suitable!"
 * Second, "This is unencyclopedic" actually has meaning outside of Wikipedia, which IMO is its main virtue. A detailed list of all baseball player stats from all teams and all seasons doesn't belong in any encyclopedia.  You can go look up the word in a regular dictionary, look at other encyclopedias, and draw some conclusions about whether that kind of information belongs in typical encyclopedias (such as Encyclopedia Britannica or an Encyclopedia of Baseball), and then use your knowledge of what encyclopedia editors generally do, in real-world publications, to decide whether the questioned content is suitable for Wikipedia (on the grounds of encyclopedic-ness; material could be suitable for an encyclopedia but not suitable for Wikipedia on other grounds).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the current language is fine as well.  Perhaps it would be useful to add the word "unencyclopdic" to the lead of NOT in some way. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. Against the reasoning for change, I don't find these counterarguments for retaining unencyclopedic to be persuasive, as follows.


 * In your first point, you propose that, in content discussion, saying something is "unencyclopedic" is equivalent to saying, "not appropriate for Wikipedia." This is not so.
 * Publications called encyclopedias vary widely in organization, content, and writing style. We can perhaps compare Wikipedia to the traditional Encyclopedia Britannica, but not so well to the The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (from which I, for one, am sadly unqualified to draw any general conclusions about what is encyclopedic), or to the engaging Encyclopedia Of Surfing, which is organized in a familiar brief-article format, but with content that is written in a rather subjective style that is celebratory of surfing, and fairly far from the usual interpretation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Many encyclopedias may follow a traditional format like that of Wikipedia; using the word unencyclopedic as a way to point to those particular encyclopedias is not efficient, and there are enough shining exceptions for enterprising editors' distraction.
 * On the other hand, saying something is "not appropriate for Wikipedia" specifies that we are discussing WIKIPEDIA's inclusion criteria, and can be pointed to and referenced from What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT) policy.
 * In short, "unencyclopedic" begs the question, "Compared to what?" "Not appropriate for Wikipedia" is unavoidably clear in its meaning, and leads only to, "Says who?" Answer: "WP:NOT."


 * Your second assertion, that encyclopedic "actually has meaning outside of Wikipedia" only leads again to the diversity of encyclopedias available. Suggesting that editors check to see what other encyclopedias do may have some value, but particularly when this comes up in a dispute, it's only asking for more argument when an editor points out encyclopedic language like, "Even-tempered Australian pro surfer from Cowaramup Bay, Western Australia; world-ranked #3 in 1989 and 1993; best remembered as an evangelical Christian, and a deadly efficient small-wave rider" (from the Encyclopedia of Surfing)—it's peppy and encyclopedic (EoS seems like a good source), but probably not in a style that would fare well on Wikipedia.


 * Unencyclopedic is only a made-up word, and while it may or may not convey a useful point in any one Wikipedia content or PAG discussion, it is far from precise and shouldn't be used in policy wording, when clearer wording is easily available. It's in WP:V, and it is not even a verifiable word that can be cited to a dictionary. :)


 * Asserting that "the current language is fine" doesn't really add to the discussion. You may be interested in the OG unencyclopedic mini-debate, from 2003, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Unencyclopedic, the seeds of debate are there. --Tsavage (talk)
 * I find the arguments to retain "unenyclopedic" reasonable and good; they match my own perspective. I registered that. Whether you find that of value is your own deal.  Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia; bringing up the many specialized encyclopedias that exist is somewhat OFFTOPIC.  As for the link, yes in the long history of WP things do tend to come up more than once.  Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * bringing up the many specialized encyclopedias that exist is somewhat OFFTOPIC - The one substantive argument that you find reasonable and good mentioned the Encyclopedia of Baseball, I was simply following the logic that was presented. I acknowledge your wish to retain unencyclopedic. --Tsavage (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Tsavage, when I read your comments, my main conclusion is that you don't like the answers you're being given. For the record:
 * I do not claim that "unencyclopedic" and "not appropriate for Wikipedia" are equivalent. I do say that "I don't like it" will be – and already is – described using both of those labels.  If you read the parenthetical statement at the end of my comment, you will see that I explicitly disclaim the idea that these are equivalent.
 * My assertion that encyclopedic has meaning outside of Wikipedia ought to lead you to reference source called a dictionary. Since said word is present in regular dictionaries, and in use since at least the 18th century, it baffles me why you say it's "only a made-up word".
 * This policy has nothing to do with issues of style or organization, so the fact that some encyclopedias use a style that you believe is "peppy" is irrelevant. Style and organizational problems are normally solved with copyediting, not removal.
 * "Not suitable for Wikipedia" is not clearer. It means "unspecified reasons that may or may not be found in the dozens of policies and hundreds of guidelines".  If I want to know what unencyclopedic means, I can go to a dictionary and read the definition.  If I want to know what you mean by "not suitable for Wikipedia", I would have to engage in mind reading.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank god for Wiktionary! The general dictionary definition of encyclopedia is: A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. I'm not sure how much further that gets anyone looking for Wikipedia guidance.


 * None of your follow-up points seem to add anything to your original arguments. That this policy has nothing to do with style is irrelevant (please re-read, I was referring to your assertion that unencyclopedic points to other encyclopedias as examples), what is relevant is imprecise wording. I KNOW what it is supposed to mean, and that is exactly what I find to be a problem.


 * We rely on broadly stated rules that should be interpreted with common sense, which is different than using vague language within those rules. We are discussing text in this policy that is linked to WP:NOT — why introduce a novel new word, when a few common words will do? If I say, "This is not appropriate for Wikipedia," my meaning is clear. If I say, "This is unencyclopedic"...not so much. Editors can obviously use the word all they like, but it shouldn't be vaguely backed up in policy. --Tsavage (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with WhatamIdoing's points, and particularly the distinction between enyclopedic generally and Wikipedia specifically. Tsavage's argument lacks coherence, and is unpersuasive. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

verifiability v consensus
WP's "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." But according to WP:Consensus, "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia."

I'd love clarification on how verifiability relates to consensus. If editors on a page reach consensus that they want to treat a topic differently from how RSs treat it, how does that resolve? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus is typically needed to establish whether the "previously published information" is actually suited for inclusion on Wikipedia (because such information may be unreliable, overly one sided or irrelevant to an encyclopedia for example), since people can disagree on whether it's suitable.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, suppose the RSs are the best RSs around on the topic, but the editors prefer describing the topic differently anyway. If they reach consensus to diverge from RSs, I don't see how that resolves. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"Self-published" when online compilation of offline sources
There is a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about a particular website that compiles expensive offline sources into an online database that is linkable and thus generally prefered to the offline sources. The precise discussion: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. This site is maintained by 1 editor/compiler so in some technical way some argue it is WP:SPS.

In this article there is a line "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." This particular editor/compiler has not been published on 3rd party sites but his website is widely used as a reference on 3rd party sites (reporters covering the issue, significant organizations in the field, academic libraries, etc. as can been read in that discussion). Maybe we could add to the expert sentence so it read: "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 or extensively referenced by reliable third-party publications." This would allow for people compiling online databases of offline info which I think is a reliable source if extensively used so off Wikipedia. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 15:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2016
This paragraph should be deleted:

It is Carla Shatz who coined in the nineties the famous sentence summarizing the Hebbian theory : "Cells that fire together, wire together". The exact phrase, first published in a Scientific American Article published in 1992 is: "Segregation to form the columns in the visual cortex [...] proceeds when the two nerves are stimulated asynchronously. In a sense, then, cells that fire together wire together. The timing of action-potential activity is critical in determining which synaptic connections are strengthened and retained and which are weakened and eliminated".[3]

The phrase was first published by Siegrid Löwel in her January 1992 Science article. Schatz's piece was published in September.

I wrote Löwel to find out who came up with the phrase. She wrote back:

"well, I came up with the expression and published it – as far as I know – first (in my 1992-Science-paper together with Wolf Singer: Löwel & Singer, 1992, Science 255: 209-212)."

Note that on another Wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebbian_theory the attribution is correctly made to Löwel.

Ctskelly (talk) 08:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome Ctskelly. This talk page is only for proposing changes to the Verifiability project page. The correct place for your comment would be Talk:Carla J. Shatz, or there is nothing stopping you editing the Carla J. Shatz article yourself: if you include a full reference to Löwel's article in Science there shouldn't be a problem <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  10:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Quotation followed by two citations
If all quotations need to be attributed to their sources, what do we do with quotations that appear in long sentences followed by multiple refs? I was about to tag such a quotation in Gospel of Matthew but I couldn't figure out which template to use.

Or is it OK to give an unattributed quotation as long as it appears in one of the citations?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No, quotations must be attributed. Your case seems to be where a sentence requires a number of citations (notes), and the question seems to be: how to connect each citation with specific material. This becomes a matter of style. Some of us editors believe in putting each citation immediately adjacent to the material, others believe that interrupts the readers' attention, and that all citations should be gathered up at the end of the sentence. Take your pick. Note that you should also provide the page number (or other in-source specifier) to facilitate verification. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Research study on "practical" and "technical" verifiability
There is a recent academic paper that may be of interest in the context of this policy. I have written a review for the Wikimedia Research Newsletter aka the Signpost's "recent research" series: "Test of 300k citations: how verifiable is 'verifiable' in practice?" (see also the talk page discussion there). Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look at that paper the other day, and was not too impressed. My (somewhat accurate?) impression is that they were concerned about where verification can't be done because (1) the citation lacks suitable identifiers to do automated verification, or (2) some readers cannot verify because the source is behind a paywall. I find such concerns to be somewhat specious: WP:V has no requirements that verification must be automated or universal. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree... The standard is that information be verifiable... Not that it be easily verified. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-03-02/Recent research indicates that the authors of the paper read the opening sentence (which I have suggested changing in the past) in the most impractical possible fashion. It says "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source."  They seem to interpret "anyone can check" to mean anyone with an internet connection can read the source itself by clicking on a link (or two), even if they have no time, money, knowledge, or even enough interest to ask their favorite web search engine whether there's a free (gratis) copy of the source lying about on any website except Google Books.  They appear to make the mistake of assuming that what's visible to them in Google Books is what's visible to everyone (which isn't true).  It sounds like they didn't even consider things like looking for books at Amazon.com, where a lot of books are searchable.
 * The question for this page is: Shall we finally change that "anyone" to be a little more accurate, e.g., "someone other than the editor who originally added the information" or "any person willing to dedicate sufficient resources"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have long thought we should change the "anyone" in "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" for similar kinds of reasons, but that hasn't gotten anywhere. I think there should be a little more qualification on just what constitutes verification, but until we get a better handle on what that should be I think it is premature to propose specific changes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Combining articles without re-verifying sources
Please have a look at Articles for deletion/Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth. I have raised the issue of whether it is OK to combine material from three different Wikipedia articles without re-verifying the sources. It seems to me that is treating the precursor Wikipedia articles as reliable sources for the claim that the stated sources really do support the associated claims in the article, but other editors disagree. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We should do periodic re-checks on sources anyway, even in established articles. A merger or spin-off seems like a great time to do so.
 * That said, a lack of re-checking is not grounds for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rechecking sources from time to time, and perhaps particularly at the time of a merger may be a good idea. Using AfD to try to force such rechecks is not; see Deletion is not cleanup. Still less is it OK to seriously propose deletion of the merged article because such checks were not done -- rechecking all cites on a merge is not currently common practice, still less is it mandated. DES (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on tagging articles re verifiability issues
Can anyone point me towards a guideline, an essay even, regarding the optimal approach to tagging article text and/or accompanying sources? I've come here after seeing what I consider to be a case of excessive application of tags – auditing rather than editing – at Baroque pop. The same zeal, imo, has been applied at Pet Sounds – specifically, in the three subsections under "Recording and production". Both of those diffs show a range of tags; in the case of Baroque pop, I'm confused about why there would be a banner across the top when each potential transgression is highlighted in the text below. And in both of these articles, the application of a "verification needed" tag following a citation (to a reliable source), or perhaps two citations, concerns me, because the message it gives out to readers is that, despite there being sources supporting a statement, its veracity is automatically questionable. In other words: I can't help wondering what this approach says about everything that appears in mainspace on the encyclopaedia if reliable sources are accompanied by "verification needed". I could understand if it were a case of the statement being contentious or contrary to a widely held view, but I'm talking about when this approach appears to be used almost as standard. (In which case, what about Assume Good Faith?) Add to that the greyed-out span accompanying a "citation needed" tag (in those Pet Sounds subsections), which serves to highlight a problem twice over, when it's quite clear where the issue lies.

My feeling is that this approach reflects badly on Wikipedia. Besides, doesn't this sort of zeroing-in on problems and highlighting them twice over and ensuring the top of the article carries a tag and questioning the citations we do have, belong in a sandbox rather than mainspace? In the same way, rather than applying "verification needed" tags if one doesn't have access to the source, should issues not be taken up on the article's talk page; should editors not be looking through the article history to see if an editor who made a previous addition is still active and able to confirm the verifiability of the sourced statement?

Any thoughts on this would be very welcome, in addition to any relevant links. I've certainly read something about avoiding excessive tagging in the past, but it could well have been another editor sounding off … JG66 (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Verification needed" indicates that while a source has been provided, there is some question as to whether the source actually supports the material (I suppose editors might also use it where they have other concerns). It's logical that that would be placed following a source, and if that calls the statement into question, well, it probably should.
 * Of course, the most important question, to me, is whether the statements that have been tagged deserve to be tagged. Which is to say, are the editor's concerns valid, or are they perhaps making either no effort or insufficient effort to validate the sources for themselves? Have you made any effort to validate the tagging?
 * I couldn't really see an issue at Pet Sounds; the tagging there looks reasonable to me. On Baroque pop, it could be argued that tagging the entire article when the specific statements are also tagged may be a bit of overkill. On the other hand, having the article tagged may call greater attention to the issue.
 * Have you discussed this at all with the tagging editor, or notified them of this conversation? It might be worth getting their perspective, though I would understand if you wanted a "gut reaction" here first. DonIago (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, . I hope others might post here too.


 * With your comments on "verification needed" tags – I agree with what you're saying ("It's logical that that would be placed following a source"), my point is that the tag seems to be used whenever the editor appears not to have the source at hand. Or put another way: if this editor hasn't personally viewed the source text, then the veracity of a statement is automatically called into question on the page. In that Recording section at Pet Sounds, for instance, the tag appears after statements sourced to the 2003 CD liner notes (and to another, 3rd party source): well, if an editor doesn't have that particular reissue of the album, then surely they should get it somehow instead of applying a tag that effectively says "Could someone just check these liner notes for me, please?" Or, of course, there's the talk page where a discussion can be started (one sees such threads all the time regarding sources). Aside from that, if an editor really wants to zero in on each and every statement in an article – which is great, all power to them – then perhaps much of the work should be carried out in a sandbox, rather than the article becoming something akin to a homework assignment in progress. With Baroque pop, yes, I think it is a case of overkill.


 * I haven't raised this with the editor in question, no (nor looked into the tagged items individually). I thought it best to first find out if I knew what I was talking about. Also worth pointing out that Baroque pop had already moved on from the diff I supplied when raising this here; the reason for choosing the outdated version was (and is) to have a discussion about that level of tagging, rather than how the article might look now. Same with Pet Sounds: although I don't believe it's changed since (but in case it does), it's the version per this diff I'm focusing on. As I say, I have read something on this issue – ensuring that problems are highlighted for readers, sure, but avoiding excessive tagging and generally keeping aesthetics in mind when it comes to article mainspace. Perhaps it was at an article talk page where the thread happened to grow from the specific to cover this point in general terms, not sure … Cheers, JG66 (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not in a position to review the sources that were tagged to verify them, unfortunately, but I think unless there's clear evidence that the editor is tagging indiscriminately, we shouldn't assume they are doing so. That said, I would agree that an editor simply not having access to a source doesn't justify applying the tag. I really think we need this editor's perspective on the matter before drawing any conclusions, though.
 * If the editor genuinely believes that the sources they tagged need to be verified, and particularly if it turns out that one or more of them actually is being used inappropriately, then I'd have a hard time with the argument that they are over-tagging.
 * TL;DR I think your concerns may be valid, but I also think we need to know a) whether the editor's concerns appear to be valid, and b) what the editor's rationale is for their changes. DonIago (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure. From my original intention, to find whether threes some sort of a guideline, this discussion has grown to become more about two particular articles. I'll ask the editor if they'd care to join the discussion. JG66 (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Almost all of the sources in Baroque pop and Pet Sounds failed verification when I checked them (I then swiftly removed the text). For the ones I couldn't check, I applied the tag. Simple. I'd say there's probably a 90% chance that the sources do not support the information. But I didn't want to remove the text for the 10% chance that maybe it does. For example, in Baroque pop, it's stated that the book Music USA calls In My Life, Wildflowers, Joan, and Baptism some of the "most notable" baroque pop albums. It's highly likely that the only thing written in the book is that the albums have "orchestral, classical inspired arrangements" or something equally as vague.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, hang on, the statement currently attributed to that Rough Guide publication is somewhere between the two. It highlights those albums by Collins and Baez as the most notable examples of folk artists incorporating baroque influences and classical orchestration in their work.
 * Aside from that – fair enough. But what I'm trying to address here is not just the application of tags on an individual basis, but the overall approach and the overall effect. For instance, whether the banner across the top at Baroque pop is really necessary when every single instance in the article has already been highlighted. Also, say, in Pet Sounds, why the sentence beginning "Thanks to the freedom offered by the recent development" is afforded a cite-needed span when there's no confusion about what the cite-needed tag could be referring to. Same situation with the span covering the phrase "instrumental overdubs only rarely added", later in that section.
 * And, towards the end of the section (under Unreleased material), there's a verification-needed tag following the statement re Sloop John B. appearing on Wilson's provisional track list, and the significance of that. Yet, in the first source there, we have a link to the liner note text, which supports the statement perfectly (and similarly supports another point carrying the same tag, in the previous sentence). That would seem to be an instance where we can lose two of the tags – I'm mentioning them because they contribute to the overall effect.
 * Whether it's your work or not at Pet Sounds, btw, I don't know. I'm referring to the effect that's created on the page, both at Baroque pop and in that section at Pet Sounds. I've raised the issue here to see if there is an optimal approach to using the tags and banners, whether in a guideline or essay (it seems not), or whether perhaps we should decide on one. We don't use bold, italics or underlined text to draw emphasis to a point in article mainspace; customising quote boxes and the like with colours of our choice is frowned upon; our fonts are discreet rather than eye-catching or flashy; the tone (obviously) is neutral and objective throughout. So I guess I find it surprising that there appears to be no guidance on limiting the extent and the intrusiveness of tagging. JG66 (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That raises this question: Was it reasonable to assume that the remaining sources were suspect without checking to see if they were added by the same editor or editors who added the bad sources? Taking both the low importance of tagging and whether it can reasonably be expected of editors to dig through a page history to discover that, my opinion is that it was acceptable. (And if Ilovetopaint did check that, but simply failed to mention it here, and it was the same editor or editors, then I think that it was perfectly acceptable to add the tags.) All the instructions to the tag say is that you should have some doubt that the source supports the text and what Ilovetopaint had discovered would certainly support some reasonable doubt. JG66 in his/her initial post, above raises the question of whether we should AGF about the sources. But the mere existence of the  tag, not to mention its instructions, suggests that there only needs to be some reasonable doubt. Moreover when someone does tag material with the tag we should, as DonIago says, also AGF that without other evidence to the contrary that the addition of the tag was done properly. Let me end by saying that I recognize that JG66 attempted to bring this question here in the abstract without blaming or otherwise questioning Ilovetopaint — s/he was indeed attempting to AGF by determining the ground rules before going ahead — and I see no AGF failure on JG66's part for doing so. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Importing WikiData at Infobox telescope
The automatic importation of WikiData by Infobox telescope is being discussed at Village pump (policy) Jc3s5h (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Citizen_Action
Hello - I have updated the entry for Ohio Citizen Action and added inline citations. Do more citations need to be made before the error message on the page can be removed?

"This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (March 2014)"

Thanks, Princeps2016 (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If you think that everything that this policy requires to be cited — that is, everything which has been challenged or is likely to be challenged — has a citation to a reliable source as defined by this policy, then you can remove it. The best practice is that everything in the article should be cited to a reliable source, but what I just said above is the minimum. If someone else disagrees and restores the tag, don't revert them. Discuss the matter on the article talk page and try to come to consensus on whether or not the tag should be there. Remember that tags are not badges of shame, merely an indicator that the article may need more work. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

VERIFY and lists of names or works
Does each entry in a list of alum etc of a university need to have in-line citations to meet VERIFY?

Related, does each entry in a list of works by a composer need to have an inline citation to meet VERIFY?

I'll give my opinion after others have weighed in, to keep this neutral. Jytdog (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This issue has been discussed many times before. Short answer: yes.  Longer answer: it depends on how controversial the topic is (and, thus, how likely it is that inclusion on the list will be challenged).  Note: it may not be necessary for every entry to have its own separate citation. If there is a single citation that covers the entire group, citing that single source at the end of the list would satisfy WP:V.  (For example, if a school maintains a list of notable alumni on its website, and every entry listed in the Wikipedia article is on that website's list... we can cite the website once for the entire list.) Blueboar (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Content does not need a in-line citation to be WP:Verifiable, but yes if it's challenged or likely to be (see, "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable."), a citation should be added (but see, WP:BLP for living people, which is stricter) 'taking into account the state of the article', if it's all blue-linked then it's likely an RS has already been found, which can be used. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is very unusual to see a non-WP:POINTY, good-faith WP:CHALLENGE of material in simpler lists, especially if those lists do not include information about living people. So we have "technically, according to the strictest wikilawyer" rules (cite each line separately) and "reality" rules (most bluelinks don't get cited, and WP:General references are commonly used for other entries), and you will have to figure out which type of editor you're dealing with.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am unsure how to react to what you write here, WAID. In both of these cases I have moved big unsourced lists to the Talk page.  There is an additional element here and that is promotionalism; if you want to call that POINTY, so be it.  In any case the list of works by the composer was added to the article by the composer; it is promotional and an effort to use WP as his webhost/CV.   If we are going to have it, it needs to be cited, in my view.   On the New School list of "famous alum" the promotionalism is both ways - people who are listed there get a de-orphaning link and are listed as grads of a great school, and the school gets the boost of being associated with a famous person. One of the great functions of VERIFY with strong sourcing is that it eliminates a lot of promotional content that people want to add to WP. So yes my stance is that asking other editors to click through to blue-linked article and hope to find a citation there is not reasonable and it completely unreasonable to have a non-linked, unsourced item in any list.  Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reason to believe that this allegedly promotional material is factually wrong? Do you have any reason to believe that the information could not be supported by a source (including self-published, non-independent, and other lower-quality reliable sources, e.g., the subject's own website) if you spent enough time searching for sources?   If the answer to these questions is "no", then the material is already verifi able and you shouldn't have blanked it on grounds of verifiability.  (Remember that the policy is that material must be possible to verify through some means, including the means of "doing your own search for sources"; the policy does not require that all material already be cited.  Material only truly fails verifiability when sources cannot be found).
 * Promotionalism is NPOV's problem, because promotional material followed by an inline citation is still promotional. I very strongly doubt that you will get any support for removing such information on grounds of promotionalism/non-neutrality.  I doubt this because if a list of compositions or alumni is promotional for this composer or this school, then it's promotional for all of them, and including this type of material is absolutely typical for such articles.  But you could try to get support for that idea at WP:NPOVN, if you wanted to.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with a lot of you wrote. VERIFY keeps unsourced promotional content out of Wikipedia.   Good policies have more than one positive effect on the encyclopedia.  Generally If something is unsourced and "sky is blue" I of course leave it.  I generally move plausible/truthy unsourced stuff to the Talk page. I remove implausible unsourced content.  That is entirely consistent with VERIFY and the editing policy.   A big laundrylist that is unsourced is not OK in my view - it fails VERIFY.  yes there are piles of garbage everywhere in WP - this place is shot through with bad content just like it has great content in places.  I'll add here that there are plenty of times where i go to find sources about some topic that has unsourced content.  You know how often I just tack a citation on and don't change the content?  Almost never.  That is because unsourced content that is not sky-is-blue is pretty much always "truthy" - it doesn't actually summarize accepted knowledge as expressed in reliable sources.   About your question -- the question I ask is "Do i have a reason to assume this unsourced content accurately summarizes accepted knowledge?"   In these kind of contexts that are highly prone to padding/spamming - like lists of compositions for emerging composers or "famous alum" in a university article, things should be sourced.   Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that WP:V gets abused as a way of removing inappropriate information, just like MEDRS gets used that way (perhaps largely because we've not yet written MEDDUE). The fact that it's easier to say "unsourced and challenged, so it's gone" than "let's have a long argument about my subjective impression that this is promotional" affects the stated excuses that people give, but promotional material does not belong, regardless of whether it's sourced.
 * The fact that this policy is abused that way does not mean that an uncited statement like "Shimon Peres graduated from this college" or "Joe wrote a piece called 'Whatever'" is actually unverifi able . Or – exactly which sentence in this policy do you believe is "violated" by such sentences?  The non-existent one that says "It's not possible for anyone to verify any claim in an article unless said claim is followed by a little blue clicky number, so if it's not already cited, then it's not verifi able "?  There's no such rule – and there is a rule that says sourcing the list of compositions or famous alums to the subject's own self-published, non-independent websites would be 100% acceptable.  WP:V is not the best strategy for attacking promotional material (assuming that we agreed upon what constitutes promotionalism, and in both of these cases, I suspect that your POV is not the overall community's).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope it is not abuse. In any context, good policies and practices have many good effects. I am not happy about your claims about my approach and actions here and it is not clear to me how to take this discussion forward productively in a way that doesn't damage our relationship.  Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, WAID is correct. WP:V could hardly be more specific that it is problematic to tag or remove material because you don't like its POV, under WP:V policy - that's another policy discussion. Please re-read WP:V policy especially the paragraph with note 4 (where removing large chunks of material is frowned upon, and it is practice to state, after consideration, no source can be found). Again, WP:Verfiability does not mean there is an in-line citation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You too are missing the point here. What I am saying has nothing to do with POV, at all. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I thought you said you were removing things because they are promotional, which is most certainly a POV issue, and in some cases a COI issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. What I said was that I moved these to the Talk page because they were unsourced. People have argued that it is fine if nothing in the list is sourced, especially with regard to items in the list that are wikilinke (where I guess they assume that people wanting to verify will find a reliable source with which to verify).  I don't agree with any of that.  I also noted' that these two particular lists were ones that served promotional purposes.  That is a secondary issue. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

What don't you agree with? It just is a fact that V policy says: "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. . . . When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. . . When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that such edits can be easily misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular POV, as that may result in accusations that you are in violation of WP:NPOV. Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all of these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified. . . .If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."

That there are bluelinks is a "material and state of the article" fact suggesting that there is a "considered reason to believe" that material can be WP:Verifiable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Then again, sky is more often black, and frequently grey, so attribution for blue has some merit too. LeadSongDog come howl!  03:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, what you do to resolve this is you read the whole policy, and see whether you can find a specific sentence that you believe is "violated" by the inclusion of unsourced, promotional material – and not equally violated by unsourced, non-promotional material. If no such sentence exists, then you might consider taking on board the idea that the purpose of this policy does not happen to include fighting promotionalism.  Anti-promotionalism is a good fight to fight, and I do appreciate, but this isn't really the tool for it.  It's sort of like trying to keep drunk drivers off the road:  there are many ways to do it under some circumstances, from calling taxis to stealing their cars to putting them in jail, but only some of the methods are really designed for that purpose and likely to be effective in the long term.  Fortunately, we have a different tool that is extraordinarily well suited to that fight.  I encourage you to use that one when you're fighting promotionalism.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Again what you are writing here is based on almost willful mis-hearing of what I am saying. Why you are persisting, I don't know. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone so far pretty much agrees with WAID. If that's because we're misunderstanding you, then I suggest that you re-state your position more clearly.— S Marshall  T/C 21:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blueboar above and Francis Schonken below understood the question and responded to it. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Dead composer examples: Both of the previous work for me.
 * Example of a list of compositions in table format that has separate references for every row: List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach (not necessarily footnoted references: see prior discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 202 for how that works).
 * Example of a list of compositions with one single reference in the lead section: List of cantatas by Christoph Graupner.

Unreferenced problem for a dead composer: see for instance List of compositions by Franz Schubert which has an "unreferenced" tag for some time now (I put it there). I can imagine if it were a living composer and someone added The Stoned Guest to the list of compositions, yeah it would be best to have some sort of reference for that (and in that case: rather move to talk page than add a cn tag).

Further, I agree with Jytdog that the commercial aspect is secondary, but please don't think this doesn't apply for dead composers: there's always some fancy new score rediscovered, or a new critical edition that obviously outranks scores of the same piece published before (e.g. prepare to buy two new full score editions of the St John Passion). And that is still only a very, very small fraction compared to the money that circulates for recordings (indeed I sometimes wonder how "commercial" we are by listing "selected" recordings when the Wikipedia editor's "selection" is nothing more than copying a list of recordings from a single, commercial, source). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)